Silencing Diversity in the Name of Diversity

July 16, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

islamophbia_edited-1.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

In my latest book, Being in Time – a Post Political Manifesto, I explored different tactics used by the New Left – a loose collective of Frankfurt School graduates — to destroy political diversity and intellectual exchange.  I concluded that the ‘new order’ is maintained by ensuring that so-called ‘correctness’ dominates our vocabulary.  We are drowning in jargon, slogans and sound bites designed to suppress authentic thinking and more important, to suppress humane intellectual exchange. As I finished writing the book, I understood that this new language is a well-orchestrated attempt to obliterate our Western Athenian ethos in favor of a new Jerusalemite regime of ‘correctness.’

Yesterday I was interviewed  by Pakistani Journalist Tazeen Hasan. She was interested in my take on Islamophobia.  Hasan, I guess, expected me to denounce Islamophobia.  Since I am opposed to any form of bigotry*, hatred of Muslims is no exception. Though I am obviously troubled and strongly disagree with the views that are voiced with the so-called ‘Islamophbes,’  I am also troubled by the notion of ‘Islamophobia’. As opposed to the Identitarian Left, I contend that we humans should seek what unites us as humans. We should refuse to be shoved into biologically oriented (like gender, skin colour, sexual orientation etc.) boxes. I was probably expected to criticise Islamophobia by recycling a few tired slogans, but that was not my approach to the question. Instead of dealing with ‘Islamophobia,’ I decided that we should first dissect the notion of ‘phobia.’ I asked why some activists attribute ‘phobic’ inclinations (Islamophobia, homophobia, Judeophobia, etc.) to those with whom they disagree.

‘Phobia’ is defined as an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something. Accordingly, the notion of ‘Islamophobia,’ attributes irrationality or even madness to those who oppose Muslims and Islam. It suggests that ‘fear of Islam’ is an irrational hatred. This turns Islamophobia into a crazy fear of Islam that doesn’t deserve intellectual scrutiny, let alone an intellectual debate.

But fear of Musilms might be rational. As things stand, we in the West have been actively engaged in the destruction of Muslims and their countries for at least a century. We plunder their resources, we invade their lands, and we even gave some of their land to the so called ‘people of the book,’ and when those people committed a brutal ethnic cleansing, consistent with their ‘book,’ the West turned a blind eye. For the last three decades this genocidal war against Muslims and Arabs has intensified and become an official Western policy. This transition is the achievement of the Neocon school, who have attempted to redefine Zionism as the struggle for a promised planet instead of just a promised land. 

 Within the context of the global war we have declared on Muslims and Arabs on behalf of Zion, in the name of Coca Cola and Gay Rights, it is rational to expect that at some point Muslims may retaliate. So those who fear Muslims are not necessarily crazy or mad, they may even be more ethically aware or even guilt ridden than the progressives who castigate them for having ‘phobias’.’ If we are looking to dismantle ‘Islamic danger’  then we should find a rational and peaceful solution to the war we declared on Muslims. It will be probably more effective not to drop bombs on Arabs than to label fear of Muslims as irrational. Obliterating Israel’s nuclear facilities could also be a reasonable path to peace. A total embargo on Israel would probably be  the most effective way to calm the Middle East. That would certainly induce some deep thinking in the Jewish State that has been the catalyst in this developing global war.

It seems the term ‘phobia’ is routinely attached to anyone who disagrees with the new order. Are all those who oppose gay rights driven by ‘phobia’? Is it really ‘irrational’ for pious people (Christians, Muslims and Jews, etc.) to detect that gay culture may interfere with their churches or family values? Instead of addressing these conservative concerns, the New Left prefers to employ tyrannical abusive language designed to delegitimise the opposition. Similarly, those who look into organised Jewry and its political lobbying are reduced to ‘Judeophobes.’  But given the growing number of studies of the domineering effect of the Jewish Lobby in the USA, Britain and France, is it really ‘irrational’ or an act of ‘madness’ to scrutinise this lobby’s activity and the culture that fuels it?

However, in spite of these Orwellian ‘phobic’ tactics, awareness of its effects has grown. Increasingly, people see that the New Left corrosive agenda is driving these divisive Identitarian tactics. The tyrannical regime of correctness is a Machiavellian operation that in the name of ‘diversity,’ attempts to eliminate diversity all together. It dismisses the concerns of the so called ‘enemy’ by labelling them as irrational fears.

My message here is simple. The war against us is facilitated by cultural means. We are constantly subjected to terminological manipulations. To win this war we must first spot the terminological shifts as they appear. Then we have to identify those who put such manipulative tactics into play.

To support Gilad’s legal costs

Seems some Jews actually believe they are superior & “chosen people”. Superior in what, deceit, lies, greed?

Israeli MP invokes the supremacy of ‘Jewish race’ in bizarre pro-Netanyahu tirade

Israeli MP invokes the supremacy of ‘Jewish race’ in bizarre pro-Netanyahu tirade

Muhammad & Friends with Gilad Atzmon

Jewdas according to Jewdas

April 04, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

jewdas 2.jpg

Reported by Gilad Atzmon

Jewdas, the ‘Jewish alternative Diaspora’ who dared inviting Corbyn to the passover dinner were quick to  swear allegiance to the tribe.  The Independent  quoted their statement yesterday.

We have been campaigning against antisemitism on the left and the right for many years. Like, way before it was popular… We have run anti-antisemitism workshops in such far flung corners as Marseille and Bloomsbury, opposed neo-Nazi demos in Stamford Hill and Golders Green, produced and distributed information on how to criticise Israel without being antisemitic, demonstrated against left-antisemite Gilad Atzmon, and most importantly mercilessly took the p*** out of Ken Livingstone. You could call us trend setters.”

We are as good Jews as anyone, Jewdas are telling us,  we are vetting anti Zionism in the Left. We campaigned against Atzmon and Livingston. We police thoughts of your behalf they tell their Jewish brothers and sisters.

It is true, this strange bunch tried initially to recruit me (back in the early 2000s). Last august, however,  they attempted to picket one of my London concerts. They were caught lying to their  teeth as you can judge for yourself:

https://youtu.be/TKMITv5ZPdw

o read more: http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2017/8/4/jewdas-lies-video-must-watch

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)

Jeremy, Get on your Knees!

March 29, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

gaidgwidgwqigd.png

by Gilad Atzmon

In their response to Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, the Jewish Leadership Council (JLC) and the Board of Deputies of British Jews (BOD) claim to ‘propose an agenda of actions for discussion’ between the Labour party and those who claim to ‘represent’ British Jews.

In practice the two Zionist institutions have managed to produce one of the most disgusting documents in modern Jewish history. A text that is little more than an ode to the self-defamation of its own authors and to the community they claim to ‘represent’: it is rude, authoritarian, and disrespectful to a democratically elected leader of Europe’s biggest party.

Read the BOD/JLC’s public address to Corbyn here

When you read some of the extracts below, remember that despite BOD and the JLC claims to ‘represent’ British Jewry, these two organisations managed to pull just 1500 members of their community into their ‘Enough is Enough’ anti-Corbyn demonstration earlier this week. We are talking about 0.5% of British Jewry. The BOD/JLC’s authoritarian document outlines a set of humiliating conditions for Corbyn to meet. The text proves how detached these Jewish institutions are from British values, specifically, and the Western ethos, in general. In fact their vision of the political arena is Orwellian in nature and tyrannical in practice.

Apparently, if Corbyn expects to meet with the demands of these self-appointed ‘Jewish leaders’ he must appoint a watchdog who will take care of the so called ‘antisemites’ in his party and, of course, under the supervision of these two ardent Zionist bodies. He must also meet a strict time-frame defined by Judea.

“Outstanding and future cases (of alleged antisemitism) are to be brought to a swift conclusion under a fixed timescale. An independent, mutually agreed upon ombudsman should be appointed to oversee performance, reporting to the Party, as well as to the Board of Deputies and the Jewish Leadership Council.”

Consistent with the spirit of Talmudic herem (excommunication) and totally in contradiction to notions of British openness and Western tolerance, these Jewish institutions insist that “MPs, councillors, and other party members should not share platforms with people who have been suspended or expelled for antisemitism and CLPs should not provide them with a platform.” The Jewish institutions also suggest how to penalise the sinners. “Anybody doing so should, themselves, be suspended from membership; in the case of MPs, they should lose the party whip.” Maybe someone should make the effort to explain to the Jewish leaders that the labour party is an established political institution. It is not a ghetto, I mean, not as yet.

The Jewish bodies insist on dominating the language as well as boundaries of political discussion. Criticism of Israel should be completely restricted.  The words ‘Zio’ and ‘Zionist’ as terms of abuse should be eradicated. I actually believe that if the BOD/JLC truly wanted ‘Zionist’ to not be used as a ‘term of abuse,’ they should simply stop abusing Corbyn in the name of Zion as their first step forward.

The British Jewish ‘leaders’ clearly know how to distinguish between the ‘good Jews’ and the bad ones. Corbyn is told to “engage with the Jewish community via its main representative groups, and not through fringe organisations who wish to obstruct the Party’s efforts to tackle antisemitism.” And I wonder, how exactly the BOD or the JLC are ‘representatives’ of British Jews. When were they elected and by whom? And if these two organisations are ‘representative of British Jews,’ how is it that they so selectively call upon Labour to ignore the voice of Jewish collectives they don’t agree with?

The Jewish institutions talk at Corbyn as if he is a schoolboy. “These changes must be sustained and enduring.” Corbyn better quickly meet the Zionist demands before a meeting with The Lobby can materialise. “We firmly believe that this must happen urgently, and certainly before we meet.”

The BOD and the JLC express hope in starting a process of “constructive anti-racist” work within the Labour Party. Talking about racism, we better hear from both the BOD and the JLC how many Muslims and Blacks  are members of their executive boards. I ask because, unlike those ‘Jews only’ institutions, the Labour party is, actually, a multi-ethnic and multi-racial political body. If Jewish institutions want to counter racism, they are more than welcome to do so. The racist ‘Jewish State’ is where they should start.

 

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). 

Enough is More Than Enough!

mural.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

Jewish power, as I define it, is the power to suppress criticism of Jewish power.

For the last few days the Brits have been shown  a spectacular display of that power and the manner in which it is mobilised. Without any attempt to hide their behaviour, a bunch of Jewish leaders have chosen to slander Europe’s biggest party and its popular leader in the name of ‘Jewish sensitivities.’

This blitz attack was sparked by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s reaction to a mural back in 2012. The mural was painted by US street artist Kalen Ockerman. Apparently, at the time Corbyn defended the public display of the painting on the grounds of freedom of speech.

The Labour leader was heavily criticised by Jewish institutions for supporting  a mural “depicting Jewish bankers playing Monopoly on the backs of the poor.” The clumsy British media didn’t do its homework and failed to actually examine the mural, but instead immediately delved into the hookedness of the noses of those alleged Jewish bankers.

Embarrassingly for them,  Ockerman has came forward and  identified the men he depicted in the mural. They are from left to right, “Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan, Aleister Crowley, Carnegie & Warburg“. Of the six men, only Rothschild and Warburg were Jewish. In fact, Aleister Crowley was noted for his antisemitic views. The take home message for the BBC & co is that maybe capitalists of all races share similar shaped noses.

I am left wondering if the British Zionist league was offended by the mural because it is they, the Zionists, who see the capitalist as the Jew and vice versa. After all, Labour Zionism began as an avowed attempt  to liberate  Diaspora Jews of parasitic capitalist traits. Zionism promised to cleanse the Jew of gluttony by means of a ‘homecoming.’

Yesterday 1500 British Jews took to the streets outside Parliament. They protested Corbin’s “systematic failure to deal with antisemitism.”

If you wonder what ‘systematic antisemitsm’ means, the Jewish Chronicle  provides the answer.  In his speech at the protest Jonathan Arkush, the leader of the ardent Zionist Board of Deputies of British Jews, cited Labour’s failure to take proper action on the claims of antisemitism against former London mayor Ken Livingstone and other Labour Party members.

Zionists do not like Ken Livingstone. This is understandable. The man is a legendary icon of ethical thinking. Despite their protests, it is still not  easy for the Labour party to expel one of its legends simply for telling the truth about Hitler’s collaboration with Zionism. Maybe Arkush should just give it more time.

Arkush told the crowd that the  “the Labour Party must go back to being the enemy of racists – not the refuge.” Of course Corbyn doesn’t have a drop of racism in his entire body, but maybe Jonathan Arkush can meet his own standards and tell us how many Blacks or Muslims are members of his own Jews-only Board of Deputies of British Jews.

The Jewish Leadership Council’s chair Jonathan Goldstein said that Mr Corbyn had become the “figurehead for an antisemitic political culture based upon obsessive hatred of Israel, conspiracy theories and fake news.”

Maybe the Jewish community leader could try to remember that obsession with justice is not a bad thing and also that interfering with freedom of speech can easily backfire.

It is clear why some Jews are upset by Corbyn. The Labour leader treats the Jews as ordinary people. He fails to respect their choseness and ignores their sense of exceptionalism. Perhaps he believes that Jewish politics like all other politics, ought to be subject to criticism. And now it is clear that Corbyn’s approach to Jewish politics is not acceptable to Britain’s Zionist Jewish establishment.

MP John Mann  who has operated as a Zionist mouthpiece within the Labour party for more than a while,  bemoaned to the Jewish gathering about his Labour comrades that “Some of them glory in being called anti-Zionists – racists that is the word for them.”

Does Mann think that opposing a political movement is ‘racism?’  Is opposition to Britain or the USA, or even North Korea also to be castigated as racism? And then, in an uber-Orwellian manner Mann added “we have to drive these people (the anti Zionists) out of the Labour Party.”

Maidenhead Synagogue Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain told the JC that this ‘antisemitism crisis’ was Mr Corbyn’s “Watergate moment.” I suggest the Rabbi learn some Jewish history. This tsunami of Jewish self-love and empowerment could turn into a total disaster as it has time after time in the past.

British Jewish leadership is panicking. It has declared open war against a mainstream British political party. This is far from a reasonable move and if it is intended to oppose antisemitsm, its effect will inevitably be the opposite. Maybe gestalt psychology offers us the tools to understand such silly behavior. Jewish history teaches us that attitudes toward Jews resemble a  gestalt switch. So that, for instance, once you see Israel for what it is you just can’t un-see it. Once you grasp that the Jewish State is  a racist oppressive force no one will be able to uproot that perception in you. Jewish Zionists do face a growing wall of resentment. Instead of dealing with it by means of self reflection, they repeat Israel’s mistake and adopt the most oppressive authoritarian agenda. They are desperately trying to turn Britain into an Orwellian dystopia.

Left open is the question of how it is possible that the Jewish elite, despite its sophistication and education, never learn from the Jewish past. How is it possible that Jews keep repeating the same mistake time after time? I guess one possible answer is that Jewishness (יהודיות) is a form of severe blindness—and that this may be the dark side of choseness.

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)

In Case You Missed It: What Is Antisemitism?

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.

Thursday thoughts: explorations in the Semitic dimension

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

Consider these historical facts:

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

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

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

We have had 125 years of Zionism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

conclusions and recommendations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

copyright 2018 – larrysmusings.com

Thursday thoughts: explorations in the Semitic dimension

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

Consider these historical facts:

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

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

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

We have had 125 years of Zionism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

conclusions and recommendations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

copyright 2018 – larrysmusings.com

The Banality of Good pt. 7: Global Tribes vs. National Pride

February 05, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

If global capitalism is a problem, we may have to consider the idea that equality within borders is a possible answer.

If global capitalism is a problem, we may have to consider the idea that equality within borders is a possible answer.

Global Tribes vs. National Pride

Clara:   I have just been reading a Canadian Jewish news bulletin and all the tribal features are there: the community life with kosher catering, the private Sunday schools with their curriculum of Jewish culture, Judaism and the Holocaust, the comment on why we shouldn’t sympathize with Palestinian children and the trip for adolescents to Israel where each of them is supposed to find out ‘what Israel means to me’.

In my opinion one of the flaws of biologically oriented identity politics is the belief that ‘the differences between the respective identity groups are bigger than the differences within the group’ as the ‘Saker’ defines ‘racism’. I am not sure that supporting Israel’s politics is really in the best interests of all the Canadian (US-American, British or German) Jews or even in the best interests of the Israelis themselves. But as members of the tribe they are all on board of the same ship.

Is that what you mean when you argue that identity politics are a tool of globalization and that  the ‘identitarian tribes’ are used to support Neocon / Zionist policies?

Gilad: It is actually simpler than that. The emergence of more and more ghetto walls between us the people dismantles our ability to fight for our universal needs, let alone see the universal for what it is. In the name of diversity, we create a fragmented human landscape that is blinded to its fragments.  This tribal construct is indeed ideal environment for Neocons, mammonites as well as our compromised politicians.

Clara:   In ‘The wandering who’ you write that compassion has evaporated in Jewish thinking. I often feel it is the same in Germany: we do not sympathise with the Greek people and their poverty in connection with the introduction of the Euro, we think they ought to be punished for ‘being lazy, living above their means and not doing their homework’. The same goes for the poor in our country. And we mourn the victims of terrorism in Germany and France but we are not really interested in the terror victims in St Petersburg, Beirut or the terrible suffering in Yemen. And the one time our politicians seemed to show compassion by opening the borders for refugees, the many Germans who, like myself, welcomed that chance had to realize the double standards which were behind it: supporting the wars and economic policies that caused people to leave their homes and not adequately addressing the social and security problems the influx of refugees caused at home.  

Does this lack of compassion have to do with the ‘incapability of mourning one’s own fate’ we mentioned in the beginning of our conversation and which seems to be a common feature in Jewish and German mainstream thinking?

Gilad: The lack of compassion is a symptom of chosenness and exceptionalism . Chosenness and exceptionalism are indeed attached to Jewishness but not only. It is hardly a secret that the selfish manner of thinking is embedded in capitalist thinking. The next question you may want to ask yourself is what is the connection between Jewish culture and capitalism. This is obviously a loaded question that has many answers. Marx believed that the two were intrinsically tied. Werner Sombart agreed with Marx. Max Weber didn’t.  My point, as always, is that we must be able to discuss these matters in the open.

Clara:   I agree, and it is actually a kind of selective compassion with double standards. But there is also the aspect of collectively getting stuck in the victimized self-image connected with identitarian world views.
Anyway, let’s be a bit more specific here. In a talk you gave in Berlin you said that for example the international feminist movement was used to promote wars for the rights of Muslim women. And just recently Angela Jolie posed for NATO exactly for that reason. You also gave the example of gay rights. When it comes to attacking Russia, gay activists from many countries show their concern about gay rights there. So we are led from one fragmented campaign to the other and forget about more important issues.

But what is the alternative? In that talk you seemed to argue that we should return to think in terms of national interests instead. You seem to want to replace the concept of ‘identitarian tribes’ by returning to the idea of strong national states and fixed borders. Isn’t that a very dangerous right-wing concept? Doesn’t that lead to new chauvinism, the persecution of ethnic minorities and more?

Gilad:  This is a good question. To start with, I am not a political activist. I do not offer solutions or alternatives. As mentioned before, I am a philosopher, I am refining questions rather than repeating readymade answers.  I indeed often argue that if global capitalism is a problem (and it is a problem), we may have to consider the idea that equality within borders is a possible answer. Now, let’s talk about Nationalism and National States. I contend that Nationalism isn’t necessarily a problem unless celebrated on the expense of others. In the 1940’s people and nations were minced in the name of lebensraum, in the Neocon dominated global universe we do the same in the name of Coca-Cola, Gay-Rights and fake democracy. I argue, therefore that ethical thinking which is basically an Athenian aspired domain is the remedy.   

Clara:   If there is a definition of left wing, it is concern for social issues and anti-imperialism. Many people argue that politics addressing these issues need a strong national state, i.e. Bill Mitchell  (fiscal policies), Paul Steinhardt (social welfare policies – paywall) and Professor Michael Hartman (national elites are still strong). While others advocate ‘more EU’ to address social issues on an international level, these people claim that such a project is bound to fail, even if tried which currently is not really the case; the EU is not a social project. The right wing parties want ‘less EU’ as well, but tend to support neo-liberal policies.
But again – slippery grounds – people quickly ‘stone you’ when you start talking about the role of the national state. When Sarah Wagenknecht from the Left Party criticized Merkel’s open-border policy, she was accused of socializing with the right-wingers from AfD.

Often accusations of working together with right-wing people (Nazis!) replace an open exchange of argument. I think this is a dangerous development.

Gilad: Again, you are pointing at the Jerusalemite tendency, that tyranny of correctness that dictates a manner of speech, a pattern of ‘correct’ thinking, newspeak. Orwell recognized that that tendency is inherent to Left politics which is fascinating considering the Athenian dialectic nature of Marx thinking. We are living in an upside down world –The anti Fascist are often intrinsically fascists. The anti Zionists are mostly AZZ (Anti Zionist Zionists) and the Athenians who see it all are castigated subject to constant abuse. Yet, the people are not buying into that reality. Brexit proves that Brits want to see a change. Trump won because Americans are frustrated (surely, they are more frustrated now).  Far from being surprising the popularity of Corbyn in Britain and Sanders in the USA can be realised as a similar symptom of frustration with the current identitarian dystopia. Both leaders are nostalgic anti identiatrian characters.  The meaning of it is simple. We are moving into a realm that transcends beyond left/right banal binary. To be in time is to grasp the post political condition.

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

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

The Banality of Good Pt. 5 – Pre TSD, Zionism and Empire

February 01, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

eistein Palestine_edited-1.jpg

 By Clara S and Gilad Atzmon

Clara:   After having read Exodus as a teenager I was convinced that after the Holocaust finding a new home in Israel and fighting anyone who threatened their existence was quite an understandable reaction of the Jewish people.

Gilad: Do you mean killing Arabs and taking their land in the name of Jewish suffering?  If this is what you mean, you should bear in mind that Arabs and Palestinians in particular had nothing to do with Jewish suffering. In fact, in Palestine and in the Arab world Jews were living in peace and harmony with their Muslim and Christian neighbours.

As I explained before, with a manifestation of Pre TSD the so-called ‘victims’ envisage an imaginary hostile reality. The only way to prevail is, to act first, to fight anyone who might be in the way. Next we see the erection of ghetto walls, the prospect of peace and harmony evaporate. In short, welcome to the contemporary dystopia.

Israelis today, for instance, are genuinely tormented by a future nuclear conflict with Iran.  Yet, instead of resolving this volatile situation trying to calm the tension, Israeli politics and Jewish Lobby activity actually escalate this tension. The reality on the ground is devastating. The entire region is under a threat of a war that can easily deteriorate into a nuclear conflict.

Zionism was initially a promise to ‘civilize’ the Diaspora Jews by means of ‘homecoming.’  We, I include myself in order to simplify the argument, were supposed to evolve into ‘people like all other people.’ This surely meant living in peace with our neighbours. This project clearly failed.

We are told by most anti Zionists that Zionism hijacked Judaism. I believe that the facts on the ground suggest that it is (almost) the other way around.

Zionism that was initially an anti Jewish movement (some would say anti-Semitic) was hijacked by Jewishness (as opposed to Judaism). It was once again the chosenness (Jewish exceptionalism) that abolished the initial affinity towards the universal. It was Jewishness that guaranteed that Israelis would be unlike any other people. It was Jewishness that retained chosenness at the core of the Zionist thought.  By the way, this exceptionalist shift within early Zionism was subject to a vivid debate.

Clara:   Wasn’t Einstein still an old-school Zionist, when he wrote to Chaim Weizmann in 1929 that if Jews could not coexist peacefully with Arabs, “then we have learned absolutely nothing during our 2,000 years of suffering?”

 Gilad: Indeed and this is the crux of the matter. Einstein realised already in 1929 that hostility towards the indigenous is sadly embedded in Jewish culture. Einstein could see as early as 1929 that the Zionist movement was already making the Palestinians into the new Goyim.  This was probably devastating for him and it clearly produces a devastating understanding of the Jewish continuum.

 Clara:   You argue that it has basically been the belief in their chosenness which has led to the many disasters in Jewish history.

Now this is not a Jewish ‘speciality’. I have always been wondering how Europeans (and later US-Americans as well) felt entitled to conquer the world, to take the land, exploit the resources and manpower, impose their culture and religion on foreign peoples and killing them when they were in the way. This feeling of racial and cultural superiority has always puzzled me. And it wasn’t and isn’t only greed. Many of us were and are true believers in the mission of promoting ‘western values’ all over the world be it for religious or secular reasons. And even those of us who are critical of what is going on still tend to display a kind of colonialist attitude. I admit I have been asking myself more than once ‘What is it in Christianity and western culture as a whole that has made it so disastrous for the world?’

Gilad: Let us closely examine the notions of chosenness. To start with chosenness is not necessarily a bad thing. It becomes a bad thing when you celebrate your chosenness on the expense of the other.  For orthodox Jews Judaic chosenness is interpreted as a moral burden. It is the duty to serve the world with an exemplary ethical behaviour (please do not ask me how many orthodox Jews follow the above). While in Judaism chosenness can be interpreted as a moral duty, in secular Jewish culture it is often realised as a sense of exceptionalism that is racially oriented. The Zionists, for instance, believe that they can ‘return’ to a land after 2000 years and to reinstate their Biblical reign of power. Let me assure you, not many Italians claim for acres in Britain based on the Roman’s reign in the land more or less around the same time. But the anti Zionists are following exactly the same path. The Jewish pro Palestinian activists do believe that they are in a very special position within the Palestinian Solidarity Movement. They are the ones who give the rest of us a “kosher stamp.“ The Jewish anti Zionists have in practice established a realm of Jewish privilege at the core of the discourse that is set to fight the supremacist abuse invoked by their brethren.   I came to the conclusion that Jewish ID politics is basically a collection of different ideas that facilitate self love.

However, you are correct. European colonialism, Slavery, British imperialism and contemporary Ziocons are all forms of chosenism. The problem that we face with Zionism or Israeli brutality is that it celebrates that form of exceptionalism in front of our eyes, yet, we can’t really talk about it.

Clara:   So the real tragedy is that, if Israel’s enemies united and if they defeated the country, all the fears would come true – the self-fulfilling prophecy of a new ‘Holocaust’, which could have been prevented by true ‘self love’, learning from the past and making peace in time.

Gilad: I feel very comfortable with that. Israel defines itself as the Jewish State. If we want to grasp the actions of Israel, its lobbies and world Jewry we must dig into the meanings of Jewishness and Judaism, we must ask who are the Jews. We must delve into Jewish culture and ideology. We should become familiar with Jewish survival strategies.

Clara:   Speaking of unveiling Jewish lobbies: You have just mentioned contemporary ‘Ziocons’. What or who do you mean by that?

 Gilad: Zioncons are those Neocons who send young American and Brits to die for Zion in the name of Coca Cola.

Clara:   For Zion? They fought/fight in Afghanistan, Iraq, some in Syria, it’s an empire of more than 760 military bases worldwide …

 Gilad:   Pretty much so. Zionism is no longer a geographically limited nationalist ideology. I often argue that the Neocon school points at a clear global shift from ‘a promised land’ to ‘a promised planet.’

Clara:   So that without the Neocons the state of Israel would not be so strong and powerful, look at Trump’s support of making Jerusalem the capital of Israel? And without the support and lobbying of rich and powerful Zionists the Neocons couldn’t control US-American politics the way they do?

 Gilad:  I wish I could say that. As I write these lines I read about Bibi Netanyahu successful visit in India. Israeli strategists know that America is on its way down. They are already zigzagging their way into the corridors of power of the new emerging powers. Russia, India and China.

Clara:   At one point you ask in ‘The Wandering Who’ (p.25, kindle edition) „How did America allow itself be enslaved by ideologies inherently associated with foreign interests?” Another one of your ‘anti-Semitic’ sayings.

 Gilad: Indeed this silence of American political establishment, media and academia demands our intellectual attention. I often argue that Jewish power is the power to suppress discussion on Jewish power. I believe that the 1st step in the right direction is to unveil the meaning of this power, to grasp that which they work hard to conceal and suppress.

Clara:   Could we see the Neocons and the Zionists as two not necessarily very brotherly siblings with similar mindsets working together against a multipolar world? A world where nations solve their collisions of interests in peaceful negotiations with respect to international law? A world where the people living in a country are more important than the wish to control some distant part of the world or the supposed interests of Israel? I have found that for many issues I am concerned with I have to talk about the American Empire. But since the Neocon –dominated Empire is entangled with Zionism, and because Jewish elites are mixed up not only with Israeli politics but with the politics of Empire, criticising these kinds of policies is still very difficult: as soon as you touch Jewish or Israeli influence the question of being a Nazi or an anti-Semite lingers behind every corner. It is hard to think straight in such an environment!

Gilad:  Once we break out of the tyranny of correctness we grasp that Neocons are practically Ziocons, in other words, the Neocons and the Zionists are one. Why is it so difficult to discuss it? Because Jewish power is the power to silence criticism of Jewish power.  Jewish power is maintained by the so called ‘Left’ (new Left really) I will prove it to you. Who was it who tried to silence you recently when you questioned the campaign against Atzmon, was it the Zionist federation, the Israeli embassy? Not really, it was the so-called  ‘lefty’ Rubikon and the ‘anti’ Zionist Elias Davidsson. Let me tell you, we are now very close to the bone.  A continuum has been established.

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

cover bit small.jpg

Daily Sabah: Exclusive interview with Gilad Atzmon

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…

 

Mohammed #Tamimi, 19, seized by occupation forces as global solidarity escalates

Source

Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network – January 12, 2018

12 January 2018

Photo: Manal Tamimi

The ongoing Israeli harassment and targeted oppression of the Tamimi family, organizers in the anti-colonial land defense and popular resistance in the Palestinian village of Nabi Saleh, continued in the pre-dawn hours of 11 January. While 16-year-old activist Ahed Tamimi and her mother Nariman remain in Israeli prison, facing a series of charges before an Israeli military court, Israeli occupation forces raided the family home of Manal and Bilal Tamimi, seizing their 19-year-old son Mohammed. Manal, Mohammed’s mother, was released one week ago after nearly a week in Israeli prison.


Mohammed smiled and raised his fingers in the “victory” sign as he was taken from his family home surrounded by occupation soldiers.  Manal later reported on Facebook that her son is currently being held in the infamous Petah Tikva interrogation center. He is the latest member of the Tamimi family to be targeted in an ongoing series of raids and and arrests in the village of Nabi Saleh and the neighboring village of Deir Nizam, both near Ramallah. Nabi Saleh, a village of 600, has become a center of popular organizing and indigenous land defense after the illegal settlement of Halamish has stolen the village’s agricultural land as well as its spring.

Ahed and Nariman’s imprisonment has drawn international attention; Ahed’s cousin Nour is also facing several charges before an Israeli military court. The military courts have a conviction rate of over 99 percent, and the two women are charged with incitement for political posts on social media, “assault” on an occupation soldier on their family’s land, and throwing stones, among other allegations. The “assault” charges refer to the livestreamed interaction in which Ahed and Nour demand an occupation soldier leave their home; he was attempting to move to higher ground on the family’s land in order to position himself to shoot at demonstrators in the village. After being slapped by the soldier, Ahed slapped the occupation soldier with her bare hand.

Ahed’s 15-year-old cousin Mohammed was shot in the head by a rubber-coated metal bullet and was in a coma for days; he continues to struggle with serious injuries. Last week, another Tamimi cousin, Musa’ab, 17, was shot and killed by occupation forces in the village of Deir Nizam, the first Palestinian killed in 2018.

As the repression targeting the Tamimi family has continued and intensified, Palestinian and international support for Ahed Tamimi and her family has only grown. Ahed, who has traveled to South Africa, Europe, Lebanon and elsewhere to speak about the Palestinian struggle, is an internationally-known leader in the indigenous land defense movement. She has been involved in the movement in Nabi Saleh since she was only 11 years old.

Protests are continuing around the world to demand Ahed’s freedom and that of the other 6,200 Palestinian political prisoners in Israeli jails. Upcoming protests are scheduled in London (on both 12 January and 13 January), Saint-Etienne, Brussels, Rosario, Montevideo, Sydney, Toulouse, Dublin, Braga, Porto, Lisbon, Rome, New York City, Portland, Copenhagen, Berlin, Washington, DC, Arlington and elsewhere.

Photo: London Palestine Action

Street visual actions are also taking place to highlight Ahed’s case and the Palestinian struggle for freedom. In London, grassroots activists put up “guerilla” transit ads and posters on bus stops and Tube trains throughout the city. @Protestencil on Twitter has made the stencil-style posters available for download and use in supporters’ local cities.

 

Photo: London Palestine Action

London Palestine Action has highlighted the ongoing appearance of these “adhacks” throughout London, bringing Ahed’s case and the struggle of Palestinian child prisoners to the streets of the UK capital.  Italian activists in Venice replicated the posters on the streets of the city as well:

Photo: @yabastaedibese

On the streets of Berlin, Jewish Antifa Berlin shared images of large stickers and posters highlighting Ahed Tamimi’s case and those of the Tamimi women posted on signboards and advertising spaces around the German capital city.  Women in Berlin are also organizing a bloc for the women’s march on 21 January that will highlight Ahed’s case.

Photo: Via Jewish Antifa Berlin

An international action week is taking place from 10 to 20 January, focusing on pressure on national parliamentarians in countries around the world to speak out about the case of Ahed Tamimi, including actions targeting Dutch, French, German and Portuguese politicians. In addition, UK minister of state for the Middle East Alistair Burt responded to questions from Labour MP Julie Elliott on 10 January by noting that “the soldiers should not be there and the young woman should not have needed to do what she did.”  This followed an earlier Early Day Motion submitted by a multi-party group of parliamentarians on Ahed’s case.

**

Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network denounces the arrest of Ahed Tamimi and Nariman Tamimi, the latest of well over 500 Palestinians arrested by Israeli occupation forces following U.S. President Donald Trump’s declaration of recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Approximately half of those detained, like Ahed, Abdul-Khalik Burnat and Fawzi al-Junaidi, are children. There are hundreds of Palestinian children jailed by Israel and frequently subject to beatings, abuse, and interrogations without parents or lawyers present in violation of the law. We urge people of conscience around the world to take action to demand freedom for Ahed and her fellow detained and jailed Palestinian children in occupation detention centers, interrogation centers and prisons – and for Nariman Tamimi and all detained and imprisoned Palestinians.

The resistance of the Palestinian people has never been quelled by arrests or repression, and it must be clear that we, around the world, stand alongside the Palestinian people as they defend Jerusalem and their entire land and people under attack. This includes standing with detained and jailed Palestinian prisoners in their struggle for liberation for themselves, their people, and their occupied homeland.

TAKE ACTION:

    1. For supporters in the US: Call your member of the House of Representatives to support H.R. 4391, the Promoting Human Rights by Ending Israeli Military Detention of Palestinian Children Act. Tell them specifically about Ahed’s arrest, and urge them to act for her release. Tell them to pressure Israel to free Ahed and other detained Palestinian kids. Call the House switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask to speak to your Representative’s office. CODEPINK has an action to highlight this case specifically.
    2. Take action around the world: From 10 January to 20 January, there is an international week of action to contact local parliamentarians in each country and urge the freedom of Ahed Tamimi and her fellow Palestinian prisoners.
    3. Call your nearest Israeli embassy and let them know that you know about the detention of Ahed Tamimi in Nabi Saleh and other Palestinian child prisoners. Demand Ahed, her mother Nariman, and the other detained children be immediately released. Contact infomation here: https://embassy.goabroad.com/embassies-of/israel
    4. Sign the petition. Over 150,000 people have already signed on to demand freedom for Ahed: https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/free_ahed/?feiNukb
    5. Organize a protest for Ahed or join one of the many protests for Jerusalem and distribute this post and other news about Ahed and the Palestinian prisoners. Get others involved in the struggle for Palestinian freedom! Build the campaign for boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel and complicit corporations like HP and G4S.
    6. Write to Ahed, Nour and Nariman. While Zionist jailers frequently censor Palestinian prisoners’ mail, these letters can help bolster morale and even send a message to the jailers and censors themselves. Write to Ahed Tamimi, Nour Tamimi or Nariman Tamimi (choose one and address your letter to one only) at: HaSharon prison
      Ben Yehuda, P.O. Box 7
      40 330 Israel

 

Kick To The Left

January 11, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

Labour Against the Whitchhunt has expelled a third of its associates.

Labour Against the Whitchhunt has expelled a third of its associates.

I am pretty satisfied these days. For the last decade my name has been continuously smeared by Jewish ethnic activists.  I have been called a ‘Nazi,’ a ‘Fascist’ and an ‘anti-Semite’ despite the fact that genuine Left groups and prominent humanists have vigorously supported me all along. Genuine Leftists, it seems, understand that if Israel defines itself as the Jewish State and decorates its F-35s with Jewish symbols, we are entitled to ask who are the Jews, what is Judaism, what is Jewishness and how all these terms relate to each other! Evidently these questions terrify some Jewish ethnic activists.

In December I delivered a speech at a Marxist NRhZ gathering at the Babylon Theatre in Berlin  despite the outraged protests of some German AZZs*.  Here in Britain, the comical Labour Against the Witchhunt  (LAW), a body that was formed to ‘tackle’ the current Zionist purge of the Labour Party, expelled a third of its supporters last Saturday for the ‘crime’ of being associated with Gilad Atzmon.  The notorious AZZ caricature Tony Greenstein reported yesterday that LAW voted to exclude Socialist Fight from participating in LAW.  Why?  “Led by Gerry Downing and Ian Donovan, Socialist Fight has a theory that the Jewish Question is still relevant today.”

Tony Greenstein and Jackie Walker, both suspended from the Labour Party for being ‘anti-Semitic’ despite identifying politically as ‘Jews,’ have formed their own Jewish led anti witchhunt group so they could execute their own witchhunt!

It appears that the ultra Zionist David Rich may as well be correct. We seem to have a ‘Jewish problem’ within the Left.  First, ardent Jewish Zionists conducted an intensive purge of the Labour Party that led to the expulsion and suspension of thousands of party members, including some iconic legends such as Ken Livingstone, who was suspended for telling the truth about Zionism’s collaboration with Nazism. On top of that, the bodies that claimed that they would tackle these problematic Labour expulsions are themselves self identified Jews and are even more tyrannical than the party they were set to critique.

Suspension from the Labour Party is a somewhat vague procedure, but the mass expulsion by LAW was inimical to the democratic and judicial processes. LAW’s actions fit rather neatly with Biblical excommunication or, more precisely, with Hebraic Herem culture. Socialist Fight has disclosed that on Friday evening, just a few hours before LAW’s scheduled meeting to decide upon the exclusion of Socialist Fight, tribal merchant Tony Greenstein informed Socialist Fight, on behalf of LAW, that the meeting was cancelled. Evidently, Greenstein’s grasp of democracy is cloned from the one practiced by the ‘only democracy in the Middle East.’ In the Jewish State, millions of Palestinians are not allowed to participate in the democratic process that determines their fate. In our kosher Labour Anti Witchhunt group, Greenstein inveigled to exclude Socialist Fight from participating in the political decision deciding their fate. The devastatingly simple conclusion is that within Kosher LAW, Socialist Fight are the Palestinians.

We wouldn’t anticipate ethical, democratic or principled behaviour from Tony Greenstein considering his embarrassing past. But why has Jackie Walker been a part of this travesty? Does the ex Momentum activist also adhere to these tyrannical, anti democratic, unethical procedures?

Jackie Walker was suspended from the Labour Party for insisting that the Holocaust should convey a universal message. She was brave to point at the prominence of Jews in the slave trade. However, the great Walker should come clean and tell us what is it about Socialist Fight that positions them beyond the pale. I have a feeling that I know the answer. Jackie operates politically ‘as a Jew’ (as well as Black). She is privileged, she can speak about Jews and slavery, she can universalise the Holocaust, but, for one reason or another,  she does not want to allow Goyim such as Ian Donovan and Gerry Downing to examine the Jewish question in dialectical Marxist terms. They should take their authentic socialist fight somewhere else.

Many years ago, when I came to terms with the gross duplicity at the core of the Jewish Anti Zionist agenda, I consulted with a very clever Jewish friend of mine who had studied the leftist narrative of the Jewish Diaspora for years. He told me, “Gilad, in the Jewish world you always kick to the Left!” Avigdor Lieberman kicks Bibi, Bibi strikes Herzog, Herzog slums Peace Now, Peace Now kicks the AZZs: JVP, Greenstein and Walker. Jackie Walker and Tony Greenstein, are not inventing anything new, they are simply following the kosher protocol. They kick to the Left, they booted Socialist Fight thereby re-enacting the classic Herem ritual. Ian Donovan, Gerry Downing and their supporters are just ordinary Goyim (The Jews within Socialist Fight identity as socialists rather than ‘as Jews’). Downing and Donovan are not going to follow the kosher protocol. They won’t kick to the Left. Why? Because they are the Left. They may be the only Left that remains in this country.

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). 

*AZZ – Anti Zionist Zionist

All you need to know about Israel, The Lobby, Yinon Plan & Trump (video)

January 06, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

https://youtu.be/Z9xJWBn1B9M

10 minutes interview on the most popular political show  on Turkish TV.

Turkish Tv, YAZ BOZ; ” Ergün DİLER – Bekir HAZAR”: 29 Dec 2017

Witch Hunters United – Gerry Downing Speaks with Gilad Atzmon

January 05, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

1994_edited-1.jpg

Gerry, you were accused of Anti-Semitism.  Along with thousands of other Labour Party members, you were labelled anti-Semitic and expelled from the party for expressing universalist ideas and opposing all forms of racism including Jewish racism.

Q: What is anti-Semitism?

GD: Anti-Semitism is the hatred of Jews as Jews. Full stop. Nothing else. It is not criticism of the state of Israel or Jewish institutions.

Q: Under this definition of anti-Semitism are you or your organization anti-Semitic?

GD: No. Not Gerry Downing or Ian Donovan nor any member or supporter of Socialist Fight, past or present, are in any way anti-Semitic. We are members of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and are well-known defenders of Palestinian rights and opponents of the state of Israel. There is not a single act or political stance alleged that is in any way racist or anti-Semitic except in the minds of those who want to appease the Labour Party bureaucracy of Ian McNichol. These same people also attempt to prove that they are not revolutionary socialists and agree with McNichol that Trotskyists should not be afforded any democratic rights in a throwback to the Great Purges in the USSR in the 1930s and 1940s.

Q:  You are part of a radical Left group called Socialist Fight. Can you brief us shortly about this group and its principles?

GD: It is best summed up in the first point of the Where We Stand document on our website:

“We stand with Karl Marx: ‘The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves. The struggle for the emancipation of the working class means not a struggle for class privileges and monopolies but for equal rights and duties and the abolition of all class rule’ (The International Workingmen’s Association 1864, General Rules). The working class ‘cannot emancipate itself without emancipating itself from all other sphere of society and thereby emancipating all other spheres of society’ (Marx, A Contribution to a Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, 1843).”

Q: We met today because I learned from the British and Jewish press that Labour Against the Witch-hunt (LAW) a newly formed body, has decided to expel half of its members or more precisely, to kick out Socialist Fight from its ranks. Is that true?

GD:  The ostensibly broad campaign, LAW, was launched on 21 October 2017 after professor Moshé Machover was auto-excluded, and, as the Labour Party Marxists reported, he was only “one of a long line of socialists, Corbyn supporters and defenders of Palestinian rights expelled or suspended on bogus charges of anti-Semitism”. Socialist Fight participated in the formation of LAW, through Gerry Downing and Ian Donovan and contributed to the discussion and to collection, as Socialist Fight expected to participate in LAW’s work.

Soon after the launch, one Lee Rock began a vitriolic witch hunt against us on LAW’s Facebook page, claiming we were anti-Semitic and should be expelled from LAW. The three remaining LAW Steering Committee members, Tony Greenstein, Stan Keable and Jackie Walker (Peter Firmin had resigned), duly obliged by auto-excluding us without a hearing or right to appeal, the very practice the group had been set up to overturn in the Labour party. We were instructed not to attend the next LAW meeting as we were no longer members and we were blocked from the LAW Facebook page.

We did, however, turn up early for the meeting on 2nd December with 3 supporters and, as Tony Greenstein reported, the meeting was “effectively ambushed by a small Trotskyist grouping, Socialist Fight” i.e., our band of 5 managed to persuade the meeting, some 24 at its height, to refuse to accept the undemocratic, not to say autocratic, decisions of the triumvirate. We were accepted back in and reinstated to the Facebook page by Tony Greenstein.

Q: According to the Jewish press, LAW is led by Jackie Walker and Tony Greenstein both of whom identify politically ‘as Jews.’ Both Greenstein and Walker were suspended from the Labour Party for being anti-Semitic. However, they believe that while the slur of anti-Semite is mostly delusional, on rare occasions they can decide it is real. Where do you think Greenstein/Walker set that kosher demarcation line?

GD: it is my belief that there are two key questions to understand in this. 1. the motivations of Jackie Walker and Tony Greenstein, which are slightly different and 2. The motivation of Jack Conrad, the leader of the Communist Party of Great Britain/Weekly Worker which has influence in the Labour Party Marxists, led by Stan Keable, another member of the LAW Steering Committee.

On the first point the key is found in the statement Tony Greenstein issued on March 22, 2016 made after he got a letter from the Labour Party informing him he had been suspended. He wrote the following:

“I can only assume, in the current climate of media engineered hysteria over ‘anti-Semitism’ in the Labour Party and amongst Corbyn supporters, that it is related to this.  I can think of no other reason. If this is the case what is involved is a witch hunt of anti-Zionists using the cover of anti-Semitism since even the Zionist Board of Deputies of British Jews (BOD) and other Zionists have acknowledged my role in combatting Gilad Atzmon, a notorious anti-Semite who used to be associated with the Palestine solidarity movement.”

So, suspended from Labour for ‘anti-Semitism’ he (Greenstein) tried to ingratiate himself with the pro-Zionist witch hunters by pointing to his own role in witch hunting Gilad Atzmon. Today he is in a de-facto bloc with Zionist/Blairite witch hunters against Socialist Fight.

Jackie Walker is slightly different, she largely rejects the politics of identity and is more cosmopolitan than Greenstein. She also strongly champions black rights. She is repelled by the outright revolutionary politics of Socialist Fight as she revealed during the Labour Representation Committee AGM in 2012, when she verbally abused me for heckling a speaker who was defending the role of the ANC in the Marikana massacre after I had made a motion condemning them.

Jack Conrad suffered a major embarrassment at their annual Communist University when Socialist Fight exposed his narrative on the Russian Revolution, which he promotes in conjunction with the Swedish academic Lars T Lih. They put forward the revisionist theory that Lenin’s April Theses was of no particular significance, and that Kamenev, Zinoviev and Stalin were doing fine before Lenin returned in April and had only to make a slight adjustment, despite Lenin’s powerful condemnations of their capitulation to the provisional government. And then his accusation of treason against Kamenev and Zinoviev when they went public with the plans for the October insurrection, thereby putting all their lives in immediate danger.

Q:  In the recent LAW meeting Greenstein and Walker reportedly said that “making a connection between the number of Jewish billionaires in the US or who is Jewish amongst the richest sections of society and imperialist support for Israel is anti-Semitic.” I guess that Walker and Greenstein believe that Jewish politics and mammon are beyond criticism. Can you tell us which political school may adhere to such a peculiar approach? Is there any Left ideology or working-class politics that excludes criticism of Jewish mammon and influence?

GD: Of course, that ideology is Zionism. I can do no better than to quote Daniel Waterman, the famous author and anti-Zionist activist. His mother, Ruth Kupferschmidt, survived the Holocaust. He wrote on the LAW Facebook page in refutation of this cowardly capitulation:

The following statement (from Tony Greenstein) therefore makes for uncomfortable reading:

“‘Making a connection between the number of Jewish billionaires in the United States or who is Jewish amongst the richest sections of society and imperialist support for Israel is anti-Semitic.’

(To which Waterman replied:) NO NO NO! We all know that there are many Jewish millionaires and billionaires in the US. We also know that many of them are involved with determining policy with respect to Israel. We even know that many of them are outspoken supporters of Israel. Why on earth is it then taboo to speak about this openly?

Yes, mentioning the power of the Jewish lobby was and remains a tactic of antisemites. But that does not make the statement, or the reality, inherently anti-Semitic. The reason why ought to be clear to anyone with half a brain but let’s just spell it out: because not all Jews are billionaires and not all Jews are Zionists or supporters of Israel.

So, why has this issue become such a point in this group? First of all we can consider quite legitimate concerns about the possibility of any discussion of ‘Jewish billionaires supporting Israel’ being interpreted as anti-Semitic, but then that is also exactly why this group was created, to defend others who are legitimately criticising Israel ‘and making comparisons to Nazi Germany’ from being accused of antisemitism.”

Q: You and your political group were expelled by Greenstein/Walker in a non-democratic manner. You were pushed out despite the fact that the democratic vote of LAW members opposed your expulsion. What can we learn from this development about the authoritarian tendencies of Greenstein and Walker?  Do you believe that people of that type can present a better future for Britain’s working people?

GD: It really is shocking that the LAW Steering Committee are pursuing these utterly undemocratic and unprincipled manoeuvres against us. If we are all agreed that the way that John Lansman closed down the democratic structures of Momentum was utterly wrong and justly criticised him for that how can they do the same themselves? How can either John’s Lansman’s Momentum or the far smaller LAW group of Tony Greenstein fight to democratise the structures of the Labour Party when their own structures and practices are so undemocratic? And what kind of a new society of social and economic equality, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” can be forged with these methods? Do what I say, don’t do what I do, as Joe Stalin and Ian McNichol hypocritically might say.

Q: What is next? I understand that on Saturday Greenstein/Walker are planning another bogus meeting in an attempt to overrule their previous defeat. How can we help you? Can we attend the meeting? Where is it?  

GD: The Labour Against the Witch hunt meeting was due to be held at 12 noon on Saturday 6 January in the Calthorpe Arms, 252 Greys Inn Road, London, WC1X 8JR. Please get there by 11.30.

However, on the one hand, Tony Greenstein tells us the landlord of the Calthorpe Arms has rung him up cancelling the meeting: “There will therefore be no meeting on Saturday, the meeting is cancelled”. Stan Keable, the LAW Secretary on the other hand, tells us that a nearby alternative venue has been found and we can all come. Stan Keable: “We regret that Calthorpe Arms has cancelled our booking, but the meeting will go ahead in a nearby alternative venue. Please come to Calthorpe Arms, 252 Grays Inn Road, at 12 noon, and we will direct you to the nearby alternative venue.”

We will move a simple motion along these lines:

“We defend the right of Socialist Fight Comrades to attend and participate in the Labour Against the Witch hunt and reject the slurs of anti-Semitism directed against Socialist Fight and its two leading comrades, Gerry Downing and Ian Donovan.”

Hot Off The Press: British Anti Witch-Hunt Group expelled half its supporters

January 04, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

witch hunt.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

When you think that British ‘Left’ has reached rock bottom you wake up to learn that this political comedy act has no limits.

We learned today that the ‘anti witch-hunt’ labour group LAW (Labour Against the Witch-hunt ) has expelled half of its members over ‘anti-Semitism.’

Times of Israel reports today that LAW has cut ties to Socialist Fight because of the views of its members. Socialist Fight is accused of being “supportive of controversial Israeli-born author Gilad Atzmon.”

Needless to mention that I am thrilled by all of that. I enjoy being supported by proper radical left groups; people who adhere to universal principles of equality and human brotherhood. Despite the fact that in my entire life, I have never been a member of any political body or party, I can clearly see that my writing is now making a change.

If you are wondering what it is that I am saying that pushes LAW leaders Jackie Walker and Tony Greenstein, two self identified (political) Jews, over the edge, to the point that they themselves have decided to act, in the open, as witch hunters, I will provide a brief answer.

I argue that if Israel defines itself as a Jewish State we must ask who are the Jews, what is Jewishness and what is Judaism. We should then proceed and  examine Israeli politics and Jewish lobbying in the light of the above questions. I basically argue that Zionism is just one symptom of Jewish choseness. I actually identify the exact same exceptionalist tendencies in Jewish Left and in particular in Walker and Greenstein’s political act. To add to my sins, I am also responsible for the popular adage “by now, we are all Palestinians.” Like the Palestinians we are not allowed to articulate the true nature of our oppression.

No one could articulate this observation better than Jackie Walker and Tony Greenstein. In the minutes of the LAW meeting, Walker and Greenstein apparently said “Making a connection between the number of Jewish billionaires in the US or who is Jewish amongst the richest sections of society and imperialist support for Israel is anti-Semitic.”

For Walker and Greenstein pointing at a concentration of mammon and political influence as the core of Zionist power is a ‘hate crime.’ For Walker and Greenstein a principled universal socialist position based on dialectical materialism is crude ‘antisemitism.’

I am delighted as well as amused to see myself, an immigrant saxophonist at the centre of this ridiculous political storm. But I may assure you that none of this is new to Brits. They have seen it all before, they know about the People’s Front of Judea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WboggjN_G-4

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). 

Diaspora Jews have had enough of Israel and Zio-Barbarism

November 27, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

mess.jpg

Reported by Gilad Atzmon

Attila Somfalvi, a leading Israeli journalist reports on Ynet that American Jews are showing signs of Zio-fatigue. Some prominent leaders of the Jewish American community have openly admitted that in recent years there has been a radical shift in attitudes about Israel. Many Diaspora Jews prefer to stay away from Israel and its Zionist leagues.

According to Somfalvi, many youths active in various Jewish organisations see Israel as “a burden.” “Israel is not part of our day to day existence,” said students at NYU as well as young members of Gather DC, an organization comprising about six thousand Jews who live in the American capital.

“We don’t really understand how Israel is connected to our Jewish identity; Israel is a tough subject so we gave up on it.”

The Israeli paper admits,

“Yes, in 2017 the state of Israel has become a sort of burden to American Jews. Many don’t feel any connection to it; some believe that Israel makes them look bad vis-à-vis its policies in the territories.“

“The relationship between Israeli and American Jews is at a breaking point and the results can be seen on the ground: fewer donations, less support for Israel among Jewish students on college campuses, fewer visits to Israel and less desire to identify as Zionists.”

However, as often occurs in the Israeli press, in the Hebrew version of the same article, Somfalvi presents the real juicy bits.

“Israel has united the Jews in the past,” said a senior member of one of the largest Jewish and pro-Israel organizations in the United States, however nowadays “The discourse on Israel is divisive.” Talks about Israel are intense. “Even in synagogues, rabbis are forced to stop discussions about Israel because they become too vocal and divisive (left vs.right)”

AIPAC  tries to convey optimism – but it also admits to difficulties. “The number of Jews involved in one activity or another is low,” said a senior member of the organization. “We have not found creative ways to make people come and be active, Israelis need to know that their decisions have implications on the Jewish community in the United States. In any case, we will continue to work for Israel, but there are new challenges every day.

The message for the Palestinian solidarity enthusiasts is devastatingly simple. You may want to skip the next AIPAC gathering. The Jews are far more effective in destroying themselves than you will ever be.

But it isn’t just Jews that have drifted from AIPAC. Apparently the American political establishment is not as obedient as it used to be. “10 years ago, people within the Democratic Party were following AIPAC’s instructions. Not anymore, the liberals in this party are much tougher and more influential, and it is more difficult to gather support for Israel.”

According to Ynet,  “young American Jews find it hard to accept the crude vulgarism that has become  symptomatic of Israeli politics.” The Jews, especially young ones, find it difficult to declare that they are supporters of Israel. Such a declaration has a price…They would choose to join human rights organizations that are willing to accept them only if they openly do not identify as Zionists.”

“Joining a movement that supports Black rights while supporting Israel and the occupation does not go together,” explained a senior member of a Jewish organization.

Since his arrival in New York, Consul Danny Dayan has been warning the Prime Minister of the grave crisis facing the Jewish people. “We have to decide whether we are the Jewish state or the state of the (Jewish) Israelis,” he says. “If we are the state of the Israelis alone, it is wonderful, but it has meaning and price … I think that we should be the state of the Jews, but now we do not stand the test of ‘the Jewish state.”

It is no secret that Zionist organisations in America and Britain are in a state of panic. Their actions have been increasingly crude, vulgar and violent. It is not surprising that as a result, educated and respected American and British Jews prefer to stay away from ADL, AIPAC and other Jewish pro war institutions.  Jews are clearly drifting away. They are disgusted by the manufactured ‘antisemitsm’ campaign. They are repulsed by the constant smear campaigns against the Labour Party, Corbyn, academics, artists and thinkers.

Here in the UK intelligent Jews can easily read the map. The more Zionists harass Corbyn and the Labour Party, the more popular Labour and Corbyyn become. The more Theresa Je Suis Juif  May dines with the UK Chief Rabbi, the more doubts loom over her political future.

The more Jewish organisations exercise their political power, the less the Jews want to be associated with jewish politics and that power…

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). 

ID Politics, Diversity and Biological Determinism?

August 20, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

geneticdeterminism.jpg

Introduction by Gilad Atzmon: The following is a segment taken from my new book Being in Time – A Post Political Manifesto. The book offers a crude attack on ID politics.  This mini chapter examines the exclusive nature of the New Left discourse and its detachment from working people and their politics.  It points at the divisive apparatus that drives the Identitarian philosophy. By adhering to such an ideology, New Left  has managed to adopt the most problematic chapter in Hitlerian ideology namely biological determinism.  

cover bit small.jpg

United Against Unity  (Being in Time pg. 46) 

What does it take, in an era dominated by progressive identity politics, to be accepted as a fully qualified member of the ‘New Left’ or to be considered a ‘liberal?’

Jane is a well-off London lawyer who identifies politically ‘as a woman,’ and marches enthusiastically for human rights. Can she join? I think the answer is yes, she can.

George is a medical doctor who also happens to be a black man and identifies as ‘Black middle class.’ Can he subscribe to a progressive email group and contribute to the discussion? I hope and suspect that he can.

And what about Julie? She runs a real estate agency on the posh side of town but she also identifies politically as a ‘gay lesbian,’ can she join the parade? What a question! Of course she can.

Abe is an accountant and very attached to his Jewish heritage. Abe identifies as a ‘secular liberal Jew,’ can he join the anti-war movement? More than likely he can, in fact, he may even, within hours of his joining, find himself in a position of leadership.

But what about Hammed, a metal worker from Birmingham? Hammed identifies as a ‘Muslim’ – can he join  a Left demonstration against the War in Syria? It’s a good question and the answer is not immediately obvious because it’s no secret that many of those who subscribe to ‘progressive’ and ‘liberal’ ideologies and especially activists, are rather troubled by religion in general and Islam in particular.

So, while Hammed identifies with an inclusive, universal and humanist precept, Jane, ‘the woman’, Julie ‘the gay lesbian’ and George ‘the Black’ subscribe to political identities that are largely determined by biology. Furthermore, Abe, as a secular Jew, affiliates himself with an (imaginary) blood- based ethnocentric tribal identity. Clearly, the contemporary so called ‘New Left’ has no problem with marginal and exclusivist political identities that are often biologically oriented.

How has the contemporary ‘liberal’ discourse been sustained by people who subscribe to biologically- determined identity politics, yet often reject those who actually support equality, human rights issues and who are also often from the working class? Could it be that the ‘New Left’ is detached from working class politics and instead focuses on a vague and inconsistent pseudo-empathic discourse primarily engaged in sectarian battles?

Let’s consider some more possible cases:

Uri is an Israeli peace activist and writer who identifies as an Israeli Leftist. Is Uri welcome within the progressive network? The answer is an unreserved yes.

But how about John Smith, an English bus driver from 47

Liverpool who is proud to be English and ‘as a patriotic Englishman’ opposes the war because John truly believes that peace is patriotic. Can he join an anti-war protest and, while he’s at it, carry a Union Jack to demonstrations? Perhaps.

Tony is a ‘Jewish Socialist’ – certainly not religious but an ethnic Jew who identifies ‘as a Jew’ racially and ethnically. And by the way, Tony also operates politically within Jews- only anti-Zionist groups. Tony is hugely welcome at most progressive gatherings. But can the same be said for Franz who identifies as an ‘Aryan socialist?’ I suspect not.

The point is that there is a critical discrepancy in contemporary Left, liberal and progressive movements between professed humanism and the reality on the ground. Jewish ethnocentrism and even Jewish racial exclusivity is fully accepted, while other forms of ethnocentrism are bluntly rejected.*

And, while we’re at it, what about Laura? She’s a Muslim convert who often hides her face behind a veil. Does she feel comfortable in ‘progressive’ or liberal gatherings? Not really. But Laura certainly supports human rights and equality almost as much as she loves Allah. But the Left, supposedly progressive and liberal, shows very little tolerance towards Allah worshippers while worshippers of the Talmud who are willing to oppose Israel are not only tolerated, they are welcomed. Torah Jews, for instance, are often invited to progressive gatherings though, it must be said, they may encounter some resentment, especially from Jewish secular activists (this surely is because progressive Jews don’t like to be ethnically and ‘racially’ associated with ‘reactionary’ people in caftans).

Membership in a progressive club is not a straightforward matter. We are dealing with an operation that is far from being universal, open or inclusive. The discourse is selective, incoherent and unprincipled. The working class is not represented unless they demonstrate adherence to an Identitarian ideology and subscribe to a predetermined tablet of diverse ‘correct politics’, or shall we call it, an inconsistent set of progressive values. If they espouse a commitment to ‘working class’ values, its presence is not detectable.

So what are ‘correct politics?’ Where are they defined and by whom? Is it the same people who set a ‘progressive threshold’ that excludes the Muslim, the nationalist and the so-called ‘White’ (whatever that means), yet embraces biologically-determined sectarian politics and even racial categories?

cover bit small.jpg

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

 

*Black ethnocentrism had been accepted within the progressive milieu for some time, however this has changed recently once it was revealed that Black Lives Matter stood for the Palestinians. To read more: http:// http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/why-did-black-american- activists-start-caring-about-palestine/496088/

%d bloggers like this: