Gilad Atzmon's Blog, page 21
December 4, 2014
Hardly A Debate – Gilad Atzmon vs. Geoffrey Alderman
Yesterday I was invited by Press TV to participate in their daily program, ‘The Debate.’ In the last few years I have occasionally participated on the show. Usually I am confronted with banal Hasbara mouthpieces. I tend to demolish their arguments within the first round of questions.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NWLW33hADQ&feature=youtu.be
Watch the full program on Press TV's website
For the last decade I have been chased by Jewish ‘anti’ Zionists who wrote Jewish petitions against me and tried every Talmudic trick to silence my criticism of Jewish power and Jewish ID politics. I have also been harassed by some Trotskyites and even a list of 20 Palestinians who called for my ‘disavowal.’ These attempts to stop me achieved the opposite – if anything, they proved my point regarding Jewish dissent being a corrosive controlled opposition apparatus.
In all this time, not a single one of my Jewish anti Zionist or Trotskyite detractors have had the guts to debate me. But somehow, rabid Zionists and hard-core Hasbara agents are made from different materials. They must have have a modicum of dignity and confidence in their system.
My conclusion may upset some. As a thinker and an artist stimulated by challenge and titillated by intellectual provocation, I prefer to deal with hard core Zionists and Israeli Right wing ideologues rather than with the so-called ‘anti’ and their culture of deceit. At least with Zionists, I know exactly what I am up against.
December 3, 2014
A Jewish Monologue: Why I Chopped my Son’s Willy
GA: The following is a uniquely sickening monologue by Michael Knopf –a rabbi who explains why he decided to perform Brit Milah, a barbarian Jewish blood ritual, on his baby son. It was published today by Haaretz and it deserves attention. A lot of words about the greatness of Judaism and its plural qualities. However, no excuse for inflicting bodily damage and hurting innocent infants. Also no mention of the blood sucking act that is, disgustingly enough, an integral part of the ritual.
Why I circumcised my own son
I'm not a mohel or a physician, but when it came to my son's brit milah, I couldn't let fear get in the way of me and my spiritual growth.
I recently had the incredible joy of ushering my new son into the covenant of the Jewish people through the rite of brit milah. According to Jewish law, a Jewish father must circumcise his son at eight days old. Most fathers, quite understandably, transfer this obligation to a mohel, someone specially trained in the performance of a brit milah, and the mohel acts as the father's agent in carrying out the ritual. The Jewish legal tradition considers this perfectly acceptable since "an individual's messenger is like the individual." The mohel is the father's duly appointed messenger, and any act he performs is considered as if the father had performed it himself.
But when it came time to circumcise my own son, I opted not to rely upon this perfectly legitimate legal fiction. I performed the circumcision myself, albeit with the help of an expert mohel (who also happened to be a skilled and experienced physician) who ensured everything was being done in a safe, healthy and proper way. I circumcised my son despite being untrained in the sacred arts of milah and, frankly, despite the squeamishness and indescribable fear that engulfed me moments beforehand. My unusual participation in a ritual that – even when performed in its usual way – tends to make people uncomfortable calls for an explanation. Why did I insist on doing it this way?
Judaism is a DIY spiritual path. Since the destruction of the Second Temple and the abolition of the sacrificial system, Judaism has never relied on a clerical class to officiate and perform religious rites for the common people that those people could not, with the proper education, otherwise do themselves. As Rabbi Elie Kaunfer puts it in his book "Empowered Judaism," rabbis, rather than being the gatekeepers of rituals that clerics are in other faiths, are simply "critical teachers who inspire and give people the tools to learn more on their own." The rabbi has no special power, no elite status. He or she just has more-than-average learning. The only barrier to any Jew's ability to take full ownership over his religious life is education, not title or status. And the primary barrier to education and empowerment is fear.
Many of us Jews, uncertain about what we believe, embarrassed that we don't know what we're doing, and fearful that we'll get it wrong, outsource our religious lives to the "professionals." In his book "Man's Quest for God," Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel termed this phenomenon "praying by proxy," and it's as prevalent today as it was in his time, maybe more so. As a rabbi, I see Jews pray by proxy all the time. Often, I myself am the proxy. I empathize with the anxieties in which this reality is rooted. But I also know how it hinders personal growth, spiritual maturity, and a deeper relationship with one's self, community, tradition and God.
In the days and moments leading up to my son's brit milah, those same anxieties assaulted me, too, especially given the severity of the act I was considering undertaking. I was anxious that I did not know what I was doing, ashamed that as a rabbi I did not have this sacred skill in my repertoire, and afraid that I would mess up.
But then I considered: What growth, what spiritual maturity, what deeper relationship is the tradition inviting me to by commanding me, and not a proxy, to circumcise my son? Upon reflection, I began to see the brit milah as the undertaking of a sacred act for a loved one who is himself unable. In this sense, a brit milah is a lot like kivurah, the burial of a deceased love one. Kivurah is an intimate, loving, and embracing act performed for someone who is incapable of doing it himself and, as such, is supposed to be done by immediate family. It is also, to my mind, the most powerful, spiritual and psychologically useful moment in a traditional Jewish funeral service.
Like kivurah, brit milah is an act of hesed, of love. Thinking of it that way, I could not shake the intimacy of the act, and it seemed more appropriate for me to perform such a personal and loving deed for my son than a surrogate.
Additionally, I began to see that brit milah is about the linear transmission of the covenant from one generation to the next, of a son being inscribed into a drama that includes his parents and ancestors. If so, how could I hire an agent to do it for me? My son's place in the Jewish drama is through me, my wife and our families. A messenger didn't bring him into that story; so, how could a messenger seal him into that story through brit milah?
I increasingly came to find the tradition's reasons for considering the brit milah to be my responsibility compelling, that there was extraordinary spiritual, psychological and relational potential in performing the commandment myself. Yet I was still conflicted. My fear was holding me back.
And then it occurred to me: perhaps confronting and overcoming the fear was at least partially the point. Every new father is understandably afraid of harm befalling his child. Maybe the tradition is urging new fathers like me – at precisely this most terrifying moment – to learn to refuse to let fear dictate our direction in life, to not let fear inhibit our personal, spiritual and relational growth. And, by extension, maybe it is empowering us to pass on this piece of wisdom to our children. My son will grow up to know that his entry into the covenant required his father to take on and transcend his fear. Maybe that will inspire him, too, to not be enslaved to his fears.
At the very least, maybe he will feel empowered enough not to have to pray by proxy. And maybe some of my congregants, witnessing the moment from the pews, felt a similar inspiration.
Rabbi Michael Knopf is the Rabbi of Temple Beth-El in Richmond, Virginia, and an alumnus of Clal’s Rabbis Without Borders fellowship. You can follow him on Facebook.
December 2, 2014
Haim Saban pledged to support Clinton should she run for president.
Former US secretary of state Hillary Clinton will address a forum about US-Israeli relationships sponsored by Israeli billionaire Haim Saban.
The Saban Forum in Washington is an annual event organized by the Brookings Institution, The Hill reported on Monday.
The Israeli mega-donor is a major political donor, who pledged last year to support Clinton should she run for the next presidential election.
“I hope she will run. She would be a wonderful president,” Saban said.
US Secretary of State John Kerry and Vice President Joe Biden will also be among the participants of the forum.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will appear via satellite.
The event will focus on ties "via candid closed-door dialogue between US and Israeli officials, policymakers, journalists and business leaders."
Clinton, the wife of former president Bill Clinton, won a US Senate seat from New York in 2000.
She later ran and lost the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, but served as secretary of state during Obama’s first term.
She has not officially announced her bid for the presidential post yet.
When asked about seeking the Democratic nomination for president, Clinton did not reject the idea.
Last month, President Barack Obama said that Hillary Clinton would make a great president should she decide to run for the White House.
Mentioning Clinton by name, Obama told ABC News that she would be a "formidable candidate" and make "a great president" if she decides to run a second time.
The Palestinians Have Managed to Topple Another Israeli Government
By Gilad Atzmon
Occasionally Israeli political and military leadership fail to survive Israeli wars. PM Golda Meir and her Chief Of Staff (David "Dado" Elazar) were sent home after the 1973 blunder (Yom Kippur war). PM Menachem Begin lost his sanity after the first Lebanon war (1982). Defense Minister Amir Peretz and his Chief Of Staff’ Dan Halutz’ were treated harshly by the Israeli media following the 2006 defeat in Lebanon. PM Benjamin Netanyahu is now paying a price for the recent Israeli disaster in Gaza and the Palestinian uprising that followed.
Strong nations tend to unite behind their leaders in times of crisis. The Israelis are spoiled. They prefer to turn against their leaders in times of conflict and not because they crave peace. Quite the opposite, they want to see a conclusive victory; buckets of Arab blood. Bibi didn’t provide the goods and in the eyes of many Israeli patriots he was a softy.
Israel’s didn’t perform well in the last round of violence. The IDF didn’t achieve a single military objective. After a few days, its forces withdrew, humiliated and exhausted. The Israeli military admitted that it lacked an answer to Palestinian ballistics, tunnels and fierceness. In addition, the conflict in Gaza spilled over to the West Bank and to Israeli cities. Throughout, Netanyahu’s cabinet reacted slowly. It seemed confused by events. Soon Israelis were openly admitting that the future of the Jewish State was gloomier than ever.
The Israeli political establishment was quick to follow - with a total radicalization. The hawks wanted the state to admit that it is a ‘Jewish home’ instead of a ‘Jewish democracy’ (a term that in itself, provides a contradiction). The centrists and the Israeli Left insisted that Israel sustain the ‘democratic’ lie. It sounds good and the Goyim buy it they argued.
Earlier today, PM Netanyahu announced new elections after firing two key ministers in his government - Yesh Atid leader Finance Minister Yair Lapid and Hatnua leader Justice Minister Tzipi Livni.
Livni and Lapid opposed Israel’s National Bill and provided Netanyahu a golden opportunity to reinstate his status as a devoted Jewish patriotic and a nationalist voice. I guess that Netanyahu will survive this political round.
But here is a small yet significant piece of the story. Seven month ago it was Netanyahu who mounted pressure on the PA, the Hamas and the Palestinian population in an effort to break up the Palestinian unity government. After six month of violence, a war in Gaza and a 3rd Intifada in the making, the Palestinians seem more united than ever, and Netanyahu’s Government is breaking apart.
France Votes Yes To Palestinian state
Vote at France's lower house is non-binding, but urges the government 'to recognize the state of Palestine in view of reaching a definitive settlement to the conflict.'
France's lower house of Parliament has voted Tuesday to urge the government to recognize a Palestinian state, in the hope that speeds up peace efforts after decades of conflict.
The vote, approved with 339 votes to 151, is non-binding. But it is a symbolic boost for the Palestinians, amid growing support in Europe for two states. The measure asks the government "to recognize the state of Palestine in view of reaching a definitive settlement to the conflict.
On October 30, Sweden's government became the first western European nation in the EU to recognize Palestinian statehood. Since then, lawmakers in Britain, Spain and Ireland have approved non-binding motions urging recognition.
Last week members of the European Parliament began debating whether they can agree on a common approach for the European Union's 28 member states
November 30, 2014
Prospects of 3rd Intifada In Palestine-Khaled Waleed & Gilad Atzmon
An interesting discussion on Press TV's The Sun Will Rise: 3rd Intifada, Palestinian resistance, Israel's National Bill and the Jewishness of the Jewish State.
November 28, 2014
'Jew, Judaism, Jewishness' - an interview with Bill Alford
By Gilad Atzmon
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.'
The campaign to silence Gilad Atzmon
GA: I believe that i have never circulated the following article. It was published originally in March 2012. It is very well written and genuinely presents the arguments against me and in favour of my work. Evidently, the call for ‘my disavowal’ was never taken seriously by anyone out of the pro Palestinian Jewish ghetto and had zero impact on my career and activity. However, I admit, it is exiting for me to see that just two years after the call to 'ignore my thoughts', every thinking being involved with Palestine accepts now that Jewish culture, identity and supremacy are t the core of any issues to do with the Jewish State and its Jewish lobby.
End
http://warincontext.org/2012/03/17/the-campaign-to-silence-gilad-atzmon/
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.
This book is now endorsed very widely by a lot of people, a lot of Muslims and Muslim converts wrote about it, like the one I have in mind at the moment is Kevin Barrett who wrote, this is the most important text — he is definitely not a Jew, he is a Muslim — he said this is a very important text for me about identity politics. It teaches me how to drift away from this whole restricting discourse into a society where we can celebrate who we are without falling into a kind of methodical discourse that tells us who we should be or what we ought to be.
This merits repetition and reflection: people who know who they are, don’t need identity.
And the converse is also true: people who cling to an identity, don’t know who they are.
For some people, these philosophical observation are not of the slightest interest when articulated by Atzmon for the simple reason that he has been labelled an antisemite. Thus, for someone like Alan Dershowitz, Atzmon is beneath contempt. Instead, Dershowitz shamelessly directs his venom at anyone in a position of influence who dares to suggest that Atzmon’s ideas are worth reflecting upon.
Atzmon is unphased, but he isn’t just getting attacked by Zionists.
“Not only has my latest book, The Wandering Who?, rocked the boat, but it also has managed to unite Alan Dershowitz and Abe Foxman with Ali Abunimah and Max Blumenthal. That is pretty encouraging: it means that peace may prevail after all.” — Gilad Atzmon, March 14, 2012.
The Emergency Committee for Palestine has now spoken:
For many years now, Gilad Atzmon, a musician born in Israel and currently living in the United Kingdom, has taken on the self-appointed task of defining for the Palestinian movement the nature of our struggle, and the philosophy underpinning it. He has done so through his various blogs and Internet outlets, in speeches, and in articles. He is currently on tour in the United States promoting his most recent book, entitled, ‘The Wandering Who.’
With this letter, we call for the disavowal of Atzmon by fellow Palestinian organizers, as well as Palestine solidarity activists, and allies of the Palestinian people, and note the dangers of supporting Atzmon’s political work and writings and providing any platforms for their dissemination. We do so as Palestinian organizers and activists, working across continents, campaigns, and ideological positions.
Atzmon’s politics rest on one main overriding assertion that serves as springboard for vicious attacks on anyone who disagrees with his obsession with “Jewishness”. He claims that all Jewish politics is “tribal,” and essentially, Zionist. Zionism, to Atzmon, is not a settler-colonial project, but a trans-historical “Jewish” one, part and parcel of defining one’s self as a Jew. Therefore, he claims, one cannot self-describe as a Jew and also do work in solidarity with Palestine, because to identify as a Jew is to be a Zionist. We could not disagree more. Indeed, we believe Atzmon’s argument is itself Zionist because it agrees with the ideology of Zionism and Israel that the only way to be a Jew is to be a Zionist.
This statement — part of an open letter titled “Granting No Quarter: A Call for the Disavowal of the Racism and Antisemitism of Gilad Atzmon” — was preceded by a similar denunciation, “Not Quite ‘Ordinary Human Beings’ — Anti-imperialism and the anti-humanist rhetoric of Gilad Atzmon,” written by “some North American anti-imperialists,” and signed by a large number of representatives of the Palestinian solidarity movement.
They say at the end of their statement: “We wish to reiterate that we consider many of those promoting Atzmon’s work to be allies, but would ask that they reconsider their decision to do so. This is not a call for censorship, but for consistency and accountability.”
What is clear is that Atzmon offends, antagonizes and is felt as threatening by a number of anti-Zionists. The group of Palestinian activists who I facetiously labelled the Emergency Committee for Palestine are making a show of solidarity with fellow anti-Zionists. Their move might be well-intentioned, but at the same time it is by its nature, presumptuous, patronizing and authoritarian.
What should follow this disavowal? Should there be a book-burning event in order to protect the minds of those of us who might be so imprudent as to show some curiosity about Atzmon’s ideas?
Statements of disavowal and denunciation, the picketing of Atzmon’s lectures, and a campaign to persuade others not to provide Atzmon with a platform — if this is not an effort at censorship, what would be involved in actually trying to silence Atzmon?
In reality, this is clumsy neo-McCarthyism. It deserves no more respect than the pronouncements of Zionists like Dershowitz who as much as he might profess a belief in the value of free speech will do whatever he can to silence those he opposes.
A year ago, Rabbi Michael Lerner, who had heard the criticisms leveled at Atzmon, did something that few of these critics have the courage to do: he invited the-man-who-should-be-shunned into his home and engaged him in conversation. Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear that the whole discussion has been put online, but here’s a snippet that is worth watching — unless of course one wants to follow the advice of the disavowalists.
At the conclusion of a response he has written to the current round of criticism, Atzmon says: “If my opposition is concerned with my thoughts, it will have to learn to debate. Before we can proceed, I guess, my detractors may have to actually read my book and decide exactly what they are against.”
He says this in full awareness that many of his critics prefer to rely on the judgements of others rather than engage in their own inquiry. This has led to an absurd situation: Atzmon’s lectures are being picketed by individuals who when confronted by him admit that they have not actually read his work, but instead merely rely on damning quotes, cherry-picked by anti-Atzmon activists who seem to welcome neither free speech nor free inquiry.
Free speech is not some fatuous liberty like being able to shop on EBay or dye your hair purple. The reason we have free speech is because in a society governed by the people, no one can be allowed the privilege or assume the power of becoming the guardians of thought. Those who try to limit the free exchange of ideas have a casual and dangerous disregard for the value of political freedom.
No one is being forced to consider what Atzmon has to say — but neither should anyone try and coerce others to refrain from pursuing such an interest.
There is something frankly moronic about any political culture where individuals are encouraged to swallow or reject ideas simply because of the reputation of the source. This is an insult to human intelligence and an invitation to intellectual idleness.
For those with an interest in the dangerous activity of thinking — and in defiance of those who pronounce I should not be providing such a platform — here is a panel discussion on “Jewish identity politics” in which Atzmon was joined last fall by Irving Rappaport (moderator), Glenn Bowman (social anthropologist, University of Kent), Oren Ben-Dor (Reader in the Philosophy of Law, University of Southampton — who remains silent for reasons unknown), and Karl Sabbagh (author, journalist and television producer).
The discussion, followed by questions, runs for one hour forty minutes, divided into ten parts. It’s well worth watching from beginning to end.
November 27, 2014
Jews For Justice For Germans!!!
Yesterday after publishing my expose of Max Blumenthal's recent Goy hatred rant, I became aware of a new Facebook Community: Jews For Justice For Germans.
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!!!
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Jews-for-Justice-for-Germans/
Here is a conversation between Paul Eisen and myself in my dinning room.
November 26, 2014
The Pathology of Max Blumenthal
By Gilad Atzmon
The Jewish activist Max Blumenthal wrote an expansive book on Israeli racism, but he failed completely and categorically to grasp the culture that drives Jewish supremacy within the Jewish State, Jewish politics and beyond. Interestingly enough, 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.
In an interview with Anna-Esther Younes published by the Jewish pro Palestinian site Mondweiss, Max Blumenthal said, “Based on what I knew about Germany and its national pathology and its failure to really take the right lessons from its own history. I was hardly surprised by the reaction that I received…”
“Are you calling us pathological?” wonders Younes.
“Yes, this is a sick society that hasn’t addressed the core political and psychological and social trends that lead to the Holocaust.”
Apparently, the ‘progressive’ Blumenthal has no inhibitions about diagnosing Germany’s ‘sick society’ and its ‘pathology.’ But he doesn’t stop there. Like a proper Zionist Jew, Blumenthal also divides the world into two primary categories, Jews and Gentiles: “when I was so promiscuously described as an anti-Semite, including by gentile politicians like Volker Beck, and that this behavior was considered perfectly normal in German society, I have to admit to some level of shock.”
Apparently Blumenthal, a Jew, is allowed to attribute the anti-Semitic label to others, but the Goy politician Beck is not permitted to participate in the game. And why? Because Beck’s penis wasn’t chopped by a rabbi. “In Germany” complains Blumenthal, “I apparently am not as Jewish as Volker Beck, a man who has never had a Bris or a Bar Mitzvah.” For those who do not know, Bris, stands for Brit-Milah-the Jewish circumcision ceremony, an ancient blood ritual that involves (occasionally) blood sucking.
If anyone believed Blumenthal that he was an anti Zionist, he has a surprise for you. Just a little opposition in Germany made Blumenthal unsure about his commitment to the ‘anti’ club. “My Jewish identity can be negated, simply because I’ve defined it outside the frontiers of Israeli nationalism and to some extent, against Zionism.”
There you go. Blumenthal, by his own admission is not so sure anymore that he is an anti Zionist, he is only to a “certain extent.” Blumenthal is correct. The shameless performance put on by David Sheen and Max Blumenthal as they chased a leading German politician into the toilet provides proof that both Sheen and Blumenthal are actually far more abhorrent, aggressive and intrusive than the most repugnant Israeli or Zionist. Sheen and Blumenthal’s behavior puts anti-Semitism in context. It is hard to imagine a worse display of manners.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNxeLowNLYY
As if being Germans is not bad enough, in the eyes of Blumenthal, the Germans are also guilty of being ‘White.” To the question “does that make Germany a Jewish friendly country?” Blumenthal answers, “Germany is the whitest country in the world. It’s so white that it doesn’t know that it’s white or what whiteness is.” This is actually the most inclusive notion of Whiteness I have ever come across. It implies that in Germany, whiteness has no binary meaning. However, I suggest that Blumenthal looks in the mirror.
Younes, probably overwhelmed by Blumenthal’s unique convoluted brand of anti intellectual aggression, asked Blumenthal to elaborate on the meaning of ‘Whiteness.’ Blumenthal replied, “whiteness is the supreme embodiment of privilege. Whiteness is expressed through the wielding of power against calls for equality and the simultaneous denial of the very existence of the privilege to do so — a willful lack of self-awareness.”
Reading these lines by Blumenthal I am perplexed by the total lack of self-awareness on Blumenthal’s part. What did Blumenthal think to himself when he and Sheen were filming and chasing the German MP to the toilet while loudly celebrating their own privilege of being Jews? Did they think that a Palestinian might do the same thing? Would Ramzy Baroud or Azmi Bishara even consider behaving in such a rude way? Not in million years. And the reason Blumenthal and Sheen feel entitled to act so badly is simple. The two are operating with an impunity that is driven by a unique sense of choseness, i.e., Jewish privilege.
For a second it may seem as if Blumenthal is critical of the primacy of Jewish suffering “The completely mono-cultural narrative on what it means to be a German holds that the Holocaust towers above all other crimes, that those who perished in it were the ultimate victims of history, and that the Jewish nation that rose up in its wake must therefore float above the weight of history.”
What is going on? I am slightly confused. Blumenthal is a devoted Nazi hunter and an open enemy of historical revisionism. A few years ago, Blumenthal produced a Zionist Text Book video that attempted to discredit historical revisionist David Irving. This video is worth watching. “Inadvertently or not, Germany is instrumentalizing the Holocaust and Zionism to compromise the citizenship rights of Muslim and Arab immigrants, to silence their narratives, and to complicate their naturalization process.” But Blumenthal here is actually talking about himself; it is he who has been instrumentalizing the Holocaust to serve the goal of his own (Jewish progressive) narrative.
It takes a few paragraphs before Blumenthal squirts the full Jewish progressive mantra. “They (the Germans) simply can not accept that Jews are normal people capable of being oppressors like everyone else; of practicing apartheid or developing a class of extremists who behave almost identically to Christian neo-Nazis.” Precious. This is probably the best summary of Jewish progressive nonsense. Jews are like everyone else, they are ordinary people and don’t you ever dare question their choseness. Don’t you ask what is unique about their lobby, don’t you ever look into the role of their elite and its domination in culture or banking etc.’ But then, if Jews are just so ordinary, how did they manage to mount the political pressure on the German political system that drove Blumenthal and David Sheen out of Germany? Instead of answering this simple and crucial question, the Progressive Jew Blumenthal prefers to smear the entire German people as a ‘pathological,’ ‘sickening society,’ driven by whiteness. This tactic is appalling yet symptomatic of Progressive Jewish ID politics.
If you think that you have enough evidence of the depth of Blumenthal’s racially driven thinking, read this. When asked about support in Germany, “I’ve met quite a few white Germans who are supportive of the idea of Palestinians having basic human rights and are actually willing to do something about it…Genuinely left-wing anti-racists tend to be supportive of Palestinian rights.” But I wonder, is Blumenthal anti racist? For an anti racist enthusiast his language is suffused with racial expressions and biological determinist ideas. Blumenthal refers to skin colour. He talks about the pathology of nations and peoples but at the same time he defies any attempt to criticise the ideology of his own ‘chosen’people.
Max Blumenthal is not anti racist; he is instead an exemplary specimen of a supremacist Jew. I believe that Blumenthal would do himself and his people a great favour by avoiding cameras and microphones, because reading the comments on Mondoweiss reveals that Blumenthal is not alone - the Jewish progressive crowd of Mondoweiss also cannot grasp how racist, aggressive and supremacist Blumenthal’s views are.
Fascinating.
