In this interview with the great Silvia Cattori I also spoke about the corrosive impact of the Jewish Lobby within the pro-Palestinian movemnt.Read More
Walid Darab & Gilad Atzmon
We spoke about the deceitful nature of the Jewish Left (Chomsky, Mondoweiss, JVP etc'), The Guardian of Zion, The corrosive impact of George Soros, ID Politics and the damage it inflicts on society. Very interestingRead More
Three years after the publication of The Wandering Who, I discussed with Bill Alford different aspects of Jewish power and controlled opposition. We elaborated on Identity politics and the tribal ideology that drive Zionism as well as the so-called 'anti.'Read More
Speaking at a panel discussion on “Jewish identity politics” in London last October, shortly after the publication of his book, The Wandering Who?, Gilad Atzmon made this observation:
Identity drifts you far away from what you are.
This is the issue. This is one of the most important [issues raised in the book] — I wouldn’t like to call it a revelation because maybe I’m not the one who brought it up — but people who know who they are, they don’t need identity.
Identity is actually a form of identification.Read More
Blumenthal has a lot to say about ‘German pathology,’ German people, the colour of German people’s skin and their ‘sickening society’. If anyone still had hope that there was something positive that Progressive Jews could add to the discourse, Blumenthal’s latest interview will end that idea. He exhibits the ultimate form of Jewish racism, goy hatred: in fact, far more insidious than hard-core right wing Zionism.Read More
By Gilad Atzmon
Finally Israel has acknowledged its true Jewish nature. Instead of pretending to be a ‘Jewish Democracy” - a contradiction in terms, the Jewish State admits that it is a theocracy guided by Jewish racial supremacist ideology.Read More
In this Al Etejah's Panorama program Gilad Atzmon elaborates on the dominance of Jewish lobby in the UK and America and the weak resistance it meets in both Britain and the USA. The activity of the Lobby clearly undermines the notion of Western democracy. We also spoke about the collapse of Left politics and future of Western thinking.
by Trevor LaBonte (Mouqawamah Music EXCLUSIVE)
Given that Gilad Atzmon and Shlomo Sand are both former Jews who have provided criticism of Jewish identity politics, it may be illuminating to understand why the organized, kosherized, Palestinian “solidarity community” embraces Sand while rejecting and disavowing Atzmon.
Atzmon’s initial reaction to his own “disavowal” was characteristically humorous, with him stating that he has only ever operated as an individual, and cannot be kicked out of any groups because he never belonged to any to begin with.
At any rate, it is well-known and easily observable that the Zionist-controlled solidarity discourse, whose primary mouth-piece is “Electronic Intifada”‘s Ali Abuminah, is deeply compromised and functions as a gatekeeper establishment, i.e. it seeks to censor “politically incorrect” ideas, while simultaneously providing weak, ineffectual criticism which ignores all of the key issues which would actually end the occupation of Palestine. Atzmon, a very successful jazz artist in his own right, as well as is the saxophonist on the latest Pink Floyd album, has remarked that “Electronic Intifada has reduced Palestinian resistance to an electronic board.”
In general, the Solidarity movement bears the unmistakable fingerprints of the Jewish left (which operates hand-in-hand with the jewish right), manifesting in a relentless need to convince their faithful but somnambulant following that Zionism has nothing to do with ‘Jews’ and Jewish culture, that these are two completely separate, non-intersecting spheres. The result of this programming is an ideological collective of curiously vociferous people whose top priority, above and beyond Palestinian liberation, is to never offend the Jews. These people can be seen on social media, energetically laying out their talking points to convey the image that “Zionism is the only problem,” Jews and Jewishness are positive and peaceful concepts, and are adamant that Jews and Jewish culture are outside the parameters of what can be considered socially acceptable criticism. They try to set us up to fail to address the real problem, which is Jewish exclusivity and Jewish ethno-centrism, something that has been endemic and definitive of Jewish culture for thousands of years before Zionism was even invented.
Alimuddin Usmani Interviews Gilad Atzmon
Alimuddin Usmani: Alain Soral recently stated that Jews who are brave and honest enough to delve into Jewish tribalism understand that Soral is far from anti Semitic. Soral said that he is trying to get the Jews to understand that by acting as a racist and brutal community, the Jews will eventually bring disaster on themselves.
What is your opinion of Soral’s statement?
Gilad Atzmon: I have no doubt that Soral’s ‘issue’ with ‘the Jew’ has nothing to do with ethnicity or race. Soral is critical of Jewish culture and politics and his thoughts on the subject are both valid and timely.
We’ve been trained to believe in the value of a consistent critique and continual revision of politics and culture. However, it seems that many Jews believe that Jewish politics and culture are beyond criticism. For some bizarre reason, a number of major institutions of the Left agree that Jewish culture and politics are not open to evaluation. I guess this affirms that, at least in the eyes of the Left and the Jews, the chosen people are actually chosen for real.
Alimuddin Usmani: Hezbollah’s military capacity is superior to Hamas. Is the Shia world more efficient in promoting a meritocratic society and in building a cognitive elite?
G: This is interesting. To start with, I do not entirely agree with the premise of your question.
From both a military and a political perspective, Hamas performed extremely well in the last round of violence. It invested in technology and developed the military force and strategy that allowed Hamas to win a decisive victory on the ground. But you are correct as a general matter. The Sunni elite and the traditional Palestinian elite are clannish by nature and dominated by a nepotistic culture. These cultures have a number of prestigious families that pass titles and leadership positions from father to son.
As I recently explored in my Manhattan talk, the Palestinian traditional elite is a subservient elite. This can be understood by reviewing Palestinian history. Palestine has been under occupation for the last two millennia and the its elite served to keep its people in line. This characteristization of the Palestinian aristocracy as a subservient elite may explain the political paralysis that is embedded within the attitude of the western Palestinian elite. It certainly explains why Ramallah has become world’s NGO capital. But I am about to contradict myself.
Reported by Gilad Atzmon
Natali Cohen Vaxberg, Israel’s leading kaka artist, Faces Charges After Pooping on the Israeli Flag
NBC reports today that “A left-wing artist who posted a video of herself defecating on an Israeli flag to protest the country’s treatment of Palestinians appeared in court on Monday facing charges of desecrating a national symbol.” In fact this uniquely revolting young woman spread her crap on the flags of every possible country. As we know, cosmopolitan Jews do not approve of national belonging. The video entitled “S*** instead of blood” was posted on Natali Cohen Vaxberg’s Facebook page on July 18 - and provoked outrage in Israel.
Acclaimed Israeli saxophonist Gilad Atzmon, author of The Wandering Who? -A Study of Jewish Identity Politics, offers a theory of cognitive ability distribution to explain Zionism, Jewishness, anti-semitism, and identity politics generally. September 29, 2014 video by Joe Friendly
"The Palestinians are devastated, but the Israelis are the big losers following the bombardment of Gaza".
We spoke about 'solidarity', controlled opposition, political paralysis and activists' impotence. I also spoke about the structures and the building of cognitive elite. I attempted to explain the difference between Palestinian subservient elite (Ramallah) and combatant one (Gaza).
GA: The following is my book review of Shlomo Sand's latest book. It was published a year ago. Following the publication of the English edition of How I Stopped Being A Jew last week, I decided to post it again.
By Gilad Atzmon
Sand’s latest book, How I Stopped Being A Jew, is a tragic testimony made by a morally awakened Israeli Jew who comes to realise that his spiritual, cultural and political existence is contaminated with Judeo-centric exclusivism and is fuelled by ethno-centric racism. Shlomo Sand decides to stop being a Jew – but has he succeeded?
Sand, as we all know, is a wonderful writer; witty, innovative, poetic and fluent, his voice is personal, at times funny, occasionally sarcastic and always genuinely pessimistic.
Sand’s writing is scholarly, deep, reflective and imaginative; however, his scholarship is pretty much limited to French liberal thinking and early post-modernist theory. The outcome is disappointing at times. How I Stopped To Be A Jew is a ‘politically correct’ text, saturated with endless caveats inserted to disassociate the author from any possible affiliation with anyone who may be viewed as an opponent of Jewish power, critical of Jewish identity politics or a challenger of the mainstream historicity of the Holocaust.
“I don’t write for anti-Semites, I regard them as totally ignorant or people who suffer from an incurable disease,” (p. 21/Hebrew edition) writes the author who claims to be humanist, universalist and far removed from Jewish exclusivism.* It all sounds very Jewish to me. When it comes to the Holocaust, Sand uses the same tactic and somehow manages to lose all wit and scholarly fashion. The Nazis are “beasts”, their rise to power metaphorically described as a “beast awakening from its lair.” I would expect a leading historian and ex-Jew to have moved on beyond these kinds of banal clichés.
Sand writes about identity politics and is certainly sensitive to the complexities of this subject. He argues forcefully that nationalism is an ‘invention’, yet, for some reason he attributes some forensic qualities to identity and the politics involved. Perhaps Sand fails to realise that identity politics is actually a form of identification – it is there to replace authenticity. For example, Zionism was born as an attempt to replace Judaic authentic orientation with an imaginary sense of national belonging – Israeli identity is a collection of signifiers set to make the Jew believe that he or she has a past, present and future. Identity is basically a set of symbolic identifiers that evoke a sense of collectivism. If you pierce your right ear, you become a club member, if you sport a kaffiyeh you become a solidarity activist, if you manage to utter a few Israeli sound-bites you may become a Zionist. All these identities lack any authentic depth.
Little Britain, a BBC comedy show, provides us with an invaluable insight into this. Daffyd Thomas (The Only Gay in the Village) exhibits a wide range of gay symbolic identifiers without ever once being engaged in a single homosexual intercourse. So Daffyd, while identifying as gay – politically, socially and culturally – saves himself of the elementary authentic experience as a homosexual.
Sand understands that Jewish identity politics is hollow, but he may fail to grasp that all identity politics are hollow. On the contrary, nationalism, which he clearly despises — the bond with one’s soil, heritage, culture, language, landscape, poetry is actually a cathartic experience. Though nationalism may well be an invention as Sand and others insist, it is still an intrinsically authentic fulfilling experience. As we all know, patriotic national feelings are often suicidal – and there’s a reason for this – because just sometimes it manages to integrate man, soil and sacrifice into a state of spiritual unification.
By Gilad Atzmon
Jews and philosophy have had a pretty troubled relationship. The collision between ‘the tribal’ and ‘the universal’ or, more accurately, between Athens and Jerusalem, is inevitable. The few great Jewish thinkers who transcended the tribal, such as Spinoza or Otto Weininger, have been harassed and labelled by the rabbis as ‘self haters’ and enemies of the Jews.
Some contemporary Zionist merchants insist upon wrapping their Judeo centrism in crypto philosophical arguments. Bernard-Henri Levy, for instance, advocates his Zionist warmongering using a pseudo ‘moralist’ terminology.
Today I came across a uniquely banal rant by Asa Kasher, a Jewish ‘philosopher’ at Tel Aviv University. Kasher, who also authored the ‘IDF ethical code,’defended Israel’s military conduct in the recent Gaza campaign in an article published in the Jewish Review of Books.
Kasher wrote, “Hamas unscrupulously violates every norm in the book.” And I wonder, what book? I would like to find out, at a minimum, what ‘book’ grants the Jewish State the right to uproot an entire nation in the name of a Jewish homecoming? Is there a book that permits the Jews to turn a city into an open-air prison? Is there a book that legitimates reducing Gaza into a pile of rubble? I am afraid that the answer is affirmative. There is more than one such book. But these books aren’t exactly philosophical texts. These books are the prime Judaic texts. The Talmud and The Old Testament are suffocated by Goy hatred and stories of Jews and their God pouring their ‘wrath on the Goyim.’ Rabbinical Judaism has historically been very careful in the way it treated some of those vile and barbaric Judaic verses and teachings. But Israel and Zionism draw inspiration from those genocidal verses, and the outcome is evident in the shattered urban landscape of Gaza.
Unlike the very few Jews who actually contributed to humanity by means of self-reflection (such as Jesus, Spinoza and Marx), Kasher prefers pointing at Hamas. He denounces Palestinian militants for indiscriminately rocketing Israeli cities. I wonder if the same ‘Kosher Aristotle’ would go out of his way to denounce Jewish militants in Auschwitz if they had possessed the ballistic capability to rocket Berlin and had acted upon it? I doubt it.
Back in the 18th century, in a remarkable attempt to formulate an anthropocentric, ethical requirement that was justified by means of reason, Immanuel Kant presented the Categorical Imperative: “act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.”
Let’s examine Kasher’s thoughts in the light of Kant’s imperative. If the IDF operated ethically in Gaza, as Kasher foolishly suggests, then every military force should be expected to follow the ‘IDF universal law:’ flatten entire cities, uproot nations, murder innocent civilians and so on. Perhaps a Zionist Jew can follow such awkward reasoning.
Kasher further asks, “Does the presence of large numbers of non-combatants in the vicinity of a building that is directly involved in terrorist assaults on Israelis render that building immune to Israeli attack?” Kasher continues, “The answer is, and must be, no. Israel cannot forfeit its ability to protect its citizens against attacks simply because terrorists hide behind non-combatants. If it did so, it would be giving up any right to self-defense.”
Consciously or not, the banal Israeli so-called ‘philosopher’ evinces the complete opposite of philosophical, ethical or universal principled thinking. Instead, he provides a glimpse into Jewish tribal ethno-centrism in which ‘goodness’ is defined solely by Jewish interests.
In a total dismissal of international conventions and of ethical judgment, Kasher blurs the crucial distinction between ‘civilians’ and ‘combatants’ and between the innocent and the actor.
The verdict is obvious. That Israel repeatedly behaves unethically goes without saying, but reading Kasher reveals that the Jewish State also lacks the notion of an ethical horizon. Even its academic authority on the subject is totally incompetent.
This is disturbing but not surprising.
GA: the following is a comprehensive review of The Wandering Who and the controversy around it. It also includes an extended appendix of commentaries re the book both positive and negative.
Gilad Atzmon's book "The Wandering Who" about Jewish identity politics has, since its publication three years ago, sparked most different reactions as well as particularly lively debates, as a glance on the controversial author's Wikipedia page shows. Some view him as an inspired fighter for justice, as an undaunted source of ideas and impulses, even a prophet, while others despise him as an "anti-Semite" and demonize him as a soul catcher in the quagmire of extreme right-wing ideas. What's in this prophetic devil's book? What do people say about it? What is to make of it? What happens on the 202 pages between the two covers resembles an elaborate jazz piece in its composition: Themes are employed and varied, circles closed, biographical details interpolated. At the heart of the study are - in a nutshell - two major theses: that there is a political ideological "Jewish-ness" which by far exceeds the boundaries of Zionism, and that, in this context, there is a deep gap between tribal interest politics and universal standards within the range of Jewish opinions: Jerusalem versus Athens, known from the problem of the Jewish vs. the democratic state. In 22 chapters, organized in four parts and supplemented by diverse fore- and afterwords, the author analyzes the heterogeneous Jewish collective from which he originates, often in a context with the Israeli crimes against the Palestinians. The self-critical impulse at the root of his criticism can be understood while reading the epilogue, where Gilad Atzmon recounts an episode from his school days in Israel: On a visit to Yad Vashem the fourteen-year-old asks the teacher why so many Europeans loathed the Jews so much and in so many places at once. The subsequent punishment did not silence the querist; apparently, similar scenes were to follow. Thus the author self-assesses not to look at Jews or Israelis, but in the mirror (p 94). This is essential for understanding his motivation.
PART 1: WHAT'S IN IT?
Atzmon is a dissident, someone who, during his time in the Israeli army, discovered lies and inconsistencies he started to consequently pursue, as he describes in the introductory part of "The Wandering Who". What did the first Israeli president mean when he spoke about a Jewish "primary quality" (p 16f) that ranks higher than civic commitments of Jews toward a diaspora country? Atzmon analyzes Victor Ostrovsky, a deserter ex-Mossad agent (p 18ff), and his description of "sayanim", diaspora Jewish helpers for the Jewish cause. What enabled Wolfowitz, Greenspan and others to mobilize the USA for Zionist interests? It was in any case no conspiracy, writes Atzmon, for everything was in the open and public (p 30).
Gilad Atzmon's book "The Wandering Who" about Jewish identity politics has, since its publication three years ago, sparked most different reactions as well as particularly lively debates, as a glance on the controversial author's Wikipedia page shows. Some view him as an inspired fighter for justice, as an undaunted source of ideas and impulses, even a prophet, while others despise him as an "anti-Semite" and demonize him as a soul catcher in the quagmire of extreme right-wing ideas. What's in this prophetic devil's book? What do people say about it? What is to make of it?
What happens on the 202 pages between the two covers resembles an elaborate jazz piece in its composition: Themes are employed and varied, circles closed, biographical details interpolated. At the heart of the study are - in a nutshell - two major theses: that there is a political ideological "Jewish-ness" which by far exceeds the boundaries of Zionism, and that, in this context, there is a deep gap between tribal interest politics and universal standards within the range of Jewish opinions: Jerusalem versus Athens, known from the problem of the Jewish vs. the democratic state. In 22 chapters, organized in four parts and supplemented by diverse fore- and afterwords, the author analyzes the heterogeneous Jewish collective from which he originates, often in a context with the Israeli crimes against the Palestinians. The self-critical impulse at the root of his criticism can be understood while reading the epilogue, where Gilad Atzmon recounts an episode from his school days in Israel: On a visit to Yad Vashem the fourteen-year-old asks the teacher why so many Europeans loathed the Jews so much and in so many places at once. The subsequent punishment did not silence the querist; apparently, similar scenes were to follow. Thus the author self-assesses not to look at Jews or Israelis, but in the mirror (p 94). This is essential for understanding his motivation.
I love to be interviewed by the great Munir Muhammad. I have now improved the sound and put it on youtube. We spoke about: ISIS, Jewish power, Israeli brutality, Jewishness, the Zionisfication of America, Expansionist Wars, Palestine vs. Solidarity, George Soros and the Left being a Controlled opposition apparatus.. Very interesting..
By Gilad Atzmon
The following is a collection of excerpts from a young Seattle radical’s call for action against an ‘anti- Semitic’ gathering in Seattle yesterday. The urgent call was from one revolutionary Matt*, who was apparently alarmed by my views. In perfect conformity with the ignorant attitude of the New Left, Matt has not read a single paper by me. The extracts below convey the depth of Judeo-centrism and crippled intellectual ability that are, sadly, embedded in whatever is left of the radical discourse.
Upset by my scheduled appearance in Seattle, our modern day Bolshevik tried to persuade his friends to debate the new Satan, me. Of course I warmly welcome such a development. Until now, not a single detractor of mine has had the ‘balls’ to challenge me openly in public. For some reason they prefer to implement the Talmudic herem (excommunication) practice. Maybe the growing popularity of my thoughts and the fact that a new discourse of alternative dissent is rapidly emerging, have started to trouble the half a dozen Red minds left in our midst.
“Hi folks, I'm writing to raise some concerns about one of the speakers at an anti-Israel event tonight, Gilad Atzmon…. Would any of you be willing to come with me to debate Atzmon at this event tonight?”
It didn’t take more than a few lines before he had to admit that he was not sure of Atzmon’s positions. He adopted an embarrassing gossipy manner of speech.
“It sounds like Atzmon, and possibly some of the other speakers (Ibrahim Soudy, Henry Hershkovitz and Greg Felton), are suggesting that Palestinians and Americans should unite in a struggle against Jewish identity itself.”
This is simply not accurate. I am offering criticism and analysis of Jewish Identity politics. I also argue that the Jewish Left and their Sabbos goyim attempt to block such criticism, as Matt himself, perhaps inadvertently, proves.
By Gilad Atzmon
Is the fact that half of the Scots want to split from Britain and the news that hundreds of young Muslim Brits are fighting with Jihadi militant groups in Syria connected?
Of course they are. These two social phenomena are intrinsically linked, yet in the intellectual desert in which we live, no one dares to address the subject. The boundaries of our curiosity are limited by our deference to political correctness and Zionist sensitivities.
From a political perspective, Jihadi enthusiasm amongst young Western Muslims is an outcome of the emergence of tribalism in the West; but isn’t the call for Scottish independence driven by a similar tribal urge? From both a philosophical and dialectic perspective, Jihadi identification and the Scottish call for independence are the antithesis of the New Left and its corrosive Identity (ID) politics that have been spread in our midst for too long.
Gaza, Israeli defeat and the Judification of the solidarity movement...