I wrote the following book review a decade ago. 10 years later, Israel and its subservient English Speaking Empire are still mounting pressure on Iran, the Middle East is bleeding and peace looks like a remote fantasy. Pre TSD is the medium in which we operate and a prospect of a better future seems like a delusional dream. A decade ago I concluded this review wiring that "the current plot isn’t just against America. It is a plot against humanity and human dignity." Sadly, nothing really changed.Read More
A religious conflict is one in which the actions and rhetoric of the conflict is dominated by religious ideologies, argumentation and symbolism. This doesn’t mean that all or even most of the people involved in the conflict are religious or religiously motivated. It is likely that the majority of Israelis oppose the relentless assaults by messianic settlers on Al Aqsa mosque that led to the recent escalation. Yet these assaults by hard-core religiously motivated Jewish activists have now shaped the conflict. And this does not apply only to the Israelis. It seems that Al Aqsa mosque has become the symbolic unifier for the Palestinians. And this unification has been a positive development for the Palestinians. While it appeared for a while that Israel had managed to break the Palestinians and their ability to struggle as one people, the current Jewish assault on Al Aqsa has united the Palestinians and Arabs and not just the Muslims.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
Discussing Bibi, Tzipi and Yair
Yesterday, I was asked to debate professor Geoffrey Alderman – an avid Zionist academic. To my great surprise Alderman and I agreed on pretty much everything: we had similar views on Israeli politics, the nature of the Jewish State, Netanyahu's Politics, Netanyahu’s engineered crisis, Jewish Lobby Domination in the West and other topics. Fascinating exchange but hardly a debate.Read 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
For the first time in my life, I regretted giving back my 'J certificate.' (not)
If there is one Jew I fully admire, it must be Paul Eisen, the man behind JFJFG!!!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
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.
Max Blumenthal, a Jewish pro Palestinian decided to take the battle against Gregor Gysi, the German Left Party’s leader, who framed him as an anti semite, to the toilet. Pretty amusing to witness the level of panic, victimhood and obnoxious intrusiveness.
Let me reassure you that when Blumenthal framed me as an anti semite, i didn't have any plans to join him in the loo.
The Labour is facing a new challenge, as pro-Israel supporters are increasingly stopping donations to the party.
The Labour’s financial backers say they do not want party leader Ed Miliband in Downing Street. They have described Miliband’s position on Gaza and Palestine as ‘toxic’.
The tension began a few months ago, when Miliband slammed Israel's latest ground incursion into the Gaza Strip which led to the deaths of hundreds of civilians, many for them women and children. Miliband had described the Israeli offensive as ‘wrong and unjustifiable’. He also warned Tel Aviv that it was ‘losing friends in the international community day by day’.
Later, Miliband further enraged Israelis by supporting a vote on the recognition of Palestine in the House of Parliament. The MPs voted by a huge margin of 274-12 in favor of the motion on October 13.
The Labour has been receiving hundreds of thousands of pounds a year in donations from the pro-Israeli lobbies community.
“It is very clear that Ed Miliband and all other Labour party leaders have been heavily supported by the Jewish lobby, Jewish donors in the UK for around 2 decades,” said author and political activist Gilad Atzmon in an interview with Press TV.
Atzmon believes that Miliband’s pro-Palestinian attitude is ‘hardly possible to be taken seriously’.
Some Labour officials argue that the Jewish anger poses a huge challenge complicating the party’s fundraising efforts, making the leaders pass the begging bowl.
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.
"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..
Note by GA: myself didn’t write the following article. It is a translation from French. I share this article today because it raised some very troubling issues to do with the deceitful nature of Jewish Left. I guess that by now, it would be impossible to shove that shame under the carpet.
By Arthur Aouizerat
Article taken from: E&R Brest
Zionism, Talmudic Judaism and Jewishness
Through his great historical work, the Israeli historian Israel Shahak(1)demonstrated the relationship between Talmudic Judaism and Zionism. If you happen to reside in France, to properly understand this relationship you need only observe number one Sayan (Embedded Israeli agent) Bernard-Henri Levy, as he promotes his Talmudic ideology in support of Israel. The Talmudic-Judaism, as seen in both the Talmud and the Torah is simply law codified in the service of Jewish ideology.
But Bernard-Henri Levy is more than happy to say he acts ‘as a Jew’, but what does that mean? According to Gilad Atzmon’s classification (2), the problem lies not with those Jews who just happen to be born into Jewish families, nor with those religious Jews whose texts are interpreted through the ages. No, the problem is with those Jews who see the world ‘as Jews’ and who act in the world ‘as Jews’. It is this third category that carries and promotes Jewish ideology.
Culturally, this ideology can be understood as follows: ‘Jew’, transmitted through the blood of the mother, is a purely racial quality and cannot therefore be related to any acquired moral or universal qualities. So, when a Jew addresses a goy ‘as a Jew’ he/she simply highlights this racial quality and thus automatically defines the goy, without that, as inherently inferior. In this third category are found Talmudic Jewish-Zionist practitioners, non-practicing Talmudic-Zionist Jews (3), secular non-Zionist Jewish leftists and even anti-Zionists.
So we can say that the theologico-racial supremacism as observed in Israel by Zionist Jews is entirely consistent with Jewish ideology.