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

The Western Hijacked Democracy

Image result for western democracy

by Ghassan Kadi for the Saker Blog

June 22, 2018

If my previous article (http://thesaker.is/the-lebanese-style-of-democracy-of-no-winners-or-losers/) dissected Lebanese style democracy and mentioned Western style democracy in passing, then we should perhaps have a closer look at Western democracy; or what is left of it.

The word “democracy’ comes from the Greek word demokratia; from demos ‘the people’ and kratia ‘power’. In other words, it means the power of the people.

Different dictionaries give slightly different definitions, but I find the definition given in the Cambridge Dictionary to be closest to the commonly-held understanding of democracy being “the belief in freedom and equality between people, or a system of government based on this belief, in which power is either held by elected representatives or directly by the people themselves.”

According to the Cambridge Dictionary also, this is the definition of the adjective “democratic”: “a person or a group that is democratic believes in, encourages, or supports freedom and equality between people and groups”.

The Constitutions of all Western democracies are based on the above lofty principles, and this should mean that all Western citizens should have equal rights in choosing their leaders and equal opportunity in being elected on their own merits…right? This statement sadly cannot be further from the truth.

The problem is not in the Constitutions, not in the laws, but in the political parties and politicians who colluded to protect each other. This is perhaps one of the biggest travesties against human rights, and to add insult to injury, it is one that is not talked about or even mentioned.

Why?

Because as much as opposing Western political parties hate each other and compete fiercely on parliamentary representation and winning enough votes to win government, when it comes to hijacking democracy, they are all equal partners in crime; and for one party to expose the other to this effect, it would be shooting itself in the foot.

The duopoly that major parties have created in the West is a new form of feudalism; with an onion skin façade camouflaged with slogans of equality and freedom.

Yes, when a Western voter goes to the polling booth, he/she has a choice, but it is a choice that is mainly between party candidates that have been chosen, not by the people, but by party members.

Party members constitute a very small fraction of Western society, and in many instances, nominated candidates are chosen from between a handful of people who are party members from within the electorate.

Yes, Western Parliaments have members who are totally nonpartisan and known as “independents” and others who belong to minor parties (back to those later), but the numbers speak for themselves. If all citizens and candidates had equal rights and power, as democracy stipulates, then this should be reflected in the number of candidates who win; but it doesn’t.

Can we blame the voters for voting for the party candidates? Yes and no. In theory they are to be blamed, but in practice they face a number of difficulties when contemplating voting for an independent candidate. First of all, in many situations they know little about the independent candidate, and in most situations, they are led to believe that to create a change and/or keep the status quo, they shouldn’t “waste” their vote on an independent.Image result for Ralph Nader, Ron Paul and bosh

The American Presidential independent bids of Ralph Nader and Ron Paul did not go very far. In real democratic terms however, the few votes those candidates received have more democratic substance than the mere 537 votes that brought George W. Bush over the line and won him Florida and his first Presidential term.

Unlike Ron Paul, George W. Bush was a party candidate, and voters outside the GOP did not have any say in deciding who the GOP was to nominate, and had the GOP nominated Ron Paul, they would have voted for him. If the GOP could nominate Mickey Mouse, they would vote for him too. Now, did Ron Paul have the same opportunity to be voted for as much as Bush? No.

So what happened to Western democracy then?

The West has the audacity to accuse other nations of being undemocratic and dictatorial when in fact Western political parties have hijacked democracy and unashamedly dictate to voters who to vote for.

The truth of the matter is that when the European feudal systems collapsed and personal freedom and equality were given to citizens to replace their stature of serfdom and slavery, and as surviving European Monarchies gave the executive power to Parliaments and maintained titular roles, a new breed of European power-mongers emerged; the political parties.

Western political parties found a loophole in democracy, a loophole that didn’t exactly give them monopoly of power, but a second best consolation prize; duopoly. Furthermore, this illusion of freedom gave the political parties the “security” they needed for long term survival, because the voters truly believed they were liberated and free and had no grounds for revolt.

With duopoly, the ruling party has one and one concern only, and that is to be re-elected. Certainly, the opposition party has also one and one concern only, and that is to be elected in the next election. However, the opposition party knows that it is a question of time before it is elected, because even if it does precious little, even if it doesn’t come up with policies that are meant to lure in voters, before too long, voters will get disenchanted by the ruling party, demand change, and vote in hoards for the opposition.

Where is democracy here?

And the obsession of Western political parties with election wins makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for the ruling party to make tough decisions of long-term vision and nation-building outlooks. They tend to please voters, even if this leads to economic disasters, the likes of which the West is now deeply entrenched in.

How does this system serve the interests of the people?

An independent candidate with independent non-partisan policies of long-term vision and aspirations therefore can be highly qualified, honest, capable and worthy of being elected, but he/she will miss out because the major parties have nominated uneducated, corrupt and dysfunctional candidates; and how often is this seen in every corner of the West?

How does this represent the will and the power of the people?

And when Churchill boasted about British democracy saying that he was the only leader amongst the Allies who could be replaced at any time by the will of the people, what he really meant was that he could be replaced at any time by the will of his political party (The Conservatives aka Tories). He was having a dig at Stalin, the ‘dictator’, but his own position as Britain’s Prime Minister at that time was actually dictated by his party, not by his people.

And ironically enough, the fact that Russia does not have a party-based duopoly that is akin to the West, Western Russophobes question how democratic Russia is even though President Putin has a very high popularity rate; higher than any Western political leader could ever dream of.

Image result for Putin has a very high popularity

Then come the so-called Western minor parties; those parties were meant to keep the major parties in check and prevent them from abusing their power. Ironically however, in some instances, they ended up in situations in which the balance of power was in their hands. Instead of instituting reform, the minor parties became a part of the problem. They gave themselves the “Western democratic” right to dictate, pass or block motions and bills, based on their own agendas, even though they only represent a fraction of the community at large.

Where is the democracy here?

As a matter of fact, when a ruling Western party has a clear majority that does not need the support of the minor parties, it goes to Parliament to rubber-stamp its decisions; unopposed. And instead of rationally debating their policies with the opposition and vice versa, they end up in a slinging match with each other and exchanging words of ridicule and insults.

How does this enhance freedom and equality?

But perhaps the most ridiculous case scenario however is what some Western systems call a “Hung Parliament”; i.e. a parliament that does not have a political majority. This is the nightmare election outcome of any Western political party, and ironically also, many Western citizens see in it an absolute disaster, and this is because they have been brainwashed and trained to think this way; by the political parties of course. In real democratic terms, an election result that ends up with a “Hung Parliament” is a clear indication of the power of the people and ought to be respected instead of finding ways around it; ways that would serve the objectives of one particular party against another.

What is democratic about political parties refusing to accept the mandate of the people when election results result in a “Hung Parliament”?

What Western political parties have been doing ever since the inception of Western democracy is at the least immoral. Is it illegal? Well, the answer to this question depends on who answers it. In theory, this party-imposed system of duopoly, or triopoly, stands in total contrast to what democracy is meant to uphold and defend. It is taking away the power from people and putting it in the hands of parties and party members. However, this status quo serves the interests of all Western political parties, and none of the parties will be prepared to challenge it, as any such challenge will be self-defeating.

The media play a big role in this, and so do Western political journalists, analysts, commentators, activists and reformers. They take it for granted, accept and propagate the notion that democracy means party rule, when in fact there is nothing in the Constitutions of Western nations, or within the spirit of democracy, to this effect.

However, Western countries do have court systems, and those courts are independent from the states and their politics. If some individual or organization in any given Western nation challenges the Constitutional legality of the modus operandi of Western political parties and wins, this can and should create a precedence that can reverberate in all other Western nations.

What makes such a legal challenge virtually impossible to pursue and win is not necessarily its substance, but its legal cost.

What is democratic about letting democracy down merely because to challenge those who hijacked it is a cost prohibitive exercise? That’s the ultimate irony.

Gilad Atzmon discusses J Power with Patrick Henningsen (21st Century Wire)

June 12, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

 Democracy and freedom is something we remember not something we experience. They belong to Nostalgia.

Democracy and freedom is something we remember not something we experience. They belong to Nostalgia.

http://21stcenturywire.com/2018/06/10/episode-236-parts-unknown-with-guests-gilad-atzmon-and-robert-inlakesh/

Democracy and freedom is something we remember not something we experience. They belong to Nostalgia.  On Patrick Henningsen’s Sunday Wire I spoke about the rapid emergence of authoritarian conditions in Britain and the West in general. We looked into the role of The Lobby, the impact of ID politics and tyranny of correctness.

Gilad Atzmon on Patrick Henningsen’s Sunday Wire

Giant Steps with Sarah Chaplin & Gilad Atzmon: Israel, Syria and the J-word

April 19, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

Had a great time talking with Sarah Chaplin on  Monday (16th April 2018). We covered a lot of topics such as  ID politics, Tyranny of Correctness, the New Left dystopia, Israel, the Lobby, the Attack on Syria, the court case against me and more.

Sarah Chaplin: My guest on Monday is simultaneously one of the greatest living saxophonists and one of the most controversial and vocal figures involved in debates about anti-semitism and Zionism in the world today: Gilad Atzmon.

Gilad has not only taken absolutely gigantic steps in his own life, (which brought him from serving in the IDF and confronting the horrors of how Israel was treating Palestinians, deciding to take up the tenor sax and come to live in the UK, and that’s just for starters), he is also one of Richie Allen’s favourite guests, a very compelling political analyst and philosopher, a brilliant writer, a stand up comedian, a member of legendary British band the Blockheads, and someone who is so familiar with John Coltrane that he could probably if I asked him play Giant Steps inside out, back to front, upside down, and give us a complete low down on why the tune is regarded as quite so innovative.

If you don’t believe me, here are some quotes:

“Atzmon’s fluid lyricism is in full flow on songbook classics and worldly originals. But as sweet romance morphs to modernist uncertainty, the bittersweet balance and rich emotional palette equally impress.” Financial Times

“A formidable improvisational array…a jazz giant steadily drawing himself up to his full height…” The Guardian.

“The best musician living in the world today” Robert Wyatt

Gilad Atzmon is being threatened with court proceedings by the British Zio-Establishment at the moment, and given what’s going on with Syria, Russia, Israeli and UK politics, I can think of no better moment to chew things over with this incredible and fearless jazzman next week! You never know, I might even persuade him to play his sax live on the show.

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).

Gilad Atzmon on Syria, Palestine and the Current Dystopia

April 14, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

I had an incredible time yesterday talking to Jason Liosatos. We spoke about the current Dystopia, tyranny of correctness, ID nonsense, the Ziocon war mongers and their service providers in Britain, USA and France. Truth doesn’t need a movement it needs to be explored!

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).

RT Documentary on Ahed Tamimi

Posted on 

The above documentary is very much worth watching. Uploaded on March 9 and entitled “The Slap Heard Around the World: The People of Israel vs. Ahed Tamimi,” the video focuses not only on the Tamimi family and Ahed’s case in the Israeli military court system, but also the hysteria that has erupted in Israeli society over the whole affair. It includes interviews with members of the Tamimi family as well as Israeli journalist Gideon Levy.

For the past couple of days I’ve been trying to find out what, if anything, occurred in the Ofer military court on Sunday, March 11, the day Ahed’s trial was supposed to open. For some reason the Israeli media, at least the outlets that publish in English, have largely gone mum on the case. About the only reference I could find was a Haaretz piece published a bit earlier today and which, though vague on details, seems to suggest that the trial has been postponed once again so that the court may consider an appeal of its decision to close proceedings to the public.

Ahed’s pre-trial hearings were open to the public, but on February 13 a ruling was issued saying the trial would be held behind closed doors. Then on February 26, Israeli soldiers carried out another raid in Nabi Saleh, arresting Mohammed Tamimi, Ahed’s 15-year-old cousin, the boy who was shot in the head by a rubber-coated bullet. One day after that arrest an Israeli official went public with a claim that Mohammed had “admitted” under interrogation that the head injury had been from a bike accident. The bogus claim is covered in the video above.

The latest charade the Israelis seem to be playing is that it is not the prosecution that objects to having the trial opened to the public, but that this decision was made by the court alone and with Ahed’s best interest at heart.

“We left the request to open the hearings to the judgment of the court of first instance, and we will leave that request to the discretion of this honorable court,” says Maj. Gilad Peretz, the military prosecutor quoted in the Haaretz story.

In other words, Peretz purports to be neutral on the question of a trial behind closed doors, but with an air of touching concern for the girl’s welfare believes that keeping the proceedings closed would be “to Tamimi’s advantage.”

The appeal, filed by defense attorney Gabby Lasky, calls for the trial to be opened to the public, and while the court did not issue a ruling in a hearing held on Monday, it is “expected to do so shortly,” the report states.

It’s interesting that the Israeli media, aside from the Haaretz article (which is very brief) have gone so quiet on the story–in stark contrast to the kind of reporting we were seeing back in January, February and the latter part of December, when stories were coming out virtually every day. Apparently “out of sight out of mind” is the operative theory now.

Meanwhile, Ahed and her mother, Nariman, remain locked up in an Israeli prison.

Below is a commentary written by Jonathan Cook and published a bit over a week ago by Mondoweiss.

***

Israeli Army’s Lies Can No Longer Salvage Its Image

By Jonathan Cook

It is has been a very bad week for those claiming Israel has the most moral army in the world. Here’s a small sample of abuses of Palestinians in recent days in which the Israeli army was caught lying.

A child horrifically injured by soldiers was arrested and terrified into signing a false confession that he was hurt in a bicycle accident. A man who, it was claimed, had died of tear-gas inhalation was actually shot at point-blank range, then savagely beaten by a mob of soldiers and left to die. And soldiers threw a tear gas canister at a Palestinian couple, baby in arms, as they fled for safety during a military invasion of their village.

In the early 2000s, at the dawn of the social media revolution, Israelis used to dismiss filmed evidence of brutality by their soldiers as fakery. It was what they called “Pallywood” – a conflation of Palestinian and Hollywood.

In truth, however, it was the Israeli military, not the Palestinians, that needed to manufacture a more convenient version of reality.

Last week, it emerged, Israeli officials had conceded to a military court that the army had beaten and locked up a group of Palestinian reporters as part of an explicit policy of stopping journalists from covering abuses by its soldiers.

Israel’s deceptions have a long history. Back in the 1970s, a young Juliano Meir-Khamis, later to become one of Israel’s most celebrated actors, was assigned the job of carrying a weapons bag on operations in the Jenin refugee camp in the West Bank. When Palestinian women or children were killed, he placed a weapon next to the body.

In one incident, when soldiers playing around with a shoulder-launcher fired a missile at a donkey, and the 12-year-old girl riding it, Meir-Khamis was ordered to put explosives on their remains.

Continued here

 

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

The Zionist Hate Campaign Against David Icke

November 18, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

Campaign Against Antisemitism was desperate to cancel David Icke’s talk in Manchester last night.  Labour MP, Kate Green, worked hard on behalf of the Lobby. They all failed,  Icke’s talk, so i hear, was a great success. I looked into the ‘evidence’ levelled against Icke by the Zionist hate groups. There is nothing there as I prove in the following video..

https://youtu.be/HLKCrVrT88w

cover bit small.jpg

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

Being in Time – A Post Political Manifesto, Amazon.co.uk , Amazon.com and  here (gilad.co.uk).

Stop Everything and Watch This: David Icke on Free Speech Destroyers

August 24, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

In the most calm and scholarly manner David Icke delves into the meaning of censorship, the reasoning behind it and who drives this dark force.

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

First Violent Attack Against Jazz Audience

August 07, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

Drummer Will McClure (73) who attended my concert last night was subject to an attack outside my concert by some anti Atzmon hooligans. He was injured in his eye and suffered a shock.

A week ago, Oxford Albion Beatnik Book Shop that hosted my concert received a threatening letter from Stephen Silverman (CAA). Silverman hinted that something may happen unless the club surrendered to his demand and cancelled the concert.  Tonight we saw the first violent attack against Jazz audience. Will was bleeding from his eye for an hour.

We had a packed room in Oxford, I can assure you, they were not impressed.  Brits do not like to see their little cosy Oxford turning into a battle zone. If the CAA is genuinely concerned with antisemitsm it better go out of its way to make sure that such an event never occurs because as things stand, the Campaign Against Antisemitsm (CAA) together with other Jewish organisations such as Jewdas are introducing violence and hooliganism to British arts scene. This is unacceptable and it won’t be tolerated!

I should mention that the Jewish members of the audience were devastated and embarrassed by it all, They insisted to disassociate themselves from this unfortunate event.

The police are involved

Update: July 7 10 AM GMT. Will couldn’t open his eyes this morning.. He is now back in hospital

The following message was left by Will’s wife on my FB page; 

Ann Saxton Mac I hope the person responsible for throwing the egg tonight that was obviously intended for Gilad Atzmon reads this. You see I am the wife of the person you assaulted with the egg. We are not from this country but here on holiday from New Zealand. We first met Gilad 17 years ago when we attended a concert in London & over the years whenever we have traveled we have managed to catch Gilad performing in several different countries. My husband is 73 years old & also a musician. He did not deserve this attack & neither did Gilad or any other person.. The egg struck my husband in the eye. The egg shell shattered & penetrated his eye cutting the eye ball causing it to bleed. He eye sight is badly affected & there is great swelling to his eye socket & no doubt by morning it will be bruised & black & blue. However you will not get away with this the Police are now involved, Your car will be identified by CCTV footage & we will press for criminal charges to be laid & hold you financially responsible for all medical expenses & any physical or emotional damage caused by this random act of stupidity. What you did tonight was nothing short of cowardly behaviour & you should be thoroughly ashamed of what you have done & the harm you have caused my husband. I have been married to this lovely gentle man for 52 years & he really did not deserve this to happen to him. If you had the decency you would admit responsibility & apologize in person but from your behaviour tonight I doubt if you would have the guts to do so, Shame on you whoever you are I hope you are proud of your actions. If you were my son or daughter I know what I would do to you.

Denni Harrison is the owner of Albion Book Shop. He was subject to pressure by the CAA. The following message was left on my FB page:

Dennis Harrison I have hosted Gilad Atzmon perhaps 30 times in ten years, many venues, music and talk. Never ever any hint of problem from audience or any outside (never protesters). Only after receiving a letter from the ‘enforcement’ officer of the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA), who has an “understanding that protests… are likely,” do I have trouble. Silverman did not issue a threat, but I draw my own conclusions. The CAA is a sham charity with no conviction that seeks to get others to do its dirty work for them; it believes that “individuals should be at the forefront of the fight,” so should be held accountable for this serious and violent crime upon an innocent bystander.

Insight Vox: Gilad Atzmon and the attack on dissent (video)

August 03, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

Author and musician, Gilad Atzmon, has published several books on identity, politics and philosophy; most recently “Being in Time” which examines the post-political world.

He now faces a desperate attempt to destroy his musical career and take away his livelihood. In an extended interview we examine what he is saying that is “forbidden”, who seeks to silence him, how it is done and how we should respond.

Anonymous and unfounded charges of “holocaust denial”, “antisemitism” and of unspecified “hatred” are being used in these attacks. But never is evidence given, let alone tested. The allegations seem to have a power that does not require any underlying truth. How does rationality respond to such incantations?.

He is under attack for his ideas, but it is his music that is targeted, not the ideas themselves. Why should this be? Perhaps it is a simple and crude ploy to cripple him financially. But perhaps it is because in Atzmon, jazz remains a form of resistance. Beauty, spontaneity, grace and authenticity are the hallmarks of his music. Perhaps it is these qualities that his opponents cannot allow to exist.

Join Gilad Atzmon and David Scott as they explore the battle raging around “Being in Time”

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

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

theduran.com: Gilad Atzmon on politics in music, Roger Waters, Palestine and humanitarianism

by Adam Garrie

http://theduran.com

Jazz musician, author and philosopher Gilad Atzmon spoke with The Duran about Roger Waters verses the Israel lobby, the place of politics in music, freedom versus dogma and Palestinian freedom in the 21st century.

Recently, Pink Floyd co-founder Roger Waters has been in the news, not for his North America musical tour but for his politics. As an outspoken supporter of Palestine, he has come up against the Israel lobby in many western countries.

Recently, various pro-Israel activists have financed the making of a film against Waters called Wish You Weren’t Here,a mockery of the Pink Floyd album and song Wish You Were Here.

Even among politically minded musicians, few talk about the Israel/Palestine issue. I recently spoke with acclaimed jazz musician, philosopher, social commentator and pro-Palestine thinker Gilad Atzmon about his reaction to the latest attempt to smear Roger Waters over his advocacy of Palestinian justice.

Adam Garrie: As someone who started life as a musician, I have a special affection for music and I would personally never judge my emotive experience at listening to a piece of music based on the politics of the composers and/or performers. At the same time, I am deeply political and am consequently always attentive when musicians decide to get political.

It is nothing new. From Beethoven’s 9th symphony, to Tchaikovsky’s 1812 overture and Strauss’s 4 Last Songs, musicians have always been immersed in world events. People look to the revolutionary attributes of jazz heroes like Charlie Parker, John Coltrane, Roland Kirk and Miles Davis to the folk, pop and rock music of Bob Dylan, John Lennon and Pink Floyd as a source of meaning that ties the political into the emotional and dare I say the spiritual also.

What do you think the connection is and ought to be between music and politics?

 Gilad Atzmon: To start with, although historically musicians and artist have been highly involved in politics, I am not so sure that this is the case anymore.  The culture industry has evolved into a subservient operation. First it reduced beauty into a commodity and  then utilized it as a propaganda tool. Our (music) festivals are funded by banks and politically oriented cultural institutes.

There is no doubt, for instance,  that Jazz, the voice of the oppressed, has lost touch with its original poignant revolutionary impetus. It has been mostly reduced into emotionless scholarly noise verging on academic masturbation.

While politicians operate within a giving symbolic order, artists question conventions and re-invent symbolism. At present, the domineering aspect of the industry reduces the artist into a propagator of accepted conventions utilizing acceptable symbolism. I rebel against all of it. I prefer to dig and to seek the truth, I don’t claim to know the truth but I love excavating.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcYy1L67S-I

 AG: When it comes to the issue of Palestinian freedom and dignity, three people who can justifiably be called music legends stand out as  artists who have used both their music and their voices to speak out, there is yourself, Roger Waters (Pink Floyd) and Robert Wyatt (Soft Machine). Are these artists different than others who talk about political issues, people who tend to flirt with the establishment for example like Bono?

GA:  First, thank you for considering me a ‘legend.’ Supporting Palestine is no doubt a noble cause. Moreover, since the music industry is largely an extended Jewish syndicate, opposition to the Jewish State is a self-inflicted death sentence. As you would expect, not many reasonable people choose to sentence themselves to death.

Robert Wyatt has been supporting Palestine because he is the most authentic mench around. Waters performed in Israel a few years ago, he witnessed the oppression, he was moved by it. He joined the solidarity movement. My case is a bit different.

I was born in Israel. It took me many years to grasp that Israel was Palestine and I was living on someone else’s land. When I understood this, I immigrated to London where I found that Diaspora Jews who operate politically as Jews (Zionist as well as ‘anti’) are far more obnoxious and even dangerous than Israel is. The Lobby (AIPAC, LFI, CFI, CRIFF) dominates USA, UK and French foreign affairs. It pushes us into wars. Unfortunately,  a similar Jewish lobby dominates the Palestinian solidarity movement and has managed to reduce the Palestinian call for a ‘Right of Return’ into an internal Jewish debate about the ‘Right to BDS’ (Boycott, Divest & Sanction Israeli goods).  I started to ask myself questions relating to Jewish power and the Jewish past. I realised that Palestinians are just the Goyim du jour. If we want to help Palestine, we have to understand that by now we are all Palestinians.

Bono, is an interesting case. I would love to believe that he is a genuine and empathetic human being. But too often his activity somehow coincides with neocon interests, colonial imperialism and mammonism in general. Whether Bono is informed enough or not is beyond me. I have never looked into his case in a scholarly manner.

 

 AG: Have you ever personally feared that your musical career could be harmed because of your philosophical, sociological and political statements even though you’re an ardent advocate of peace and human dignity for all?

GA: Assaults against my artistic activity occur daily. Promoters and presenters of my work are subject to a constant barrage of pressure and even threats. Very rarely they succeed in having a gig of mine cancelled.

However, this is crucial. In Europe there are broad hate speech prohibitions. Despite the endless attempts to silence me, not once have I been questioned by a law enforcement body anywhere around the world about anything I said or wrote.

AG: Imagine you are the child in a secular Jewish/Zionist home. You like listening to Pink Floyd’s records as almost all young people have done since the 1960s. Your parents then tell you not to listen anymore because of Roger Waters’ views on Palestine. What might you feel? Would listening to Roger’s music become an act of youthful rebellion decades after The Dark Side of The Moon and The Wall were recorded?

GA: If Zionism was a promise to make Jews people like all other people, then stopping your children from listening to Pink Floyd guarantees that they won’t be people like other people.

AG: In addition to speaking out against Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, Roger Waters encourages all musicians to boycott Israel. What are your views on this and if you were invited to Israel to perform your music would you go? If you went would you feel that you would be at risk of violence due to your philosophy and statements?

GA: Yesterday in Prague I met two Israeli musicians who used to work with me in the 1980s. We ended up talking about Roger Waters. They weren’t politically oriented people however, they suggested that Waters is on shaky moral ground because Waters mounts pressure on artists to join BDS and boycott Israel. Let me shock you, I am also troubled by that. The fact that Palestinian solidarity activists can’t differentiate between a tomato and a poet or between an avocado and a historian troubles me.  I am an avid advocate of freedom of speech and expression. I want beauty and ideas to travel freely.

Every discourse is a set of boundaries.  I was invited last year to participate in the 30th Red Sea Festival. My personal boundary is that I will not visit the Jewish State or any other state that is set to serve the interest of one race. I vowed not to visit Israel unless it is a state of its citizens and by that I mean that it is Palestine from River to the Sea.

AG: Roger Waters often pens open letters to fellow artists. Here is your opportunity to do the same. What would you write to Roger?

GA:  Dear Roger:

As a hero of humanity and freedom who made the prospect of a bright future into a song, I urge you to distinguish between Athens and Jerusalem. Jerusalem is the city of revelation and commandments, it provides us with a set of laws that define right and wrong. Athens, on the other hand, is the symbol of philosophy, beauty, science and reason.  Activists belong to Jerusalem, philosophers are from Athens. You cannot fight Jerusalem while being a Jerusalemite. Athens is where you belong. Let’s enable people to think for themselves and learn to make ethical judgements. Let us choose Athens rather than setting a different tyranny of correctness.

AG: Roger Waters is now 73. His musical statement has been very much ingrained on the world and that won’t be taken away. If there was a young man of 17 with the musical talents of for example yourself or Roger and the political views of either yourself or Roger, would you advise them to hold their tongue for the sake of their career assuming you were asked with sincerity and respect?

GA: I guess that I pay a price for being outspoken, but I am very happy. I am a free agent. As I said above, I am not an activist, I don’t advise people what to do or what to say, I endeavor to help people form their own thoughts as they move along. The same rule applies to me, my thoughts are shaped and reshaped constantly. For me this is what Being in Time is all about.

 

AG: Gilad, you recently played on Pink Floyd’s ‘final’ record, The Endless River featuring the line-up of David Gilmour, Nick Mason with archived recordings from the late Richard Wright. If you are able to do so, can you disclose if your politics were discussed during the recording sessions given that the elephant in the room would have been the fact that your politics are most similar to the ex-Pink Floyd member Roger Waters who was not on that particular album?

GA: We didn’t touch upon politics, we were there for music. What fascinated me was that I initially experimented with my tenor sax. It wasn’t easy, I am not the ideal Pink Floyd saxophonist. Then I went into the control room and told David Gilmour and Phil Manzanera that in my mind, I  heard something completely different—a Turkish clarinet. I played one take, there was silence. David said that it was beautiful but totally foreign to Pink Floyd’s sound.  I agreed, he was correct. But I told him that this was what I heard. I didn’t think that my clarinet would make it into the Album, but it did. The explanation is simple: through art, beauty reveals  itself as an authenticity.

 

 AG: Do you think condemnation of artists like yourself, Roger Waters, Robert Wyatt and others from the Israel lobby has any negative effect on how your music is perceived and enjoyed? On the contrary does it have a positive effect or is it immaterial to most music lovers?

 GA: If anything, the attacks provide humanity with a glimpse into the vindictiveness that is unfortunately embedded in Jewish Identity politics, both Zionist and anti. My response; the more they attack, the faster and louder I play. Still, there is something I fail to understand. If the lobby is upset by my criticism of Jewish Identity politics, all they have to do is make sure that the saxophone is constantly shoved into my mouth. They should insure that I play 24/7, they should book my gigs rather than try to cancel them.

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

Athens versus Jerusalem-a book review by Taxi (Plato’s Guns)

June 24, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

GA: The following is an incredibly clever book review by one of my favourite political commentators. Taxi  sees in  Being in Time an expose of  the ‘Athens vs. Jerusalem struggle.’ Taxi is  absolutely right – this is a battle  for our survival. It is far from being an easy one, We are both infiltrated and run over.

PLATO’S GUNS

Athens versus Jerusalem

by Taxi

https://platosguns.com/2017/06/24/athens-versus-jerusalem/

A review of ‘Being in Time: A Post-Political Manifesto’ – by Gilad Atzmon/Skyscraper Publication

First, I must make stern objection to the subtitle of this book: “A Post-Political Manifesto“.  No, dearest reader, this is no manifesto at all.  A manifesto is usually instructive and Atzmon’s book is actually reflective.  A manifesto is imbibed with strict political dogma, whereas Atzmon’s book is charged with a free-flowing, philosophical energy.  The book is, in fact, an astute and remarkable comment on the metaphysics of our current political condition: using the age-old blueprint of Athens versus Jerusalem to unravel the dark and twisted marvels of our current political dystopia.

For over two thousand years, a war between rationalist Athens and messianic Jerusalem has ensued, but not to clear conclusion.  For several millennia, this epic war has vacillated and the victor’s scales have tipped hither in one era and dither in another.  The war between Athens and Jerusalem continues relentlessly into our present day, and this side of the 21st century, it is cultural philosopher and Jazz artist, Gilad Atzmon, who now updates us on this epic and raging battle where each side is struggling to occupy the very perception of humanity itself.  Both sides claim to be the saviors of mankind; and currently, the Jerusalem school of thought is leading, but only because its agents have successfully infiltrated to the core, the elite leadership and governments of the Western world.

 

Simultaneously, Athens is presently having its victories too, as evidenced by the growing popularity of Atzmon’s elegant Athenian book – a rare publishing phenomenon in itself indeed, indicating a growing market hungry for Athenian thought.  Moreover, this current Athenian awakening can also be measured by recent polls, and by the palpable bulging of an eclectic population on Social Media, unified in expressing its disgust, distrust and utter rejection of Jerusalemite rule.  You could say that the various chattering masses are currently seeking the humanism and order that Athens promises because they are so very dissatisfied and disillusioned by what Jerusalem has delivered them: division, intolerance, senseless wars and hopeless human misery with no end.

One observes that since the controversial establishment of the State of Israel, the Jerusalem school has had an accelerated progress.  Inside of 70 years, Jerusalemites, with feverish dedication have successfully installed their peculiar brand of anarchy through the aggressive spread of divisive Identitarian Politics, tyrannical Political Correctness, ruinous Predatory Economics, vampirical Controlled Opposition, as well as a most lethal form of warmongering Jewish Power – all simultaneously and insidiously injected into Western societies.  Jerusalem has evidently delivered us nothing but endless warfare overseas and palpable instability and dystopia in our Western societies.  It has brought us a non-humanistic world.  It has given us a lowering of citizen morale and an increase in barbaric immorality where might over right is normalized.  Jerusalem has steeped us in an absurd environment where decadent perversions are permitted, but freedom of speech is curtailed.  A world where freedom of thought is punished instead of promoted.

In the philosophical arena, Athens represents Truth and Jerusalem: the Dream.  Both appeal to the human condition but clearly, one is more grounded in reality than the other.  Today we witness how Jerusalem’s promised Dream (of the messiah) has delivered us a convoluted and godless nightmare.  It is the very sinews of this nightmare that Being In Time so meticulously and courageously explores, illuminating and dissecting the elite powers that be and the diabolical machinations behind our current socio-political catastrophe.

Atzmon’s book takes us on a most unique philosophical journey, deconstructing this ongoing nightmare with fascinating insight and intellectual rectitude and rigor.  His gripping chapters are impressively substantive: dissecting each of Jerusalem’s current Jew-centric poison tentacles with astounding clarity and moral cognizance.  Making sense of the maddening world we live in is what Atzmon’s book so assuredly delivers.  His thoughtful deliberations on Identity Politics and other Jerusalemite maladies are stunningly profound in their clarity and logic: simple, indisputable logic.  No other contemporary philosopher or political writer has ever so successfully exposed the most vital of Jerusalem’s grotesque operators: their uniquely deceptive Controlled Opposition agents.  For this alone, Atzmon’s book must be read.  All efforts at liberation from Jerusalem are lost without knowledge and understanding of the duplicitous nature and aims of Jerusalem’s Controlled Opposition.  Without the skulduggery of the Controlled Opposition, Jerusalem cannot advance from within; cannot lasso the support of the blindsided masses.  Controlled Opposition IS the enemy within, the most dangerous of all enemies.  Atzmon exposes the very character and workings of these Controlled Opposition agents: using insider knowledge, facts, and a sprinkle of his own brand of wry wit.

Truly, there are too many important chapters in Atzmon’s book to break down here one by one, but I sincerely urge people seeking a humanistic and truth-based world to read this incredible book: an important document on the contemporary moralities of our current political zeitgeist; a book written by a devout Athenian philosopher glued to the mathematics of reality and to the stellar principles of humanism.

And with such rich knowledge in hand, can change be that far behind?

 Gilad’s Being in Time can be ordered on Amazon.co.uk  & Amazon.com  and on Gilad’s site  here.

Who is afraid of Gilad Atzmon?

June 12, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

Adam Garrie is one of the most sophisticated scholarly minds around. We discussed censorship, identity politics, social cohesion, Left tyranny,  the crisis of the post-modern west. We tried to figure out what being in time  is all about. If you want to see me challenged, here is your opportunity…

https://youtu.be/mmL-f020mlY

Karl Sabbagh & Gilad Atzmon discuss Being in Time

June 07, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

In this short exchange Gilad Atzmon elaborates on Being in Time, the meaning of Athens vs. Jerusalem, Tyranny of Correctness, ID politics, the New Left, Corbyn, Trump and Sanders, Utopia being Nostalgia, Jewish Elite, Jewish survival tactics, White Identity and more…(London book launch, Maramia Cafe, 5/6/2017)

https://youtu.be/PU4XmgJNifw

Being and Politics – a Left oriented critical review by Kim Petersen

June 07, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

Introduction by GA: The following is a Left oriented critical review of Being in Time by Kim Petersen (Dissident Voice). I would like to thank Kim for his eloquent approach. However, in Being in Time I obviously refrain from following the orthodox definitions of Left and Right. I actually insist that Left and Right are not what they seem to appear or represent but instead are a mirroring of the human condition: a dialectical interplay between the dream and the real (or shall we say being and becoming).  Petersen writes in the end of his review, “it would be fruitful if the book erected a promising structure, rather than simply tear down structures with little left standing.” This point must be addressed. While activists tend to know who is right and what is wrong, I see myself as a philosopher. My task is to refine questions rather than produce answers.  I leave the domain of  ‘promising structures’ of the Jerusalemites.  I am, by far more excited by the Athenian approach, namely thinking things through. For me to teach, is to teach other to think for themselves. 

The book can be ordered on Amazon.co.uk  & Amazon.com  and on Gilad's site  here. 

The book can be ordered on Amazon.co.uk & Amazon.com and on Gilad’s site here.

Being and Politics by Kim Petersen

http://dissidentvoice.org/

Gilad Atzmon has a new book just out titled Being in Time: A Post-Political Manifesto. The title probably is influenced from a book, Being and Time, written by the German philosopher Martin Heidegger.

Atzmon has put forward his manifesto that attempts to synthesize various political, cultural, psychological, linguistic strands to explain why the western world finds itself in its current state of unfettered capitalism, crushed communism, the continuing Jewish occupation of and oppression in Palestine, supremacism, the West fighting Israel’s wars, and the discourse being manipulated (even within purportedly independent media).

In Being in Time, Atzmon pulls on many threads, including sexuality, psychoanalysis, the Frankfurt school, cultural Marxism, cognitive partitioning, political correctness, language, identity politics, leftism, rightism, and more.

Identity Politics

I continue to dissent from how Atzmon characterizes the Left, which he divides into the Old and New Left. Fine, there are divisions in the Left. There are certain core principles that leftists adhere to: pro-human rights for all humans, accepting of diversity, anti-war, pro-worker, anti-exploitation, etc. But what must also be realized is that many persons may pose as Left but are not leftist in orientation. People who do not embrace core leftist principles are not leftist, they are faux-leftists. To criticize the entirety of the Left because a fifth column has undermined a segment of the Left speaks to the level of infiltration, the gullibility of certain leftists, or the fragility of social conviction among some leftists.

The Left is not a monolith, and neither is the Right a monolith. Hence any criticism leveled at the entirety of a political orientation is only valid when the entirety of a political orientation espouses an identical platform.

Atzmon considers that identity politics characterizes liberalism and progressivism. (p 8) He names, for example, LGBTQ, feminists, Latinos, Blacks, and Jews as forming exclusive political alliances. However, a major plank of the Left is solidarity as it is widely understood that to bring about some greater form of socialism the masses must unite. Ergo, strict allegiance to identity politics is contrary to leftist principles. Atzmon further notes that patriotism is secondary among leftists. Jingoistic nationalism is an enemy of the working class, and it is certainly anathema to anarchists. Therefore, insofar as patriotic sentiment prejudices one’s attachment with wider humanity, it serves to divide rather than unite peoples.

Yet rightists also engage in identity politics as Whites, militarists, religious sects, and anti-abortionists attest. In the case of the US politics, Amanda Marcotte of Salon writes, “Democrats are always accused of playing ‘identity politics.’ The reality is that Republicans do it far more.”

Left-Right

I wonder what exactly Atzmon means by post-politics. I assume this refers to the “fatigue” he points to in the Brexit vote and election of Donald Trump, as well as the discarding of Left and Right politics.

He sees Left and Right as “now indistinguishable and irrelevant.” (p 9)

According to Atzmon, the Left is focused on “what could be” and the Right on “what is.” (p 13) Atzmon argues, “The Right does not aim to change human social reality but rather to celebrate, and even to maximize it.” (p 13)

But the Right has engineered this “social reality” through neoliberalism, imperialism, and militaristic violence, and the only ones really benefiting from this so-called maximization are the capitalist class. That the Democratic Party in the US, the Labour Party in the UK, the Liberal Party in Canada are in step with this engineering of “social reality” adduces that they are rightist parties.

“The Left,” continues Atzmon, “yearns for equality, but for the Right, the human condition is diverse and multi-layered, with equality not just tolerated but accepted as part of the human condition, a natural part of our social, spiritual and material world.” (p 13)

The imprecision of what constitutes a chunk of Atzmon’s manifesto is annoying. The Left “yearns”? This might be written in a less biased manner as a “desire.” But it is not simply a desire for an undefined “equality.” The Left calls for an equality of conditions, opportunities, and access to resources. Why not? Should an inequality of conditions, opportunities, and access to resources be accepted? Should one class of people be accorded privileges over the rest of humanity? Is this not supremacism – which Atzmon deplores? And for most of the Left – most (and for anarchists, likeliest all), respect for diversity is a valued principle. Diversity is recognized by the Right, specifically, pecuniary diversity. But American society historically has been considered a melting pot rather than a celebration of diversity.

Atzmon sets up the parameters for discussion,such that the “post-political” author can diss both Left and Right. He does not discuss in the Left-Right context as to what constitutes “the human condition” and whether the rightist perspective is indeed “a natural part of our social, spiritual and material world.” I find such a statement ahistorical. The economist Karl Polanyi presented a compelling historical perspective in his book The Great Transformation that elucidates how communitarian human society was changed.

Atzmon writes, “For the Right ideologue, it is the ‘will to survive’ and even to attain power that makes social interactions exciting.” (p 13) The sentence strikes this reader as platitudinal. There is no example or substantiation provided. Which ideologue from whatever corner of the political continuum does not have a will to survive or seek exciting interactions?

Atzmon sums up the Left-Right schism as “the tension between equality and reality.” (p 13) If one cannot accept the definitions, and if the premises are faulty, then the logical structure collapses.

One flips the page and the Left is described as dreamy, illusory, unreal, phantasmal, utopian; thus, it did not appeal to the working class. Atzmon asserts, “Social justice, equality and even revolution may really be nothing but the addictive rush of effecting change and this is perhaps why hard-core Leftist agitators often find it difficult to wake from their social fantasy. They simply refuse to admit that reality has slipped from their grasp, preferring to remain in their phantasmal universe, shielded by ghetto walls built of archaic terminology and political correctness.” (p 14-15)

Atzmon is also abusive of the Right, seeing the Right ideologue as mired in biological determinism. (p 17)

Atzmon says he wants to push past political ideology. I am unaware of his professing any political leaning, so I guess he is, in a sense, already post-political. This strikes me as illusory since in western “democracies” the corporations still pull the strings of their politicians.

Atzmon applies the noun democracy recklessly. Without defining what is a democracy, through using the word (as so many people do), he inadvertently reifies something that does not exist in any meaningful sense.

Atzmon writes darkly, “Symptomatic of the liberal democratic era was the belief that people could alter their circumstances.” (p 19) Yet contemporary politicians still play on that sentiment, witness Barack Obama in the US and Justin Trudeau in Canada whose political campaigns appealed to such a belief. Does Atzmon think people cannot alter their circumstances?

Atzmon points to how the Labour Party under Blair became a neoliberal, warmongering party. He concludes, “The difference between Left and Right had become meaningless?” (p 24) I would describe this as the Left (to the extent the Labour Party was genuinely Left) being co-opted and disappeared by the Right — a political coup.

Atzmon says the political -isms and free markets are empty. He does not specifically target anarch-ism, however. Besides mentioning anarchist professor Noam Chomsky, one supposes anarchism is too fringe for Atzmon, but also it is beyond much of the criticism he levels at the Left. And as for the notion of a “free market,” there never has been one. Polanyi wrote in The Great Transformation: “The road to the free market was opened and kept open by an enormous increase in continuous, centrally organized and controlled interventionism.” (p 146)

Why has the genuine Left never attained power and brought its vision to fruition? Rampant capitalism has allowed 1% to profit grotesquely relative to the 99%. The 1%-ers have the money and the power that money buys: media, corporations, resources, and government. With the government controlled by the 1%-ers that puts the state security apparatus also under their control – and paid for the 99%-ers (because the rich all too often escape paying tax) to keep them in place. The police and military is, in essence, socialism exploited to protect capitalism. The few countries that have brought about Communism (Cuba, China, USSR, Viet Nam, etc) have found themselves under incessant militaristic and economic threat from capitalists who fear the example of successful socialism. This is missing from Atzmon’s analysis.

Atzmon even proposes that socialism can also be considered greedy because “… it promises that neither you nor anyone else will possess more than I.” (p 25) Really? Where is this stated and by who? Anarchist economics does not propose such a premise.1

Political correctness

Political correctness (PC). What is it? Atzmon calls it “a tyrannical project. The attempted elimination of essentialism, categorization and generalization… in opposition to human nature.” (p 38) Basically, it is the avoidance of language that stigmatizes other groups. Who wants to be stigmatized? Nobody. I can agree that PC has been pushed to extremes. PC also does not distinguish between intention and denotation. Should it? I confess when younger that I, close friends, and colleagues would call each other “gay.” It was actually a term of affection we used for each other. No negative sentiments were felt toward any sexual orientations; in fact, many of us were frequently in the company of LGBTQ. But we were not PC.

Atzmon finds that self-censorship is an outcome of PC: “Initially we don’t say what we think; eventually we learn to say what we don’t think.” (p 39) Perhaps. But sometimes it is better to bite one’s tongue and say nothing. I prefer to think of PC having encouraged a more respectful discourse, but PC should be criticized when it becomes excessive. There are plenty of non-PC examples among those who affiliate with the PC crowd, such as denigrating people who demonstrate for Palestinian human rights as “anti-Semites” – probably the most abused anti-PC term. PC becomes a tool of indoctrination when not practiced with equanimity and sincerity.

Is PC a freedom of speech issue? In some cases, yes. For instance, why is it okay to label someone a “holocaust denier” when questioning the veracity of certain aspects of WWII history? No serious person denies that Jews were among those targeted by Nazis; and no serious person denies that Jews were among those people transported to and having died in concentration camps.

An inordinate focus on PC can be vexing; there are much bigger issues in the world than a focus on whether to call a female “girl” or “woman.” It seems simple enough to raise awareness of inappropriate use of language. Most people will come around to a polite request to avoid words that may offend.

Miscellania

Being in Time finally begins to hit its stride when focusing on manipulations to grab and maintain power. The author is unafraid to point a finger and criticize identitarian groupings that create and exploit divisions.2 The stride is bumpy though, as Atzmon discusses sexuality, LGBTQ, feminism, Left abandonment of the working class, psychoanalysis and the scientific method, Athens and Jerusalem, severe criticism of Marxism, etc. The depth and breadth of the manifesto is beyond a book review.

The scope of Being in Time even looks at a 1970’s sitcom, All in the Family, which Atzmon sees as having “succeeded in pushing the liberal agenda into every American living room.” (p 109) Atzmon calls it a “sophisticated” “cultural manipulation.” (p 110)

Atzmon sees Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign as an institutional failure “embedded in progressive and liberal thought.” (p 120) Describing the ardent neoliberal Clinton or her supporters as liberal or progressive is classic mislabeling.

Atzmon is razor sharp when discussing aspects of Jewishness and what the different aspects mean for being a Jew. However, when discussing the political spectrum, political ideology, and society, his definitions too often seem contrived to support his thesis.

In the final pages of Being in Time, Atzmon speaks from deep familiarity with the subject matter: capitalism, Mammonism, and tribalism. With a closing flourish, Atzmon poignantly dares to ask, “And isn’t it correctness, pure and simple, that stops us from mentioning that the protagonist [in George Orwell’s novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, Brotherhood leader Emmanuel] Goldstein is, himself, Jewish?” (p 208)

Final Comments

In the typical human perspective, Being proceeds in a linear fashion. But from a cultural, historical, linguistic, ethical, scientific perspective Being is clearly multi-faceted and not confined to linearity. Atzmon is fully aware of this, nonetheless his Being in Time tackles myriad issues in a rather binary fashion.

There are arguments presented in the book that I diverge from, but Being in Time presents points of view that deserve contemplation and a threshing out. Over all, it is a manifesto that I find unrefined; in dire need of definitions that are substantiated, not merely asserted; and (although I believe Atzmon would state this was beyond his remit) it would be fruitful if the book erected a promising structure, rather than simply tear down structures with little left standing. Being in Time comes across as an interesting foray to understanding and twining politics, power, and ontology that deserves deeper development. A dialectical approach might be most illuminating.

Alas, politics is not yet dead.

The Dream of a better world is not yet dead either. But one day the Dream must end because the Dream must be made a Reality. That is my simplistic two-sentence manifesto.

Israel/Palestine – Has Peace Prevailed?

June 06, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

Image result for Alan Dershowitz, giladWhat is it about me that attracts these Jewish diaspora lowlifes? My arch AZZ* detractor, Tony Greenstein, has a well-earned criminal record forever attached to his name, Alan Dershowitz, so desperate to smear the professors who endorsed my work, was with notorious paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, implicated in underage sex and Anthony Dennison, of the North West Friends of Israel, the Zionist extremist group that terrorized the Northern College music school last year, is a convicted hooligan.

Now, it may be, that being something of a felon actually adds to one’s Jewish reputation – this might explain why both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump married their daughters to sons of Jewish convicted criminals.

Still, with all those villains around, life never gets boring.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P32NSpuvKz4

Harvey Garfield, Jewish, ethnic activist of the Zionist extremist Sussex Friends of Israel, and another lowlife, also hopes to sabotage my music career. Garfield, apparently, likes to send letters to harass those who promote my music and my writing – and believe it or not, this Zionist merchant uses none other than Ali Abunimah to support his argument (see letter below) .

But this may be a positive development. While the news from Palestine seem to be evermore grim and depressing and reconciliation seems further away than ever, behind the scenes peace has prevailed. Because for staunch Zionist Garfield, it is Palestinian solidarity activist Ali Abunimah who is the highest authority – at least, that is, when it comes to Gilad Atzmon.

Garfield asks promoters to “not forward or otherwise distribute” his communication outside the immediate management of their venues.  Why is this? I can think of three reasons:

1. Garfield is an anti BDS campaigner. He claims to promote freedom of thought. The fact that he himself is caught trying to stifle this freedom, though entirely consistent with his non-ethical Zionist mind-set, could still be pretty embarrassing.

2. Garfield is just plain lazy and it’s easier simply to copy and paste the same email over and over again.

3.  Garfield, a rabid Zionist activist actually pretends to operate as a ‘pro Palestinian’ humanist supportercirculating Ali Abunimah’s ‘text.’ Why does Garfield feel comfortable with Abunimah’s text? Because it wasn’t written by a Palestinian. It was actually written by a Jewish anti Zionist Zionist. Abunimah actually admitted to professor  Norton Mezvinsky, at the time, that he has never read a single text by me and was completely unfamiliar with my ideas!

I see it as my duty to distribute Garfield’s ‘communication’ and let everyone enjoy the emerging harmonious bond between Britain’s most extreme Zionists and the man whose great achievement to date was reducing the Intifada into a Zionist-friendly electronic noticeboard.

 

Email;

Private and Confidential

I understand you are due to host a gig featuring Gilad Atzmon.No doubt you are unaware that Atzmon is a self identified antisemite and Holocaust denier.I attach several links to that effect as follows

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/palestinian-writers-activists-disavow-racism-anti-semitism-gilad-atzmon

Extract

Palestinian writers, activists disavow racism, anti-Semitism of Gilad Atzmon

Ali Abunimah13 March 2012

Granting No Quarter: A Call for the Disavowal of the Racism and Antisemitism of Gilad Atzmon

Note: This statement was first published by the US Palestinian Community Network (USPCN) and is authored by all of the undersigned.

For many years now, Gilad Atzmon, a musician born in Israel and currently living in the United Kingdom, has taken on the self-appointed task of defining for the Palestinian movement the nature of our struggle, and the philosophy underpinning it. He has done so through his various blogs and Internet outlets, in speeches, and in articles. He is currently on tour in the United States promoting his most recent book, entitled, The Wandering Who.

With this letter, we call for the disavowal of Atzmon by fellow Palestinian organizers, as well as Palestine solidarity activists, and allies of the Palestinian people, and note the dangers of supporting Atzmon’s political work and writings and providing any platforms for their dissemination. We do so as Palestinian organizers and activists, working across continents, campaigns, and ideological positions.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/25/gilad-atzmon-antisemitism-the-left

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/ukmediawatch.org/2015/03/10/a-brief-intro-to-gilad-atzmons-holocaust-denial-aka-george-galloways-pillow-talk/amp/

I appreciate you were likely unaware of the racist views of Mr Atzmon when taking the booking, but in light of these revelations would ask that you cancel his appearance with immediate effect.

Please do not forward or otherwise distribute this communication outside the immediate management of your venue. 

I look forward to receiving your response. 

Yours sincerely

Harvey Garfield

 

*AZZ-anti Zionist Zionist

Related 

Gilad Atzmon on Richie Allen Show

June 02, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

Richie Allen is one of my favourite interviewers and this interview is, certainly,  one of my most interesting interviews to date.  We cover many aspects of Being in Time: the meaning of the post political condition, tyranny of correctness, ID politics, factuality, objectivism, the truth and its seeking, Jeremy Corbyn Bernie Sanders and the Left illusion,  my contradictions and more…

https://youtu.be/TqlucHfxSBA

Gilad Atzmon Physically Attacked by Antifa

June 01, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

https://youtu.be/Gcxdxtvkf4Y

On May 30th I was attacked from behind by 3 Antifa activists on my way to a literature event in Edinburgh  with political commentator David Scott.  Police was informed and as you can see we posses photos of two of the overwhelmingly enthusiastic ‘anarchists.’

for more background: 

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2017/5/30/radical-zionist-book-burner-more-likely

Radical? Zionist Book Burner More Likely

May 30, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

If Edinburgh is the Athens of the North, it deserves an Athenian bookshop rather than a Jerusalemite crematorium. 

By Gilad Atzmon

For some days now I’ve been feeling a little bored because my new book Being in Time didn’t seem to be attracting any real opposition. My arch-enemy Alan Dershowitz declined calls to disrupt my USA tour which, in fact, was a great success and all-in-all, the launch of the book seemed to be going smoothly, on the verge of going snooze-ly.

But seemingly everything changed. 

Yesterday, on my way to the event in Cluny, Newcastle I learned that the music venue had capitulated to the Zionist lobby’s pressure. Cluny’s manager, Joel Thomson, told me over the phone that they had received two emails and had decided to withdraw. It took a local friend around five minutes to trace a new location. However, when I arrived at The Cluny around 6.30 PM (to divert the traffic to the new location), I ran into some appalling behaviour by staff members and the owner.

But the Cluny wasn’t a big surprise. Two days ahead of our Edinburgh literary event, David Scott and myself received a cancelation email from Mairi, the owner of the Lighthouse ~ Edinburgh’s Radical Bookshop.

Now, before I go on, let me assure you, we are still, as planned, meeting this evening at 7.30PM near the Lighthouse ~ Edinburgh’s Radical Bookshop. From there, we will then walk to a new venue that tolerates intellectual exchange – something contemporary ‘radicals’ seem to struggle with.Mairi

In her email, and later in her official statement, ‘radical’ Mairi tells us all we need to know about the level of her argumentation. It is an insult to the notion of intelligence.

“It was only brought to my attention today that the event would coincide with the beginning of Shavuot,” Mairi writes,  “and as a result many Jewish individuals who might have wanted to attend to challenge Gilad, would not be able to do so. To exclude members of the Jewish community from a controversial discussion on Jewish identity and politics instinctively felt wrong.”

Impressive, don’t you think?

Leaving aside that my new book doesn’t focus on Jewish ID politics or Judaism per-se, I found myself wondering whether ‘radical’ Mairi would be as insistent on ‘Nazis’ attending a literary event that was critical of Adolf Hitler and his ideas. Would ‘radical’ Mairi similarly insist on inviting Isis enthusiasts to events that were critical of the Islamic State? Or is it only Jewish sensitivities that concern ‘radical’ Mairi?

My guess is that this most ‘radical’ owner of this most ‘radical’ bookshop must adhere to the most extreme form of Zionist privilege – something of a happy coincidence since my new book, Being in Time actually identifies the roots of this exact same Zionist bent at the very core of New Left ‘radical’ thought.

 “Gilad”, she writes in her email,  “although I do not believe that you are a hate speaker, I have no doubt that in affiliating yourself with some far right speakers who are openly holocaust deniers, you have undermined your ability to engage in a productive debate about current politics.”

You know, you’d think that the owner of a radical political bookstore would know that in the real world there are no Holocaust deniers: no one with half a brain has ever denied  that Hitler opposed the Jews and wanted them out of Germany and Europe. No one has ever denied that Jews suffered hugely under Nazi occupation and no one denies that Jews, because of the Holocaust, succeeded in stealing Palestine. 

Some people, however, do indeed question the technicality, practicality, factuality and the meaning of Hitler’s anti-Jewish measures. Zionists often refer to these people as Holocaust deniers’ but in practice, the intellectual field in which those ‘deniers’ are submerged is  historical revisionism.

I am proud that I have argued forcefully in support of revisionism. I argue that if history is the attempt to narrate the past as we move along, then making history into a meaningful adventure must entail re-visiting, re-writing and, in practice, revising the past. True history, therefore, is always a revisionist adventure. This applies not just to the Holocaust but to every single event in the past including slavery, the Nakba, the Holodomor and so on.  Unlike ‘radical’ Mairi I oppose the Holocaust being reduced to a religion. If the Holocaust is our new Western religion then I for one insist upon being an atheist! 

Marie adds

“I believe that your views lend credibility to far-right anti-semitic groups even if you do not consider yourself an antisemite.”

But my writing and my thoughts are published and endorsed by many of the most respected intellectuals and humanists  along the entire political spectrum. Being in Time’ is, as it says on the cover, a post-political manifesto. It suggests that the political dichotomy between Left and Right is dated, meaningless and irrelevant and in my universe, thinkers are divided by the merits of their arguments and not by their left/right political affiliations. I don’t ‘denounce’ people as some leftists insist I should. I engage in scholarly dialogue with  people of all political persuasions and if I don’t agree with someone, I do not denounce, I criticise. For me, humanity is that which crosses the divide rather than hiding behind ghetto walls.

But it gets worse. Mairi also claims to have been harassed by people who support my work. But the cancelation of the event was posted on the bookshop’s site on Saturday night when the shop was closed. There was no reason for anyone to assume that our event was cancelled, or about to be cancelled. Moreover, in my entire career, neither myself nor any of my followers have ever been associated with a single violent or unsavoury incident to do with my work. So Mairi is lying and this shouldn’t take us by surprise. Within Left circles, lying for the ‘cause’ is an entirely kosher procedure. Again, this tendency is studied closely in ‘Being in Time.’

But to be fair to Mairi, she was indeed subjected to some intense pressure – but the pressure came, not from any supporter of mine, but from the notoriously tyrannical Mick Napier.  Napier opposes anyone who points out the obvious fact that if Israel defines itself as the ‘Jewish state,’ then we’d better ask ourselves what the ‘J word’ stands for. It is so for years, the ever-marginal Napier and his miniature SPSC, have been desperate to disrupt my events in Scotland (music as well as intellectual) – and, of course, always in the name of ‘Palestinian solidarity’.

It is almost funny the way Napier campaigns for free speech on Israel whilst working 24/7 suppressing free speech here – especially if it should focus on Jewish power. Who really is he working for? Again, ‘Being in Time’ offers a theoretical foundation to help us to grasp this type of activity and all other forms of controlled opposition.

So what do ‘radicals’ like Mairi and Mick Napier mean by ‘free discourse’? Our ‘radical’ bookshop owner offers an answer:

“We are a platform for open discourse, but I intend to give a platform to speakers I support who might not otherwise have a venue, that is my choice and my right.”  So, ‘radicals’ allow free speech – but only to those with whom they agree.

This is not exactly a plan for popular resistance, more a guide to ghetto building. But at least we now know why the revolution never happened.

And finally, if you’re wondering what is it that has, within Left and radical circles, led to such intellectual regression and how come a radical bookshop so easily transforms itself into a book-burning pyre?  Again, my new book provides the answer. It is the suppression of Athens and the invasive power of Jerusalem that has murdered Left tolerance and all revolutionary thinking.

 If Edinburgh is the Athens of the North, it deserves an Athenian bookshop rather than a Jerusalemite crematorium. 

The book can be ordered on Amazon.co.uk  & Amazon.com The book is now available here. 

The book can be ordered on Amazon.co.uk  & Amazon.com

The book is now available here.

%d bloggers like this: