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.

First Amendment

May 28, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Eve Mykytyn

Partially in response to the polarizing presidency of Mr. Trump, and also, I think, in response to a desire to reach the “right” results, there has been an increasing tendency in the United States to try and limit free speech.  In earlier generations, the left was more in favour of free speech and the right was more willing to suppress it (eg, the flag burning and pornography cases).

Now this seems to be a tactic favoured by many without regard to political affiliation, although of course, the speech they would choose to suppress may be quite different. Two recent examples come to mind, the treatment of demonstrators at Trump rallies and the treatment of Charles Murray at Middlebury College. Why listen and engage when you can simply attribute words to the other side and then oppose them?

The edges of free speech have always been difficult, that is, commercial speech limitations (for instance commercial false advertising or ‘news’ articles that are really advertisements) or free speech that includes or directly incites prohibited actions (throwing a bottle at a policeman conveys speech, but is still prohibited).  But the opposition to free expression I’m trying to get at here is not a within such difficult categories.

My brilliant young friend, who has a PhD in physics, challenged me, “I am outcome driven,” she said. “I don’t want people to preach against vaccines when the outcome may be that children die.” I tend to agree with her about vaccines, but I would not attempt to silence those who disagree.

First. I would have no idea what would be a reasonable way to prohibit speech I don’t like. Should the police track down these people and arrest them? Do our jails need more prisoners who have committed a nonviolent crime? Should we hold internet sites responsible for all speech? This seems to lead inevitably into a discussion of anonymity and government intrusion.

Second.  Who should determine what is ok speech?  The government? Trump? Obama? The FBI? The NSA? Scientists? Or only scientists who opposed using their gifts to create nuclear weapons?

Third. The outliers are sometimes right. Dr Kevorkian forced this country to consider assisted suicide. He earned the name ‘Dr Death’ from his campaign to use death row prisoners as voluntary experiments for various medical procedures. By any standard he was an odd and unappealing character. But he managed to force us to confront a difficult issue and think about how we wanted to handle it.

The anti vaccine people funded scientific research  into vaccines and potential causes of autism and those studies disproved the link. Just because autism manifests itself around the time children are vaccinated does not mean vaccines cause autism, but it was not an unreasonable hypothesis. And the autism studies partially so-provoked found a surprising link to paternal and maternal age that proved more promising. So even if you disagree with them, they ultimately may have helped push us to forward.

Fourth. No reasonable person likes the idea of name calling or so-called hate speech.The problem is that hate speech is difficult to define, even if we knew how to enforce prohibitions. Can a pink person claim to hate all pink people? In a private conversation? In an e mail? On a sign at a demonstration? On the pink people’s website? On his own website? What if the pink person is criticizing other pink people in an attempt to improve them?  Do the same rules apply when a purple person criticizes pink people? Does it matter whether purple or pink people constitute the dominant culture?

This is not purely theoretical. The US government and New York State (among others) have, at various times, tried to prohibit speech against Israel as anti Semitic. (They did this by prohibiting state funding or business with any group thatadvocated boycotting Israel saying that such advocacy was “abusing Jewish students.”) Like many, but perhaps not most Americans, I do not see the two as the same. Israel is a foreign country and Jews are an ethnic group in the United States and elsewhere. In this case, by trying to prohibit constitutionally protected hate speech, New York is clearly denouncing political speech as well. And it does prompt the question, do we now attempt to stop ‘hate’ speech against all groups?  Why this group?

In the Netherlands, a country that attempts to limit ‘hate’ speech, Siegfried Verbeke was convicted for simply publishing Robert Faurisson’s 1978 work questioning the authenticity of the Diary of Anne Frank. The court stated that, “By raising doubts as to the authenticity of the diary within the context of REVISIONISM …the brochure far exceeds the limits of what is acceptable within the framework of freedom of expression.” The court did not dispute the truth of the research, the legal problem was the context of hate.

And how can it be otherwise? Speech occurs within a context, and often that context includes advocating a political position. This is different than a clerk who insists she is exercising her freedom by refusing to grant marriage licenses to gay people or election officials who try to make it difficult for Blacks to vote. The clerk and the election officials are free to say what they want (so long as what they say does not impede the ability of others trying to exercise their rights), but they are obliged to obey the laws whether they like them or not, as we all are.

I would hope that ‘the marketplace of ideas’ would ultimately serve to help us discard ideas that are dangerous or wrong. If not, to the extent that we are a democracy, we have agreed to live with the decisions of the majority BUT with the most important of protections, the bill of rights. It is worth reminding ourselves that the bill of rights was specifically designed to protect minorities from the will of majorities. There is a reason freedom of speech appears in the first amendment. There are limits to the extent we are allowed to police each other.

Americans are blessed that we have a first amendment. Although it has been imperfectly and sporadically protected, it is there at least as an aspiration.

“But at least let us have no more nonsense about defending liberty against Fascism. If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”  George Orwell, in his brilliant proposed preface to Animal Farm. Sadly, usually omitted from the book.

http://orwell.ru/library/novels/Animal_Farm/english/efp_go

Being in Time reviewed by June Terpstra

May 21, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

https://www.opednews.com/

Firmly rooted in the Western intellectual tradition, Gilad Atzmon’s “Being In Time” opens doors to shed light on the particular ideological constructs that influenced the schools and movements of left and right political wings that have produced a world in poverty and war, offering a matrix of controlled opposition embedded in modern, Jewish, secular politics to distract and destroy from within. Atzmon’s analysis, written like an intellectual jazz composition, celebrates Athenian philosophical calls to reason while urging the unpacking of political ideology to reveal the con-game being played to keep power in the hands of those who already have it.

In the first half of the book Atzmon offers a brilliant decoding of left and right wings of the Imperial Houses of Domination. On the left, he gives the reader Marx, Adorno, and the Frankenfurters defending principles of utopianism and what ought to be. To the right, are Breitbart, Murry and Hernnstein, playing Johnny one note for conserving the structures of power in hopes to hold on to their piece of that pie. Atzmon suggests that, “instead of looking at the world through the lens of the Right/Left dichotomy, or a particular ideological perspective, it will be more instructive to impose a meta-ideological method that juxtaposes ‘the humane’ i.e. the human condition and the political spectrum as a whole. Instead of imposing any particular ideology, be it Right, Left, Marxism, Capitalism, Liberalism, Fascism and so on I want to examine the relationship between a political system and the human condition.”

Atzmon engagingly utilizes the controversial Bell Curve of the Right Wing to show how a Jewish “cognitive elite” attempted to separate itself from the rest of society’s “unchosen” through selective breeding conflating genetic determination with heritability to fit what scientists call a power distribution so that a small group of exceptional performers overtake the rest. Atzmon poses that rather than increasing the performance of cognitive elites, the ideology of the curve has actually been constraining how all people perform.

A Return to Athens

In the post-political neighbourhood in which we live, much of humanity has been reduced to serving the interests of big money, mammon and oligarchy, with Left and Right, those two familiar poles of politics as we have always understood them to be, now indistinguishable and irrelevant. The freedom to think openly and speak clearly are but nostalgic concepts. Our Western Liberal Utopia has turned into an Orwellian dystopia. Gilad Atzmon

Atzmon, taking philosopher, Pierre Hadot’s advice, models the determinate individual separating himself from the All, be they Left or Right, by adding a difference which, as Plotinus says, is a negation. The best life depends upon becoming one’s true self via the intellect, which means to step away from identity politics, which teaches us to identify ourselves by our victimhood and oppressions in a competition for least powerful giving us an excuse not to act.

“Being in Time” is a peripatetic walk, from the man who brought us The Wandering Who,through the present post-political narrative. Intendedto make the ideologies driving the narrative available to all, thereby depriving it of its power, the book takes us on path to build moral courage. The chief consideration is how to popularize the walk of “being in time”, and to provide the individual, in a time of general confusion and dissolution, with a living and breathing moral basis for practical life.

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

The book is now available here

“Being in Time”- Gilad Atzmon in LA, May 8, 2017 (video)

May 13, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

The fear of trains, the post political condition and the people/institutions who destroyed the West. I spoke about  the good old Left, the treacherous New Left, the tyranny of correctness, ID nonsense and finally Athens and Jerusalem.

https://youtu.be/x0n0DBhg5uk

To order the Being in Time:

The book can be pre-ordered on Amazon.

The book is now available on my site

Before the talk I improvised with Fritz Heede

Gilad Atzmon on Muhammad and Friends (Nation of Islam)

Being a guest on Munir Muhammad’s TV show is always the highlight of my American tours. We spoke about everything, Israel, Palestine, Jewish power, poverty, Trump and the workless class…

https://youtu.be/oOwjGi3KUgo

To catch Gilad in the USA gilad.co.uk

Emmanuel Macron & the Friends He Made on the Way to Elysée Palace

Darko LazarThe politically correct Pope Francis recently offered his two cents on France’s presidential election. During his flight back to Rome earlier this month, he told reporters that he knew one of the candidates was an extreme far-right conservative, but that he didn’t even know who the other candidate was or “where he came from”.

French Presidential candidate Emanuel Macron

Shortly afterwards, posts started popping up on social media networks, suggesting that the famously astute Jesuit couldn’t possibly be in the dark about Emmanuel Macron.

Perhaps the modern and emancipated pope felt that it wasn’t in his best interest to claim that France’s presidential frontrunner came straight from hell, as details about Macron’s backers and associates continued to shock the public.

“En Marche” or “Move on”?

Macron’s team is a reflection of the politics that the centrist candidate propagates – progressive ideas about multicultural societies, globalism, open borders, welcoming more migrants [cheap labor], and of course, a stronger Brussels.

His right-hand man, Pierre Bergé, who was ‘married’ to the late fashion icon Yves Saint Laurent and inherited his business empire, finances many of the world’s ‘progressive’ battles, longing for the day when religious occasions like Christmas and Easter will simply be referred to as winter and spring ‘holidays’.

Moreover, if statements by Macron guru and Elysée Palace insider Jacques Attali are anything to go by, the French have a rather peculiar future to look forward to.

In a 2014 interview with Italy’s La Repubblica, the French economist, philosopher and sociologist painted a picture of a world in which “human reproduction will be the job of machines”, and where a “surrogate mother can be anyone, even a person in the same family”.

Meanwhile, the head of Macron’s campaign and media tycoon, Bernard Mourad, served as a virtual guarantee that his candidate would enjoy an unprecedented level of positive media coverage.

Mourad, who was born to a Lebanese father and a Moroccan mother of Jewish descent, previously chaired the Altice Media Group, which controls a number of radio and television stations, as well as 60 dailies and magazines, including leading publications like Libération.

With the latter in mind, there is nothing particularly groundbreaking about this candidate or his agenda. As a matter of fact, analysts have pointed to the striking similarities between Macron’s ‘political ideals’ and those outlined by George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, including the name of his En Marche party, which appears to be little more than a translation of Soros’ Move On organization.

The Gulf Connection

Reports claiming that Macron’s campaign received some 30% of its revenue from Arab monarchies in the Persian Gulf were quickly debunked.

The mainstream media could finally claim a victory in the “fake news” war, and justifiably ignore meetings between Macron and members of the Saudi and Qatari royal families.

A March 2016 private encounter between Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed bin Nayef and Macron was deemed unworthy of coverage by the mainstream press.

Equally ‘uninteresting’ was the news that Macron’s signature during his stint as France’s Minister of Economy and Finance approved the sale of 10 billion euros’ worth of arms to Riyadh.

On his watch, in fact, Saudi Arabia became the biggest single destination for French weapons systems. In 2015 alone, French commercial contracts with the Saudis reached a whopping USD 11.5 billion.

Macron’s lucrative links to the Qataris were also ignored.

The favorite in the race for France’s top job also happens to be a member of a small, informal club of Franco-Qatari investors and patrons.

In April 2016, Doha’s envoy to Paris described the 39-year-old as “a friendly, creative and innovative personality… the future is therefore his and I wish to Minister Macron all the successes in the service of his country and the strengthening of the relations of France with the friendly countries.”

And judging by the perks that the Qatari royal family enjoys in France, the Gulf monarchy certainly falls into the category of “friendly countries”.

Aside from purchasing billions of euros worth of trophy assets, ranging from the Champs-Elysees shopping mall to the Lido cabaret, the Qataris have also secured tax breaks in France. The concessions provide the Qatari investors with exemption from taxes on profits made when they eventually put the properties they purchased up for sale.

Similar investments, coming from the chief financiers of Daesh [Arabic acronym for “ISIS” / “ISIL”] and al-Qaeda, have helped to radicalize Muslim communities across France, whose young men were used to fill the ranks of militant groups fighting in Syria.

As such, one of En Marche’s co-founders, Mohamed Saou, who also enjoys close links to radicals in the Muslim Brotherhood, became an easy target for Le Pen’s campaign.

Macron responded in an interview with Beur FM radio, during which he said that Saou “did one or two things that were more… radical…. but he’s a good guy otherwise”.

Behind these good guys and slogans of a multicultural world without borders are very dangerous agendas and policies, laying bare the notion that when it comes to foreign policy, there is clearly little divergence between En Marche and the worldview of George Soros and his empire.

Source: Al-Ahed News

06-05-2017 | 10:14

Update From the East Village Battlefront

Update From the East Village Battlefront

April 29, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

Michael Lesher, Stanley Cohen, Lorcan Otway, Gilad Atzmon, Norton Mezvinsky (left to right)

Michael Lesher, Stanley Cohen, Lorcan Otway, Gilad Atzmon, Norton Mezvinsky (left to right)

Introduction by Gilad Atzmin

Things are warming up in Manhattan East Village ahead of our 30 April Conference at Theatre 80.  Theatre owner Lorcan Otway, keeps holding a firm position: he announced again and again that he won’t surrender to calls for censorship. I spent some time with this heroic, scholarly oriented human being. He deserves every possible support. If it isn’t for me, be there on Sunday at 5PM to support Lorcan and his staunch position on freedom and the 1st Amendment.

Meanwhile The Villager confirms that some Antifas may appear in the scene. Considering the reputation the Antifa bought itself in recent years, this news should be probably interpreted as a form of intimidation.

 However, The Villager also published yesterday a beautiful interview with human rights Lawyer Stanley Cohen who participates in the event. I repost this interview in full. Please share it widely.

‘This is lunacy’: Radical attorney slams protest vs. Theatre 80 political panel

 

By BY LINCOLN ANDERSON

http://thevillager.com/2017/04/28/this-is-lunacy-radical-attorney-on-protest-vs-theatre-80-political-panel/

| Radical attorney Stanley Cohen is a veteran of the East Village’s anarchic squatter battles versus the police. And he proudly notes that his mouth was bloodied for the first time when he was 16 and was crossing the Brooklyn Bridge in an anti-war march.

So the threat by some “antifa” (anti-fascist) protesters to disrupt Sunday evening’s panel discussion at Theatre 80 St. Mark’s isn’t going to stop him from participating, he vowed.

“This is the first time I will cross a picket line,” Cohen told The Villager, “because I believe the picket line is nothing short of a fascist attempt to censor.”

Cohen is one of four panelists who will talk at the event. However, it’s another one of the speakers, Gilad Atzmon — a jazz sax-playing “Holocaust revisionist” and alleged Jewish anti-Semite — who the antifa activists will be protesting against.

“I disagree with Gilad on a lot of things,” Cohen said. “And I will debate Gilad. But I believe the essence of resistance is speech. There are people on that panel that are going to challenge him.”

The event is titled, “The Post-Political Condition: Trump, Brexit, the Middle East…What Next?”

According to a description on Atzmon’s Web site, the panelists will “elaborate on the collapse of identity politics, the crisis within new Left thinking and the future of liberal and progressive thought.”

Cohen, the first scheduled speaker, will hold forth on “The Insular View of the American Left.”

“That’s exactly what this is about,” the attorney said of the planned demonstration. “Identity politics and politically correct is so nonsense.”

For his part, Atzmon will expound on “The Tyranny of Correctness — Deconstructing Identity Politics and Understanding Its Origin.”

Cohen said Atzmon’s views on Israel were clearly shaped by his time serving as medic in the Israel Defense Forces.

“It was a life-changing situation for him,” Cohen said.

“I think his last book drove people nuts: ‘The Wandering Who?’ This is a very intelligent guy.”

Cohen is, frankly, shocked at the attempt to shut down the event.

“This is lunacy,” he said. “This is Theatre 80 St. Mark’s in the East Village.”

Cohen, whose past clients include Hamas and Osama bin Laden’s son-in-law, admits that he, too, like Atzmon, has been branded a self-hating Jew.

As for what he plans to talk about Sunday, Cohen noted, “I am probably going to beat up [Julian] Assange and WikiLeaks in public. I think they’re becoming partisan. Trump is going after him right now because it’s convenient. There is zero chance that Julian Assange or WikiLeaks — which is him — is going to wind up in an American courtroom.”

Bottom line, Cohen said, he won’t be stopped from doing the event.

“I am a purist when it comes to speech and the First Amendment,” he stated. “I am not going to be intimidated from participating in a discussion of the issues in the East Village in 2017.”

Cohen said, however, that he is worried that “Canadian J.D.L.” types will show up and instigate violence, as happened last month at the AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) convention in Washington, D.C. In that incident, members of the Jewish Defense League from north of the border beat up a middle-aged Palestinian teacher.

“I have some friends coming with me to this event,” Cohen said. “They’re Palestinian and they’re women. If anything happens to them, the s— is going to hit the fan — and I’m not talking about violence.”

Legal action, then?

“Absolutely,” he assured. “Absolutely.”

The other two panelists are Michael Lesher, author of “Sexual Abuse, ‘Shonda’ and Concealment in Orthodox Jewish Communities,” who will speak on “Jewish Identity vs. Jewish Religion,” and Professor Norton Mezvinsky, who will discuss “The Quagmire of Current Political Terminology in U.S. Society.”

The discussion, at 80 St. Mark’s Place, will be in two two-hour halves, running from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m., including a one-hour Q & A, and finally an hour-long jazz concert by Atzmon. Suggested admission is $10, according to Atzmon’s Web page.

Horst Mahler: No. 1 German Political Prisoner Now ‘On the Run’

Hat tip to Nahida Izzat, who comments,

“When thoughts are criminalised and when people are thrown in prison for their ideas, we know we live in the DARKEST ages of humanity.”

But maybe not all is dark. According to a report here, Mahler is now out of prison and “on the run.”

Horst Mahler’s checkered career has taken another sharp turn. The 81-year-old neo-Nazi and Holocaust-denier has declared that he is on the run from the judiciary and is now thought to have fled the country.

In a video released on YouTube (and since removed) by the far-rightaffiliated network “Nordland TV,” the lawyer said he would not be following an order to serve his latest prison sentence, and would instead “ask for asylum in a sovereign state that is ready to accept people.”

He called the charges against him “political persecution without legal basis,” and accused Munich’s state prosecutor Manfred Nötzel of attempting to murder him in prison. An associate of Mahler’s told public broadcaster ARD that he was no longer in the country.

Related Video

The Jews and Their Lies and B’nai Brith Canada by Arthur Topham

 

2017 marks the 500 Year Anniversary of the birth of Protestantism and Dr. Martin Luther its Founder. Luther spent much of his active life trying to help the Jews realize the error of their ways and realize that their only salvation was to convert to Christianity.

By the end of his life Luther realized that it was a hopeless task trying to convert the Jew to the religion of Jesus Christ and as he neared his death he published a small booklet with the title as shown in the graphic above.

In Luther’s last Sermon he issued a “Warning Against the Jews.” Some extracts from that Sermon are herein quoted:

“…Besides, ou also have many Jews living in the country, who do much harm… You should know that the Jews blaspheme and violate the name of our Saviour day by day… for that reason you, Milords and men of authority, should not tolerate but expel them. They are our public enemies and incessantly blaspheme our Lord Jesus Christ, they call our Blessed Virgin Mary a harlot and her Holy Son a bastard and to us they give the epithet of changelings and abortions. If they could kill us all, they would gladly do so; in fact, many of them murder Christians, especially those professing to be surgeons and doctors. They know how to deal with medicaments in the manner of the Italians – the Borgias and Medicis – who gave people poison which brought about their death in one hour or in a month.

Therefore deal with them harshly as they do nothing but excruciatingly blaspheme our Lord Jesus Christ, trying to rob us of our lives, our  health, our honour and belongings… For that reason I cannot have patience nor carry on an intercourse with these deliberate blasphemers and violators of our Beloved Saviour.

As a good patriot I wanted to give you this warning for the very last time to deter you from participating in alien sins. You must know I only desire the best for you all, rulers and subjects.” (This Sermon was held at Eisleben, a few days before Luther’s death, February 1546.)

****  ****

Let us now look at an article published on February 21st, 2017 on the website of B’nai Brith Canada the secret Masonic organization created by the Rothschild’s back in the mid-19th Century to act as a front for the Jewish criminal cartel that now controls the governments of all of the nations of the Western world.

[*PLEASE NOTE: DUE TO A COURT ORDER THAT DISALLOWS ME FROM PUBLISHING THE NAME/S OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO LAID THE “HATE CRIME” COMPLAINT AGAINST ME I AM FORCED TO CHANGE THEIR NAME TO “AGENT Z” RATHER THAN SPEAK THE TRUTH ABOUT THEIR IDENTITY. AS WELL I CANNOT POST A LINK TO THE ARTICLE IN QUESTION. EDITOR]

B’nai Brith Canada’s primary purpose is to act as media and judicial bludgeon and work in tandem with the Jewish owned press to lie and slander and vilify and indict all Canadians who attempt to expose their criminal actions be they here in Canada or in Israel or anywhere around the world.

By Aidan Fishman
Campus Advocacy Coordinator
B’nai Brith Canada
February 21, 2017

 

The British Columbia Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from Arthur Topham, who was convicted of promoting hatred against Jewish people in November, 2015.

Through his website, RadicalPress.com, Topham has called for Jews to be forcibly sterilized, claimed that Canada is “controlled by the Zionist Jew lobby,” and described Jewish places of worship as “synagogues of Satan.”

The decision of Justice G. Bruce Butler in B.C. comes as part of a long legal saga spearheaded by AGENT Z, a B’nai Brith Canada member who first reported Topham’s antisemitic screeds to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and then later to the B.C. Hate Crimes Unit.

“I’m pleased with the court’s verdict,” AGENT Z said. “Calling to sterilize an entire ethnic or religious group is not free speech – it’s a crime in Canada, and rightfully so.”

“This is an important victory for tolerance and human rights in Canada,” added Amanda Hohmann, National Director of B’nai Brith’s League for Human Rights.

“In recent years, police and prosecutors have been hesitant to charge individuals with wilful promotion of hatred, perhaps because they fear that the accused will successfully appeal against the charges. This verdict shows that the hate speech sections of the Criminal Code are constitutionally sound and should be utilized whenever necessary.”

Topham’s sentencing is likely to take place in the near future. He faces a maximum of two years in prison, and the forced closure of his hateful website. It is not yet clear if he will appeal the ruling.

****   ****

I have emphasized the LIES that these two Jews are telling here in the article. Fishman is stating that I called for Jews to be forcibly sterilized. Agent Z lies when he states, “Calling to sterilize an entire ethnic or religious group is not free speech – it’s a crime in Canada, and rightfully so.

Here is the TRUTH that these two lying Jews have twisted around and turned inside out and upside down and reinterpreted so as to convince not only the jury that found me guilty on Count One but the general population that it was I who stated those words.

On my website I have a digital copy of the actual book which speaks about “sterilizing an entire ethnic” group. That book is called Germany Must Perish! and it was written by a Jew by the name of Theodore N. Kaufman back in 1941 in the USA.

As I stated in my Introduction to that book,

In 1941 Kaufman’s book was a brilliant piece of Zionist Jew propaganda designed to stir up anti-German hatred in America. Some say that it formed the basis of the infamous “Morgenthau Plan” that was later signed in Quebec, Canada by President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill; one designed to dismember Germany after its defeat and reduce it to the status of “a goat pasture.” It probably remains to this day the foremost example of hate literature ever to have been published and dispensed to the general public.

At the very beginning of the book Kaufman states:

Germany Must Perish!

“This dynamic volume outlines a comprehensive plan for the extinction of the German nation and the total eradication from the earth, of all her people.”

Kaufman then expends about 83 pages vilifying the German nation and accusing it of the most insidious crimes possible. Finally at Page 84 of the 95 page book Chapter 7 appears and it is titled Death to Germany. It is here that we first find mention of the method which Kaufman affirms is the only expedient way in which to deal with German nation. On Page 86 the Jew author states:

There remains now but to determine the best way, the most practical and expeditious manner in which the ultimate penalty must be levied upon the German nation. Quite naturally, massacre and wholesale execution must be ruled out. In addition to being impractical when applied to a population of some seventy million, such methods are inconsistent with the moral obligations and ethical practices of civilization. There remains then but one mode of ridding the world forces of Germanism — and that is to stem the source from which issue those war-lusted souls, by preventing the people of Germany from ever again reproducing their kind. This modern method, known to science as Eugenic Sterilization, is at once practical, humane and thorough. Sterilization has become a byword of science, as the best means of ridding the human race of its misfits: the degenerate, the insane, the hereditary criminal.” [emphasis is mine. A.T.]

Having read this small book through I was determined to somehow bring its existence to the general public and attempt to show people who, in truth, were the real haters in this world. The method I chose to do that was to write a satire of Kaufman’s book and change a few key words so that instead of Germany being the victim it would show Israel as the victim. The satire consisted of quotes found here and there in Kaufman’s original book and the intent of the satire was to show the utter hypocrisy of the Jews in attempting to accuse others of “hate crimes” when it was they themselves who were the actual guilty party calling for the absolute genocide of the whole German nation.

And so we see that the Jew media is continuing along in its same course and doing everything possible via its media and the Jew media in general to promote this false notion that I was calling for the “sterilization” of the whole Jewish population when I wrote my satire and titled it Israel Must Perish!

Throughout the trial in October and November of 2015 the Crown and the presiding Justice continually misrepresented my satire and did everything they could to convince the jury that I had actually written a real book and called it Israel Must Perish! and that in that book I was advocating the total genocide of the Jews. Other than this one satire there was no actual evidence of any of my personal writings that could be misconstrued as being “hateful.”

Now you know what Dr. Martin Luther was talking about 500 years ago when he titled his book “The Jews and Their Lies.” And now you know why B’nai Brith Canada is still carrying on with the same lies that their forebearers were guilty of throughout the past centuries.

****   ****

Gilad Atzmon on Brexit, Trump and New Left duplicity

February 22, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

Hello, World!

أوباما الفاسد والجاحد: الديمقراطية إلهة تمر

Image result for american democracy

 

يناير 12, 2017

ناصر قنديل

– بمعزل عن التباينات في السياسات الداخلية والخارجية بين إدارتي باراك أوباما ودونالد ترامب، وبمعزل عن أي منهما يستوعب أكثر حقائق السياسة الدولية الصاعدة بقوة من حروب العالم والشرق الأوسط خلال ربع قرن من التفرّد الأميركي بحكم العالم، ومَن يستشرف سياسة تنبع من المصالح الحقيقية لأميركا والأميركيين، فإن الرسالة التي يوصلها للعالم تصرّف باراك اوباما وإدارته بوجه فوز ترامب، مضمونها أن الديمقراطية التي خاضت أميركا في عهده وعهود سواه حروباً قتل فيها وتشرد ملايين البشر وأصيبوا بالجراح والعاهات، ودمرت خلالها مئات مليارات الدولارات وأتلفت آلاف السنوات من الذاكرة الإنسانية وتراثها ومعالمها، هي نظام غير صالح للتعبير عن الإرادة الشعبية النزيهة، ففي أميركا نفسها التي تريد تعليم العالم معاني الديمقراطية وخصائصها وميزاتها، يمكن أن يصل مرشح رئاسي ويفوز ويصير رئيس أكبر دولة في العالم، يمسك بمفاتيح حرب نووية مدمّرة، ويكون فوزه ثمرة تلاعب مخابراتي بشبكة المعلومات قامت به دولة أخرى ولعبت بالرأي العام وتحكّمت بخياراته، وأن الرئيس الذي تنتجه الديمقراطية هو ساقط تمسك عليه المخابرات الأجنبية سقطاته وتبتزه بها ليسير كما تريد.

– من دون مناقشة صحة وعدم صحة ادعاءات باراك أوباما وإدارته، يكفي القول إنه مدين بالاعتذار بناء على كلامه هذا عن الانتخابات الأميركية لكل ضحايا الحروب الأميركية، التي لولاها لما كانت الكوارث التي تعيش شعوب ودول تحت وطأتها. فطالما أن الديمقراطية هي هذا النظام البائس، أليست جريمة أن تدفع لتعميمها هذه الفاتورة الباهظة، ما دام الروس يستطيعون التلاعب بالديمقراطية في بلد المنشأ الأشد قوة وتحصيناً وعراقة، فما الذي يمنع أن يتمكّنوا من التلاعب عبر هذا النظام الذي يجلب الساقطين لحكم أي بلد في العالم بالطريقة ذاتها متى شاؤوا؟ وأقل ما يُقال في أوباما إنه فاسد بلا ضمير فقد ورّط العالم بهذه الورطة، وهو غير واثق من أنها تستحق هذه الأثمان، وربما واثق من أن ما يقوم بتصديره هي بضاعة فاسدة منتهية الصلاحية تتسبب بالتسمم لمن يتناولها، ويصير نظام بلا انتخابات وفقاً لوصفة أوباما أشد حصانة ضد التدخلات، وأكثر ضمانة للحصانة بوجهها، ويصير كلامه عن عراق بلا صدام حسين أفضل وليبيا بلا القذافي أفضل مجرد كذبة من زاوية طبيعة النظام السياسي فقط، من دون التوقف أمام ما جلبته التدخّلات الأميركية من طوفان للإرهاب الذي عمّم الفوضى والخراب والدمار والموت.

– في الحقيقة يكشف أوباما حجم الغيظ والحقد الذي تحمله النخبة الأميركية على الديمقراطية، لأنها جلبت فوزاً من خارج قواعد اللعبة التي وضعتها وصمّمتها لإقفال الخيارات على مَن تنتجه مكاتب المحاماة، وينتجه موظفو الاستخبارات والدبلوماسية، إذ يحكمون بالنيابة عن أصحاب الرساميل والشركات ويقولون لهم، دعونا نهتم عوضاً عنكم، وتفرغوا لترفكم وبذخكم وفضائحكم، وتفاهاتكم وسخافتكم الفكرية والثقافية. دعونا نحن نهتم بالتقيد باللياقات والبروتوكول ونتقن الكذب والتخفي واللعب على الناس بأخلاقيات يحبون التقيد بها، فندفع عنكم فاتورة التحفظ لتتنعموا بالحرية الشخصية والاجتماعية، وإذ باللعبة تسقط بين أيديهم، والقضية ليست قضية حزبين متنافسين، بل قضية النخبة الجمهورية والديمقراطية التي فاجأها دخول أصحاب الرساميل بعلاقة مباشرة مع الناخبين والتواطؤ لإزاحة النخبة، بتهمة الفساد والفشل وسوء الأمانة. فالحرب التي تشكل السمة الأخطر في السياسة الخارجية هي كلفة مالية ودموية تدفعها الشعوب، والتلاعب بأسبابها وقرارات خوضها والفشل بالفوز بنتائجها شكّل سمة حكم النخبة الأميركية خلال ربع قرن، بعد سقوط جدار برلين، والشعوب في زمن ثورة المعلومات والاتصالات شريك في صناعة قرار الحرب، ولم تعُد تقبل جرّها لدفع أثمان قرارات حروب تقدم باسم المسؤولية الإنسانية للأميركي ليتبين أن قرارها سدّد ثمنه بأموال طائلة من شيوخ الخليج لحساب مكاتب محاماة لمَن كانوا أو لمَن صاروا رؤساء أميركا، وصار من حق الأميركيين رئيس غير قابل للرشوة يقيم حساباتهم نفسها بكل بساطتها وعفويتها وغريزتها البشرية، بعدما ضاقوا ذرعاً بالنخب التي فشلت سياسياً واقتصادياً وأمنياً وعسكرياً، ويمسك بعضها بيد بعض في الحزبين والإعلام والمخابرات والدبلوماسية منعاً لسقوط يهدّدهم جميعاً كحكام بالوكالة عن الأصيل، صاحب المال وصاحب الصوت الانتخابي ودافع الضريبة. ويبدو ترامب أقدر على تمثيلهم معاً.

– هناك مَن يحاول من موقع البكاء على أطلال تهاوي المشروع المموّل خليجياً لهيلاري كلينتون تقديم تفسير للصراع الفكري السياسي الذي يفتتحه وصول ترامب إلى البيت الأبيض. قوامه صراع اليمين المتطرف والليبرالية داخل الديمقراطية نفسها، بين وحوش أعداء للحضارة مثل فلاديمير بوتين ودونالد ترامب، وحملان مثقفين مثل باراك أوباما وفرانسوا هولاند. طبعاً من دون تذكّر أين هو الخليج وحكامه من هاتين الضفتين، رغم سهولة اعتبار مَن يدافع من الضفتين عن أشد الأنظمة تخلفاً وبعداً عن الليبرالية والديمقراطية معاً، والأبعد عن الثقافة والتمدن والحضارة الأشد توحشاً، كيف إذا استسهل إنتاج الإرهاب التكفيري الآتي من كهوف الجاهلية لتصدير الديمقراطية، طالما تجلب له حكاماً مطيعين يمكن التحكم بهم، والقضية لمن يتحرر من قبض المال الخليجي سهلة بسيطة على الثقافة، إنها فشل النخب الحاكمة في المشروع الإمبريالي القائم أساساً على قوة التدخل العسكري، وقد أصيبت العضلة بالشلل، وما عادت الشعوب مستعدّة لبذل الدماء، ولا نفعت خصخصة الحروب بحل المشكلة، فنهضت فلسفة الاحتماء خلف الجدران بوطنية فجة عصبية وعنصرية، يمثلها ترامب ومثله بدرجة مختلفة تيريزا ماي تعبيراً عن ميل بريطاني للعزلة خارج الاتحاد الأوروبي، وفرانسوا فيون في فرنسا تريد أن تكون فرنسية أكثر وأوروبية أقل ومعولمة أقل وأقل. إنها نهاية مشروع الإمبريالية بنسخته المنقحة لما بعد الحرب الباردة، بحربيه الخشنة والناعمة.

– كان يستطيع أوباما ومنظّروه القول انتصرت الديمقراطية، ولكنها جلبت الفظاظة والتطرف وهزمت الليبرالية ومعها الكياسة واللياقة والثقافة والقصد الضمني. فازت الرأسمالية بأشخاصها كحاكم أصيل بتواصلها مع الناخب بلا وسيط، وهزمت النخب كوكيل تحكم بالوكالة بعيداً عن التفويض، «لأنه ركب حصان التفويض ومدّ يده إلى الخرج ليسرق المال»، وكان مفهوماً ذلك بلا توضيحات. والحقيقة أن الديمقراطية أنجزت في أميركا أفضل ما يمكنها أن تنجزه، وليس المهم خطاب ترامب ولا خطاب معاونيه تجاه قضايانا، فهو وهم يعلمون أن قرارات الحروب لم تعُد سهلة، وهذا ما يهمّنا، لأن أميركا التي لا تستطيع خوض الحروب هي أميركا التي يمكن التحدث معها، وهو حكماً حديث خلاف لا حديث تفاهم بالتأكيد. الديمقراطية تسقط الإمبريالية التي تولت الليبرالية حمايتها، فارتضت حكومات الخليج شريكاً وتنظيم القاعدة جيشاً، تفادياً لتمويل الحروب بجنود من شعب يرفض إرسالهم ومال يرفض المكلفون الضريبيون سداده. وبعدما فشلت جاء من يقول لها كفى تلاعباً، فأظهرت فسادها باستغلال مناصبها الدستورية التي منحتها إياها الديمقراطية للنيل من الديمقراطية نفسها، ومن نتاجها الانتخابي لأنه لم يكن على هواها، فقررت تشويهها وتشويهه، والتنكّر لها كنظام تُخبرنا الآن بعد كل حروبها تحت شعاره، أنه لا يصلح ولا يشتغل، وأنه صالح للاستغلال والتلاعب. فتظهر مع فسادها باستغلال المناصب جحوداً بحق الديمقراطية، تصوغها كأهل الجاهلية في قريش، الذين خبرتهم ويبدو أنها تعلّمت منهم بدلاً من أن تعلّمهم، فصارت الديمقراطية عندها، إلهة تمر تعبُدها، لكنها إذا جاعت تأكلها.

(Visited 1٬613 times, 184 visits today)

Related Videos

Related articles

 

Bullhorns: Real News (CrossTalk)

USA Govt., chief purveyor of #fakenews, passes Bill Making Alternative Media Illegal

Obama Signs Christmas Bill Making Alternative Media Illegal

SEE ALSO

Study the history of Bolshevik USSR & you see the future for the USA, unless changes are made

Crackdown on free speech in the USA, the new USSR?

Under Zionism the USA becomes the new USSR, filming police actions to be illegal

USA the new USSR, Police State Violence Behind Ferguson Protests

USA the new USSR, Obama Administration Increasing Censorship rather than Increasing Transparency

USA the new USSR, Obama Bans Critics of Ukraine Coup From Entering U.S.

USA rapidly turning into a new USSR

The USA is becoming the new USSR, complete with public surveillance, censorship and gulags

Obama signs bill making alternative media illegal

President Obama has just quietly signed into law a bill that makes it illegal to run an alternative media website in the U.S.

On Friday, just two days before Christmas, Obama signed the “Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017” bill into law.

Wearechange.org reports:

This bill will “Criminalize ‘Fake News, Propaganda’ on the Web,” a key piece of legislation meant to crack down on free speech and independent media. In Layman’s terms, the act will allow the government to crack down with impunity against any media outlet it deems “propaganda.” The next piece of the legislation will provide substantial amounts of money to fund “counter propaganda,” to make sure the government’s approved stories drown out alternative media and journalists who question the status quo.

The “right to free speech and freedom of the press,” is guaranteed by the First Amendment to The U.S. Constitution. It is a foundation of American values, put in place by our Founding Fathers to protect our liberties, is now being endangered by this new law.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state: it ought not, therefore, to be restrained in this commonwealth.” – John Adams, Samuel Adams, James Bowdoin (1780). Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

This is not the first time that the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was used to disguise a piece of legislation. Back in 2012, Obama signed a law that allowed for the “indefinite detention of American citizens” without a judge or jury. Then in 2013, Obama signed an NDAA bill that packaged an end to the Smith-Mundit act that prevented the government from using propaganda against its own citizens enabling the government again to legally produce propaganda.

What does that mean for you if you are an independent journalist or blogger? You can read more here, but it means that for simply writing this and asking questions and pointing out that Obama always signs these bills around the holidays like I did in this poem, if I am accused of “fake news” or propaganda, I could face criminal charges.

In other words the stage is now set for the U.S. government to legally crack down on every media outlet that the they deem to be “foreign propaganda.” The ministry of truth is setup. Welcome to 1984.

In a statement, Obama said that:

Today, I have signed into law S. 2943, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017.” This Act authorizes fiscal year 2017 appropriations principally for the Department of Defense and for Department of Energy national security programs, provides vital benefits for military personnel and their families, and includes authorities to facilitate ongoing operations around the globe. It continues many critical authorizations necessary to ensure that we are able to sustain our momentum in countering the threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and to reassure our European allies, as well as many new authorizations that, among other things, provide the Departments of Defense and Energy more flexibility in countering cyber-attacks and our adversaries’ use of unmanned aerial vehicles.”

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

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

https://youtu.be/E7KATHMZS1A

What Do Trump, Sanders and Brexit Have in Common? (video)

Gilad Atzmon interviewed by Veronica Montague Keen

What Do Trump, Sanders and Brexit Have in Common?

This video explores these three very visible phenomena that appear to result from exhaustion with Mammonism, Wall Street, the City, the Goldmans, Sachses and Soroses,  party politics, ‘post modernism,’ identity politics, the tyranny of political correctness and the guardians of Judea, the effects of controlled opposition, and the unending immoral interventionist wars around the world.

https://youtu.be/qIVfp5ANsiQ

 

Anti-Democratic Pro EU Protestors

[ Ed. note – This woman feels her life is being destroyed, but obviously hasn’t a clue who is responsible for it. ]

By Jonathan Blakely

Britain is divided post brexit. The main cities voted to remain and the other areas in England & Wales to leave. The disconnect between our political representatives and the people has never been greater. Scotland voted to stay in the EU and is now pushing for another independence vote. The Pro EU campaigners are now bereft. Despite being a rare example of direct democracy in action they have since the result tried to undermine it’s validity and call for another referendum or for the result to be ignored. This will not happen, the people have spoken , the Queen accepted David Cameron’s resignation, possibly even suggested it.

The idea that the referendum could be ruled non-binding or run again is ludicrous. To do so would only en-flame tensions even further leading to riots and worse.

In this video an unidentified PR-EU protester confronts a woman holding a  “Leave” sign.  Quickly she is implicates her in the murder of Jo Cox. The media have portrayed that Jo Cox’s attacker was anti-EU, therefore all Leave campaigners are closet racists and probably secretly condone her murder.

You people are destroying our lives

You are destroying this country, You are destroying the people, You are destroying the relationships with our neighbours.

You are a racist.

NYC Talk on Thursday: What Do Trump, Sanders and Brexit Have in Common?

July 04, 2016  /  Gilad Atzmon

What Do Trump, Sanders and Brexit Have in Common?

July 7, 8-10 pm

18 West 18th St, Room 503 (5th floor)

(After the talk I will be playing with Saul Rubin @ Fat Cat)

The Post Political Condition

Please join Gilad Atzmon on Thursday evening July 7 for an informal talk and exchange of ideas.

What Do Trump, Sanders and Brexit Have in Common?

Are they the most visible symptoms of a general fatigue on the part of the public?

We will explore how these three very visible phenomena appear to result from exhaustion with party politics, ‘post modernism,’ identity politics, the tyranny of political correctness, the effects of controlled opposition, and the unending and immoral interventionist wars around the world.

In this meeting, controversial philosopher, author, and musician Gilad Atzmon, will help you identify some of the elements that have contributed to the current global disaster.

 Mr. Atzmon is the author of several books including

The Wandering Who? A Study of Jewish Identity Politics and  The Definitive Israeli Lexicon from A to Zion.

“Atzmon performs the prophetic for our time” Says Marc Ellis

VOLUNTARY DONATIONS to cover the costs are welcome.

The Meaning of Brexit

June 22, 2016  /  Gilad Atzmon

brexit.png

By Gilad Atzmon

The Political is Personal

Whatever the British people decide about the EU the people who dwell on this island have been pushed to think patriotically and nationalistically. The decision each of us make to vote for ‘remain’ or for ‘leave’ will be based on the realisation that this political decision will have a significant personal impact.

Party Politics is A Severe Form Of Detachment  

Both major parties failed to assess the huge appeal of the ‘call to leave.’ This blindness proves that the estrangement between the British political universe and the public is complete. This shouldn’t be much of a surprise. Many of the Britain’s political leaders are public school graduates. They are foreign to the experience of most of the British people.

Big Money And The ‘Left’ Are United

The right wing capitalist Tories and the so-called ‘Left’ (Labour) support the remain campaign. How is it possible that the ‘Right’ and the ‘Left’ or shall we say, money and labour, support the same campaign or seemingly the same goal? Simple, the dichotomy between Left and Right is a myth. Both parties are funded by the same lobbies and serve the same interests. Both parties are supported by big money. Both parties are committed to consumerism rather than production. Both parties are tied with Jewish lobby groups and are attached to a Zio-con global agenda.

 Cognitive Partitioning

There is a big education gap between the leave and the remain supporters. The polls suggest that people with university degrees are keener on staying in the EU than are those who left school at 15 or 16. This reading agrees with the findings of the 1990’s era book, The Bell Curve (Herrnstein & Murray). Our political decisions are based on cognitive ability rather than on wealth, class or party affiliation. Those who are less educated and dependent on demand for manual work and manufacturing are less likely to trust the EU because they see the EU as a threat to their jobs. Those who are educated are more likely to see opportunity within a vast market.

The End of Correctness

For the last four decades we have been bombarded with the message that nationalism is bad, immigration is good, multiculturalism is the future, political correctness is progress and patriotism is reactionary. Opponents of immigration were ‘bigots’ and those who expressed loyalty to the flag were marginal far right racists. While apparently many wanted to believe nationalism and patriotism were dying, it is now obvious that patriotism is alive; vibrant and kicking.  Once an outlet was set for people to express their patriotism, we quickly discovered that at least half of the Brits do not buy into the tyranny of correctness. Belonging and patriotism is engraved within the human condition: its suppression can only be temporary.

The EU Kept Its Promise

The EU was a Babylonian dream. It vowed to mix the people of Europe beyond recognition and to prevent Europeans from killing each other. The EU kept its promise, for decades Europeans haven’t been killing each other, they kill Arabs instead and on a massive scale. I wonder, if Brits decide to leave the EU, does it also mean that we will emancipate ourselves from the neo-imperial agenda that took our army into Iraq, Syria and Libya?

The Extraordinary Trial of Arthur Topham

November 08, 2015  /  Gilad Atzmon

http://dissidentvoice.org/

http://www.mwcnews.net/

Part 1

by Eve Mykytyn

Five security guards, members of the RCMP, two in bulletproof vests, all entrants pass through metal detectors, undergo a wand search, check all electronics including cell phones and have their bags meticulously scrutinized. Why all the security? The crown was presenting its criminal case against Arthur Topham, for the crime of “hate.’

The Law
Section 319 of Canada’s criminal code is an extraordinary law by most western standards. It reads, in relevant part: “(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The statute does not define hatred, but does provide 4 statutory defenses.

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

It is important to understand that the prosecution (the Crown), with all of its resources, need only prove ‘hate,’ and then the only available defenses are affirmative, meaning that the burden of proof switches to the defense.

This week I attended some of the extraordinary trial of Arthur Topham in the Supreme Court (the highest provincial trial court) in Quesnel, British Columbia. As a lawyer, the differences in procedure between American and Canadian courts were of interest to me. Ahead of the trial, I read a little about the Canadian legal system and found that on paper the differences appeared minor. I don’t know if the huge differences in practice that I observed in this trial has to do with the way trials are usually conducted in Canada, the understandable loosening of formality in a court in a small town and/or the nature of the trial.

The Background

The history of Mr. Topham’s travails can be found here.

It is sufficient to understand that this trial follows eight years of harassment. Mr. Topham has already had to close his successful remodeling business. This is a criminal trial, and Mr. Topham could go to prison for two years. Mr. Topham and his wife live on a remote property on which they maintain a chicken coop, grow vegetables and engage in other rural activities. But it is clear that Mrs. Topham could not live there alone. These are not wealthy people. Mrs. Topham told me that she is not a political person, but she loves and supports her husband and believes in free speech. The defendant and his wife have exhibited bravery, courtesy and calm to a degree that is awe inspiring.

The police arrested Mr. Topham for ‘hate’ after they received complaints from various Jewish people who found his writing hateful. Although the police clearly knew where he lived, they arrested Topham as he and his wife were driving, leaving his wife stranded and Mr. Topham in jail. While jailed, Mr. Topham’s house was searched and his computers, shotguns and other items were taken. (Shotguns are essential in an area where grizzlies often decide to take up residence on the porch.)

The Trial

I understand that before I arrived, the Crown presented the arresting and investigating officers. Clearly the officers are not qualified to establish ‘hate,’ so how does the Crown do this? There is no victim to present, no one whose injuries the jury must assess, instead it is to the jury to decide if ‘hate’ is present, no injury need be shown.

The Crown chose to use an expert witness to show hate, and qualified Len Rudner as an expert in Judaism and anti-Semitism. Mr. Rudner’s biography indicates that he is a ‘professional Jew,’ in that he has been employed for the last 15 years by the Canadian Jewish Congress and its successor organization, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA). Prior to this trial, Rudner has attempted to force Mr. Topham’s internet service provider to shut down his web site, and has lodged civil complaints against Mr. Topham.

The crown used its questioning of Rudner to introduce what it considered to be the most damaging articles on Topham’s site, Radical Free Press (RFP). These included a list of books and articles, all of which are easily accessible on the internet and/or for sale at Amazon.ca.

Most of these publications accuse Jews of some pretty nasty politics. What at first appeared to be the Crown’s most damning evidence was a picture of a stereotyped Jew holding puppets that were Canadian politicians. On cross examination, it was hard for Mr. Rudner to counter what a careful viewing showed to be a clear political statement. I think the shocking picture of the Jew served to make the statement more powerful. But is it the job of the court to evaluate the strength of a political cartoon?

Without going to the truth of the matters presented, I am troubled that Mr. Topham is on trial for reprinting sources that are widely available in Canada. Again, on cross examination, Mr. Rudner had to admit that this was so. A quick google search for “the protocols of the Elders of Zion,” reveals hundreds of sources that display the protocols in full.

The procedure, at least in this court, was that all objections had to be heard outside the presence of the jury. This meant that each objection forced the jury to leave the room (not the judge and the lawyers) thus making an objection, even for the record, was a cumbersome and time consuming process.

In one of these interminable objection interludes, the Crown stated that ‘free speech is not on trial here.” Shockingly, Judge Butler echoed her sentiments. Legal fictions (such as that all lawyers are capable of providing an adequate defense) are generally employed to allow the system to work. In this case, the legal fiction went to the charge itself. Mr. Topham is on trial for writing and for publishing articles that presumably reflect his beliefs. What else is free speech if not that?

Mr. Rudner indicated under direct examination that he was the author of the written expert opinion he provided to the court. This was troubling, because the Crown had originally employed Bernie Farber as its expert, and Mr. Farber had provided an opinion that was word for word the same as Mr. Rudner’s. If Mr. Rudner did not commit perjury, he was at least deceptive in his presentation of his expert opinion.

The Defense

Barclay Johnson, defense attorney extraordinaire, gave an opening argument that was an impassioned call for freedom of thought and speech. Later the Crown objected, but the damage so-called had been done. Mr. Johnson endured a tongue lashing and a civil procedure lesson from the judge. The jury was instructed to ignore some of Mr. Johnson’s speech. I assume that this helped plant the speech more firmly in their minds.

Mr. Topham countered the charge of hate and argued as a defense that the writing was political with an expert of his own. Gilad Atzmon, the iconoclastic jazz musician, writer and philosopher volunteered his time to help. It seems wrong to enjoy a presentation when a man’s freedom is at stake, but it was delightful to watch Mr. Atzmon ignore or flaunt every rule of procedure and get away with it.

Atzmon was qualified as an expert on Jewish Identity Politics a topic that clearly few in the court had heard of. In his most amusing argument on the subject, Atzmon explained that there was a section on identity politics in every bookshop, and that topics included the LBGT community. Faced with political correctness, the court backed off and agreed to allow Atzmon in as an expert.

Atzmon began by explaining his system of characterization. He divides ‘the Jews’ into three non-exclusive categories. The first, Judaism, is made up of religious Jews. The second, Jews, are people who are Jewish by an accident of birth. The third, and most important category for this purpose is ‘Jewishness,’ those who identify politically as Jews. Mr. Atzmon described the first two categories as innocent. Objections were raised, innocent is, after all, a legal conclusion and if the first two are innocent, the third is, by implication, guilty. Judge Butler agreed with the Crown’s objection and then allowed Atzmon to proceed in describing the first two categories as innocent. From then on, the defense attorney, the prosecution and the judge adopted these categories for clarity of discussion.

Atzmon argued that contemporary opposition to Jewry is driven by political and ideological arguments; that no one criticizes Jews as a race or a biology. There is little criticism of Judaism, the religion, as a whole, but there has been some criticism leveled at a few aspects of the religion such as blood rituals and goy hatred. The thrust of his argument was that Jewish politics and ideology must be subject to criticism like all other politics and ideologies.

Like a rabbi on acid, Atzmon explained his philosophy, allowed few questions, and browbeat the attorneys. He dealt with his own philosophical approach to Jewishness and the dangers of believing oneself ‘chosen’ and then he got in a few swipes at categories one and two as well. The jury was mesmerized. Later, Atzmon told friends that he had directed his remarks to the juror sleeping in the first row. If he could be made to listen, presumably the others could as well.

Atzmon made the point that many of the most apparently anti-Semitic writings were made by the early Zionists. According to Atzmon, Herzl and others saw a problem with European Jewry and thought that the existence of a homeland could cure problems such as usury, discrimination against non-Jews, exclusiveness, etc. The take away is that if Jews are entitled to criticize Jews, why can’t other people? This is especially true because the Jews have a disproportionate amount of power in government, finance and the media. They clearly have the means to counter criticism if they choose to do so.

  • Part 2 will cover the closing arguments and the verdict.

 

%d bloggers like this: