Gilad Atzmon's Blog, page 5

Jon Stewart Mocks Netanyahu

Israeli Election 2015...

Gideon Levy also agrees-Netanyahu will be remembered for speaking Israel's truth

GA: Yesterday I elaborated on  the deceitful nature of the Jewish Left. My expose of Jeff Halper  went viral in minutes. I guess that we can detect a rapidly growing fatigue of Jewish political spin. I argued that unlike the delusional Jewish Left, Netanyahu, Lapid and Bennett speak Israel's truth. Today the great Israeli journalist and humanist Gideon Levy has come to a similar conclusion.

http://www.haaretz.com/

"Netanyahu will be remembered for speaking Israel's truth

For at least 25 years most Israeli statesmen have been lying, misleading the world, the Israelis and themselves, until Netanyahu arose. Better late than never.
 
"I would like to say thank you to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Thank you for telling the truth. Last week you were revealed as the first Israeli prime minister to tell the truth. For at least 25 years most Israeli statesmen have been lying, misleading the world, the Israelis and themselves, until Netanyahu arose – he of all statesmen – and told the truth. If only this truth had been told by an Israeli prime minister 25 years ago, maybe even 50 years ago, when the occupation was born. Still, better late than never. The public rewarded him for this truth, and Netanyahu was elected for a fourth term.

Netanyahu said last week that if he were to be reelected, a Palestinian state would not be established on his watch. Plain and simple, loud and clear. This simple, pure truth was the case for all his predecessors as well – all the prime ministers, peace lovers and justice seekers from the center and the left, who gave false promises. But who thought to admit it before him? Who had the courage to reveal the truth? The latest of these deceivers was Zionist Union leader Isaac Herzog: His daring plan included five years of negotiations. The public rewarded him for that."

To read more: http://www.haaretz.com/

 

The Southampton University Win/Win Situation

By Gilad Atzmon

I am thrilled by the Zionist despair surrounding the Southampton University Conference on Israel’s legitimacy. The conference, due to take place next month, plans to examine the legality of Israel in the eye of international law.

British Jews are in state of panic and for good reason. They are facing a lose/lose situation. If the conference goes ahead, it may produce some dry academic papers regarding Israeli criminality; but if the conference is cancelled, it will establish clear evidence of the vindictive nature of the Jewish leadership and its crude interference with academic freedom and the British values of tolerance and diversity.    

So, here is some good news. Their relentless struggle to cancel the conference clearly suggests that Jewish community leaders are not all opposed to cultural and academic boycotts as they have been proclaiming for a while. They are actually very enthusiastic about academic Herem (Boycott, Hebrew), they just don’t like to be the ones boycotted. The current Zionist campaign against an academic gathering has abrogated the Zionist ‘moral’ argument against the BDS. This doesn’t surprise me. I have been writing about Jewish Herem culture for years. Both Zionist culture and its so-called  ‘anti’ are equally intolerant of criticism. Moreover, Herem is deeply rooted in Jewish culture, ideology and heritage.  Spinoza, Uriel De Costa, and yours truly have been subjected to Herem, and now it is Southampton University’s turn.

Jewish community leaders have so far tried every trick in their book. The Telegraph reported yesterday that Mark Lewis, a prominent British lawyer, said: “he would think twice before hiring someone from the south coast university.” This is a typical unreasonable indiscriminate reaction against innocent students. Unfortunately, this is consistent with the indiscriminate lethal actions made by the Jewish State against innocent Palestinians. Mr. Lewis added: “This is a one-sided conference, not a debate.” Lewis is either misinformed or simply not telling the truth. I contacted the conference organiser and found out that Israeli and Zionist academics were invited to attend the conference. Not one bothered to reply. I suppose that Alan Dershowitz might have been a perfect Zionist candidate for the conference, but he is too busy clearing his name after being implicated in a vile sex scandal together with arch paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

Critics of the conference, including the Board of Deputies of British Jews, a body that claims to represent British Jewry, insist that many of the speakers are known anti-Israel activists. Someone should remind the Board Of Deputies that opposing Israel is not exactly a crime, it is actually a universally accepted ethical standpoint.

The battle over the conference provides us with a precious glimpse into the manner in which Jewish lobbies in this country interfere with Britain’s academic curriculum. Mr. Lewis was foolish enough to admit that: “to his knowledge at least two major patrons of the university were considering withdrawing their financial support. One is a charitable foundation, the other a wealthy family.” His threat provides a clear and unmistakable message-if we want academia to be free, we must make sure that its funding is free of tribal interests.  

Lewis said, “Southampton University is hosting a debate about Israel’s right to exist that would not be permissible about any other country. And by doing so it gives credence to anti-Semitic views.” Assuming that Lewis, himself a lawyer, was at some point enrolled in an academic institute, he should be educated enough to understand that ‘questioning legitimacy’ is different from challenging the ‘right to exist,’ and it is certainly different from questioning the right of its people to exist.  In case Lewis and the Board Of Deputies still don’t understand the issue, I offer my humble assistance with terminology: Israel defines itself as the ‘Jewish State.’ It is a state of one people that celebrates its national and racist symptoms at the expense of the indigenous population. This Jewish State has been committing war crimes in the name of the Jewish people. Hence, academic scrutiny of questions regarding its legitimacy is essential.

Eric Pickles, the British Secretary of State for Communities

But the Jewish leaders are not alone in their battle. Eric Pickles, the British Secretary of State for Communities, called it a “one-sided diatribe.” He said: “There is a careful line between legitimate academic debate on international law and the actions of governments, and the far-left’s bashing of Israel which often descends into naked anti-Semitism.” The fact that a laughable character has become a minister in Britain is perhaps an optional subject for another academic conference. Still, I would expect at least one of Pickles’ advisors to explain to his boss that if he really wants to criticise the content of a given conference, the conference must be held first.    

Tim Sluckin, professor of mathematics at the University and secretary of Southampton Hebrew Congregation, denounced the event, describing it as “a political meeting masquerading as academic activity.”  Prof Sluckin said: “Their purpose is to delegitimize Israel. This is not appropriate for a university. It makes me feel uncomfortable as a Jew, with Israeli family.” I would advise Professor Sluckin that ‘feeling uncomfortable as a Jew,’ is an appropriate ethical reaction to Israel’s actions and his comment actually proves that the conference is more than necessary.  Many more Jews should feel uncomfortable with Israel’s actions.

The Parkes Institute, a centre for the study of Jewish history based at Southampton University, has added its voice to the chorus of critics. Joachim Schlör, director of the Institute, produced a uniquely lame comment: “This event could potentially damage the spirit of dialogue and cooperation to which we are all committed.” One may wonder how can Schlör and his Jewish institute be “committed to dialogue” while demanding the cancellation of an academic gathering? And why exactly can’t a group of Jewish history academics engage in questions relating to the legitimacy of Israel? Schlör is obviously clueless about Judaism, Jewish history and cultural heritage. He should have been the first to see that questions regarding Israel’s legitimacy could be an ideal subject for lively Talmudic discussion.

The Jewish campaign seems to have been met with fierce academic resistance. In the last week over 700 academics from universities around the world have signed a statement in support of the University's stance, saying that the themes of conference "are entirely legitimate subjects for debate and inquiry" and that to call for it to be scrapped is an attack on free speech and academic freedom.

So far the University is firm in its decision to go ahead with the conference, The University spokesman said: “We are committed to academic freedom, free speech and opportunities for staff and students to engage with a wide range of opinions.”

But as things stand, damage to the Jewish community and its reputation is immanent. This futile battle depicts British Jewry as opponents of academic freedom, free speech and British values. I wonder how long it will take British Jews to understand the harm inflicted on them by the Board Of Deputies.

Read more:  Zionized  PSC is yet to support the Southampton University. They are probably waiting for green light from Jerusalem...

 

The Jewish Left Is Not The Solution, It Is The Heart Of The Problem

By Gilad Atzmon

I have never met Jeff Halper. What I know about him is that he is an American Jew who settled on Palestinian land but opposes Israeli house demolition. Halper appears to be a participant in the Zionist project while at the same time opposing the measures that have been implemented to sustain that plunderous project.

Halper’s moral discrepancy shouldn’t take us by surprise, he is far from alone. This behavioural mode is symptomatic of Jewish Left thinking in general and the Jewish anti Zionist call in particular. Instead of presenting a genuine ethical argument, the Jewish Left is a desperate attempt to convey an ‘image’ of Jewish moral awareness. Instead of being ethical they mimic a true ethical argument.

In the last few years, Mondoweiss has become the home for this Hasbara operation. It enthusiastically promotes Judeo-centric half-baked thoughts and comments that are designed to divert attention away from the Jewishness that drives the Jewish State and its lobby. Three years ago Mondoweiss went so far as to ban discussion on the role of Jewish culture and religion in relation to politics. The ‘progressive’ site changed its comment policy, the site’s editorial wrote, “from here on out, the Mondoweiss comment section will no longer serve as a forum to pillory Jewish culture and religion as the driving factors in Israeli and US policy.” As if by banning the discussion, they could influence reality.

Jeff Halper’s commentary on the recent Israeli election is an exemplary case of deceptive left analysis. Halper revealed to the Mondoweiss crowd that “finally the fig-leaf that allowed even liberal Israeli apologists to argue that the two-state solution is still possible has been removed.” As if we needed Halper or Netanyahu’s election in order to grasp that Israel has been one-state dominated by supremacist tribal ideology.  But then Halper dropped a prophetic statement of false reassurance.  “We are finally free to move on to a genuine and just solution.” I am puzzled, who is ‘we’ exactly? Who is ‘free’ to move? And what is a ‘genuine and just solution’ according to Halper?  Knowing that not a single Jewish Knesset member supports the right of return, what makes Halper convinced that justice is on the way? 

Halper outlines his vision of a ‘just peace’ a few lines below, ”Israel has left us with only one way out: to transform that state into a democratic state of equal rights for all of its citizens. In addition to ensuring its population’s individual civil rights, it must also ensure the collective rights of each of the country’s national groups: Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews.” This is the deception. He fails to address the Palestinian cause or the refugees. The American Jew settler who returned to his ‘promised land’ thanks to the racist Israeli law of return, is preaching ‘justice’ but neglecting the elementary right of the indigenous people of the land to return to their homes, villages, fields and orchards. I guess that when Halper referred to a ‘just solution’ he must have had a kosher one in mind. More concerning is the fact that Halper deceives his readers. He presents a phantasy as a political mantra. The election’s results clearly prove that there is no Jewish political party that advocates the transformation of Israel into a ‘State of it Citizens; ’ quite the opposite, Israel is likely to become more Jewish than ever.  

But the Left Hasbara merchant continues; “Yet another fig-leaf dropped in this election as well, the notion that Israel is genuinely a democratic state.” Again, Halper is misleading: the last election in Israel was democratic and provided a true representation of Israeli society. As such, it reflects the true nature of the Jewish state; Israel is racist, supremacist and intolerant. The democratic election in Israel reveals that the Jewish state is suffocated with Goy hatred and is dangerous to itself and to the rest of the universe.

In reflection of the democratic nature of its election, the third biggest party in Israel is an Arab party. This fact puts Israel far ahead of its ‘progressive’ Jewish anti Zionist opponents. The demography of the Israeli Knesset is more diverse than the leadership of JVP or Mondoweiss’ editorial board.  And interestingly enough, the only true Left universalist party in the Israel parliament is the United Arab party.

Reading Jeff Halper’s Mondoweiss commentary confirms what we have known for some time – the Jewish left does not provide a solution; it is actually the heart of the problem. It is delusional at best and consciously deceitful at worst. It is not surprising that the left has been eradicated in Israel; it had nothing to offer to either the Israelis or the Palestinians. The ‘Jewish Left’ is an oxymoron – one can be either a universalist or tribal, one cannot be both. And while the progressive Mondoweiss bans discussion of the Jewishness of the Jewish state the previous Israeli cabinet passed the Israeli National Bill that defined Israel as the Jewish State.

The hard core Israeli hawks admit their tribalism and are motivated by the search for a home for their true Jewish nature and the meaning of Jewish politics while our imaginary Jewish ‘dove’ ‘allies’ invest their political energy in concealing what is obvious about a ‘Jewish’ state,’ its Jewishness and the role of that Jewishness in its politics. 

I kindly advise Halper and Mondoweiss that with Netanyahu, Bennett and Lieberman leading the Jewish people in accordance to what they believe to be right and Jewish, the left can relax and take a back seat. It is manifestly time to move past this progressive Hasbara spin operation. res ipse loquitur. We should let the truth speak for itself.  

Red Ice Radio- Gilad Atzmon - Hour 1 - Zionist Pressure Groups & Jewish Identity Politics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiSEQCjNzf4

Gilad Atzmon is a British jazz artist and author born in Israel and trained in composition and jazz at the Rubin Academy of Music, Jerusalem. He is a member of the Blockheads, founded the Orient House Ensemble in London, and has recorded and performed with many rock music legends. Gilad also writes on political matters, social issues, Jewish identity and culture. He has written two novels, and his latest book, The Wandering Who? is a study of Jewish identity politics. In the first hour, Mr. Atzmon gives an account of the recent cancellation of his scheduled performance with the Orient House Ensemble at Manchester's Royal Northern College of Music. The prestigious cultural institute gave into pressure to stop the show by the ultra-Zionist organization North West Friends of Israel (NWFOI), who accused Atzmon of "fostering anti-Semitism" and denying the holocaust. Gilad speaks about the historically strained relationship between Jews and Europeans, the questionable ethics of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement (BDS Movement) and the serious issue of British pedophile networks. Then, he talks about the controlled opposition of the Jewish anti-Zionist network, which diverts attention from Israel's ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, and the Leftist domination that has left Palestine to crumble. Gilad gets into the largely Jewish phenomenon of identity politics, the division of Europe's working class, and enforced monoculture. In an exceptional extended second half, Gilad speaks to the psychopathic principles of Israel's PM Benjamin Netanyahu and his process of projection. We discuss the link between the BDS boycott movement, funding from liberal Zionist George Soros, LGBTQ influence and the role of the Open Society associating gay rights with the Palestinian cause. Later, we examine the effects of splicing society into marginal discourses and the disastrous sexual revolution. In conclusion, we chew over the root cause of pervasive fear of anti-Semitism.
 

A Very Kosher Dishonesty (must read!!!)

By Paul Eisen

http://pauleisen.blogspot.com/

It’s now well known that the Royal Northern College of Music (RNCM) was pressured by Zionist lobbyists North West Friends of Israel (NWFOI) to cancel a concert by internationally acclaimed jazz saxophonist Gilad Atzmon. What is less well known is that the co-chair and spokesperson for NWFOI is one Anthony Dennison (Mr Dennison’s name and role in the organisation may be confirmed here). These machinations by the NWFOI and the leading role played by Mr Dennison were duly reported by the Jewish Chronicle

So far, so… well, if not exactly good, certainly understandable.

Less understandable is the fact (not mentioned by the JC) of Mr Dennison’s documented and well-known dishonesty. Because of his dishonesty, Anthony Dennison, once a lawyer closely associated with the no win, no fee scam was found by the High Court to be unworthy to practice law and was duly struck off

Everyone knew about it. The BBC knew about it, the Solicitor’s Journal knew about it, The Daily Telegraph knew about it, and The Manchester Evening News knew about it so it’s safe to say that the NWFOI and the JC certainly knew about it.

But Mr Dennison is not only an aficionado of white-collar dishonesty; in fact he’s not at all averse to getting down and dirty because it seems that Anthony Dennison is also a bit of a football hooligan. Perhaps you remember the incident from October 2014 when Mr Dennison’s all-Jewish football team (Maccabi) was about to be wiped out in a match (9:2 with only 10 minutes left to play) and Mr Dennison took his young players off the pitch claiming ‘anti-Semitic abuse.’ The fledgeling anti-Semite was duly disciplined but Dennison was also later banned and fined by the FA - for his "foul and abusive behaviour". And yes, the incident was duly reported by the JC here and here

So are we entitled to conclude that Anthony Dennison is both dishonest and a hooligan? And if we are, is it then surprising that, when orchestrating the pressure on the RNCM, he should call to his support the now implicated in the Jeffrey Epstein under-age sex scandal none other than fellow discredited lawyer Alan Dershowitz?

Leaving aside whether we should allow such a man as Anthony Dennison to bully a British artist and academic and a beloved cultural institution, there is another, wider question to be asked: How come a supposedly respectable lobbying organisation like NWFOI is happy to have as a prime representative a man known to be dishonest and also an occasional hooligan? And further, how come the premier Jewish media outlet representing mainstream Jewish opinion in this country has nothing to say on this matter?

How come?

Well, for us Jews, when something is legitimate and acceptable we say it is kosher. So, in the case of Anthony Dennison we have to admit that some dishonesty is well…kosher!


 

 

The Saker interviews Gilad Atzmon

It has been already 6 years since I interviewed Gilad for the first time and when a friend recently suggested that it was time for a new conversation, I immediately agreed, as did Gilad who, in spite of his over-booked and hectic lifestyle took the time to reply to my questions.  Gilad is, in my opinion, not only the most original and talented jazz musician currently composing and playing (make sure to get his latest CD “The Whistle Blower“), he is also an extremely profound philosopher who has the amazing courage not only to ask the key questions, but to also answer them.  His book “The Wandering Who” is, I strongly believe, a must read for anybody wanting to see through the “fog” of modern “Jewish anti-Zionism”.  As somebody who has gotten his share of hate mail, I can only begin to imagine the kind of hate-filled poison which Gilad has had to put up with for his courage and even though he will not speak about it, I will say that it takes exceptional courage and moral strength to do what Gilad did and is still doing.  So, with no hyperbole at all, but quite literally, I will say that Gilad Atzmon is a modern hero whose courage and phenomenal intellect will, I am sure, eventually be recognized as one of the most brilliant ones of our time.  I am deeply honored that he considers me to be a friend.

 

The Saker

http://thesaker.is/

Q&A with Gilad Atzmon

The Saker:  Since our last interview in 2009 the world has changed a lot and in many ways. In your opinion, has the global resistance to the Empire grown stronger or weaker over these years and why?  What about the current regime in Israel, do you see it weakening or not?

Gilad Atzmon: It all depends on how you define the ‘Empire.’ Is the empire the market forces that drive global capitalism? Is it the Neocons who push us into Zionist wars, one after the other? Or maybe it is the tyranny of correctness that suppresses our ability to think authentically?  Is it possible that these three are mere symptoms of an obscure impetus we are yet to be able to define or even grasp?

In my recent writing I argue that Jewish power is the ability to silence criticism of Jewish power. This observation helps us to adopt a transcendental take on issues of the ‘empire’ and the negative powers that dominate our lives. Instead of talking about the empire, we must first identify the forces that prevent us from talking about the empire. We are getting very close to that bone now.

A growing number of commentators are now willing openly to challenge Jewish power.  I assume that the rapidly growing Jewish fear of ‘anti Semitism’ relates to the fact that many Jews are also fearful of the extent of the power that is held by other Jews and is closely related to the ‘empire’.

 

This leads us to Israel and its Jewish Lobby. I think that in the last two years we have witnessed a clear transformation. Western leadership says no to Zionist warmongering. I guess they have had enough of these disastrous futile wars.

 

The Saker:  You have recently written an amazing book entitled “The Wondering Who” in which you made a seminal analysis of Jewish identity politics. You clearly explained that you differentiated between Jews (the people), Judaism (the religion) and Jewish-ness (the ideology) and that you were only interested in the latter, in Jewish identity politics. I can understand why you would not want to deal with Jews as a people, especially since you say that they do not form “any kind of racial continuum”, but your setting aside Judaism is more problematic for me. Yes, Neturei Karta is anti-Zionist, but even they are still part of a religious movement we could refer to as “rabbinical Judaism” or “Talmudic Judaism” and, as you well know, Jewish racism has its roots directly in the rabbinical/talmudic interpretation of the Tanakh (The Masoretic version of the Old Testament). Have such famous Judaics as Maimonides, Karo, Luria not greatly contributed to the development of Jewish exceptionalism and racism? Do today’s rabbis in Israel not justify the mass murder of Palestinians precisely by appealing to the numerous and well-known examples of goy-hatred in the Talmud? Finally, since religion is a choice, not a condition, is it not a legitimate target of scrutiny and criticism? Then why have you made the choice not to look into the Judaic roots of modern Jewish-ness and ideology?

 

Gilad Atzmon: I have come across this question many times and I understand the point made in your question. There is no doubt that Judaism, the Talmud and the Torah contain some devastatingly crude and even inhumane verses and teachings. And yet, traditionally Rabbinical Judaism was very effective in suppressing any manifestation of Jewish collective goy hatred. If Rabbinical Jews were supremacist, as some may forcefully argue, they were also timid. They segregated themselves and, largely kept their anti Goy attitude to themselves.

 

This changed radically with Jewish secularization. The Godless Jew transformed choseness into a form of a racially driven, tribal privilege. Yuri Slezkine in his invaluable book, ‘The Jewish Century,’ confirms that Jews were ‘Stalin’s willing executioners,’ in the Holodomor, the systematic deadly starvation of millions of Ukrainians in the early 1930s. The demography of the Spanish International Brigade is also revealing. 25% of the Brigade’s combatants were Jewish. Yiddish was the Brigade’s Lingua Franca. We have to ask what is it that motivated these young revolutionaries to fight Catholic Spain?  Was it really a battle against Fascism, was Franco a Fascist? Why did they burn so many churches, after all, one would expect these Jewish revolutionaries to first combat rabbinical tyranny and the synagogues. Just a few years later, in 1948, the Nakba – once again, a collective of secular socialist Zionist Jews engaged in a systematic racially motivated ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

 

The Jews who perpetrated these colossal crimes against humanity were not rabbinical or religious; they were Godless and succumbed to left ideology.

The Saker: You have recently traveled to France and participated in several events with Alain Soral (see here and here). This was not your first trip to France as you had also been there in 2013 were you met Jacob Cohen and had a very interesting discussion with him (see here). I have always felt that the power of the CRIF and UEJF in France was even bigger than the one of AIPAC and ADL in the USA. Would you agree with this?

 

Gilad Atzmon: Totally. For some time, France has been dominated by a forceful Jewish lobby (CRIF) that has been able to determine the boundaries of discussion as well as freedom in general. It is interesting to examine the treacherous role of the current socialist government in that respect.  In some of my recent writing I argue that both Jewish and Left politics contain an element of animosity towards working class people. Jews are generally fearful of the Working Class because it is always that class that turns against them. The Left is also dotted with antagonism towards working people (those who are now reduced into a Workless Class), because of the embarrassing fact that the working people have never joined the promised revolution. In France we see a strong bond between the uniquely unpopular socialist government and a tribal lobby group that is concerned solely with Jewish interests. How embarrassing.

 

The Saker:  Jacob Cohen says that in his opinion the most powerful Zionist organization on the planet is the B’nai B’rith that, in his opinion, is the primary recruiting pool for the Mossad’s sayanim. Do you agree with that? Which organizations, in your opinion, occupy the top positions in the Zionist totem pole?

 

Gilad Atzmon: Unlike Jacob Cohen I have never been part of the Jewish community and do not necessarily understand the mechanics involved in recruiting Israeli agents and sayanim. I analyze the Jewish tribal operation from philosophical and psychoanalytical perspectives. For instance, I delve into the notion of Jewish fear. I examine how it is fueled by Jewish ID politics (both Zionist and ‘anti’) and how it evolves into action – Aliya, war mongering and so on.

 

I contend that, to a certain extent, every person who operates within a Jews only political movement, whether it is Max Blumenthal, Philip Weiss, Paul Jay or Abe Foxman is a Sayan. I will elaborate. To operate politically ‘as a Jew’ is to be primarily concerned with Jewish interests rather than universal humanist objectives. Foxman and Blumenthal each advocate what he believes to be ‘good for the Jews.’ However, they clearly do not agree between themselves what is good for the Jews.

 

The consequence and the deeper meaning of what I say above is that there is no Jewish (collective) answer to the Jewish question.

 

The Saker:  Coming back to the events in France, what is your assessment of the struggle taking place between, on one hand, Alain Soral, Dieudonne and the movement Égalité et Réconciliation and, on the other hand, the French Zionist organizations and the French state? Would you say that the Zionist control over France is weakening or getting stronger?

 

Gilad Atzmon: It is a crucial question. Many French Jews apparently do not feel safe in France anymore and many have moved to Israel. Is this because they realize that CRIF will eventually cause a disaster for the Jews? Probably.

 

The Saker:  My next question is about words and definitions. For many years already, I have been using the word “Anglo-Zionist Empire” on my blog because I believe that the power structure we are currently dealing with is the successor to the British Empire (the modern “Anglosphere”, the ECHELON countries basically) which has now been ‘injected’ with a Zionist ideology both by Jews and by Zionist Christians, as shown by the power of the Neocons in the USA (for a full explanation see here) The strange thing is that even though the category “Anglo” is an ethnic one and “Zionist” is not (it is an ideological one), I got submerged by hate mail and criticisms for the latter, and only 2 emails objecting to the former. I therefore emailed a few well-known personalities such as Michael Neumann, Shlomo Sand, Norman Finkelstein and you. Neuman and Sand never replied, and here are the relevant parts of my exchange with Norman Finkelstein:

 

The Saker: For many years I have been using the term “AngloZionist Empire” and this term has frequently been condemned by other bloggers and readers. I have therefore written up a short explanation for my use of that term (see attached document). Could I please ask you to take the time to read through this short text and share with me your reaction. Do you find my usage of this term appropriate or not and, in the latter case, how would you suggest that I describe the “Empire”?

Norman Finkelstein: Israel is a country of 7.5 million people. For such a small country it commits a lot of evil. But it hardly constitutes an empire or one half of an empire. At most it is a junior partner of the US.

 The Saker: I never spoke of an AngloIsraeli or a US-Israeli Empire, I spoke of an AngloZionist empire which, for example, includes the millions of Evangelical non-Jewish Zionists in the USA. Do you believe that Zionism is a core component of the US Empire or is that a mistaken notion?

Norman Finkelstein: I haven’t a clue what you mean when you say that “Zionism” is a core component of the US Empire? Professor Chomsky calls himself a Zionist. Is he a core component of the US Empire?

The Saker: as a professor of philosophy you are surely able to see for yourself the logical fallacies in your question; besides that, the first time you conflated Zionism and Israel, the second time you conflated Zionism with Chomsky. If you refuse to answer my question substantively, I would prefer if you said so.

He never replied. So what is going on here? What is your take on my use of the expression “Anglo-Zionist Empire” and why are, in your opinion, Neumann, Sand and Finkelstein so unwilling to engage on this topic?

 

Gilad Atzmon: As I said earlier on, Jewish power is the ability to restrict or silence criticism of Jewish power. Your dialogue with Finkelstein is an exemplary case of such an operation.

 

Jewish power is not a Zionist phenomenon. In fact, it is mostly sustained by the Left, by Chomsky type activists, Democracy Now and to a far lesser extent Norman Finkelstein whom I appreciate as an intellectual (though I hardly  agree with him on anything). The tactic is obvious. We are pushed to operate within a given discourse that contains some clear boundaries. We are restricted by terminology that is designed to block real scrutiny of the most troubling issues and conceal the truth. And what is this truth? A list of questions to do with Jewishness: the Jewishness of the Jewish State, the extent of the power of the Jewish lobby in the west, the ideological continuum between the Zionist and the ‘anti’ and so on.

 

The Saker: In our first interview you said that “ethics and morality are far more crucial than some UN decisions” and I also remember you writing elsewhere that future politics will have to be centered on ethics and values rather than on ideology. Could you please elaborate on what you mean exactly and whether you see our world getting closer to that goal or not?

 

Gilad Atzmon: I believe that it has become much easier to grasp the meaning of my past observation. As time goes by, we are becoming more and more cynical about the dark forces that run our universe. We understand that, rather than being free beings, we have been reduced into mere consumers. While in the past a politician claimed his commitment to the provision of health, education and production, the role of the contemporary  politician is to facilitate consumption on behalf of the  conglomerates. And yet it is our authentic ethical and empathic awareness that are at the core of our humanist indignation. It is our own ethical judgments that provide us with a compass and leads us toward truth. As the situation seems to be worsening, the more we have to trust our personal ethics that are also universally shared.

 

The Saker: I have personally come to the conclusion that both racism and nationalism are primarily the ugly offshoots of the 19th century nationalism which itself substituted the traditional religious worship of a God by a secular religion of self-worship which expressed itself in all the subsequent 20th century forms of racism and nationalism. Would you agree with that, or do you think that racism and nationalism are inherent to our (fallen) human nature?

 

Gilad Atzmon: I think that belonging is inherent to human nature and it takes different shapes at different times. I believe that racism and nationalism have been replaced by ID politics. We are trained to talk ‘as a’- as a Jew, as a black, as a gay, as a disabled person, and the forms of these sectarian political structures are very interesting.

 

We always have to ask ourselves, who benefits? Don’t we want to be Americans or French again? Or do we prefer to operate within marginal sectarian cosmopolitan ID settings? I am not sure. Again, if health, education and labour are at the core of a healthy society, ID politics operates as a clear obstacle. It prevents us from dealing with ‘real issues.’ We discuss gay marriage and anti-Semitism instead of building factories, hospitals and schools.

 

The Saker:  What is your view of religion in the modern world? Do you agree with the quote attributed to Dostoevsky that “if there is no God, everything is permitted” or do you believe that a non-religious value system is possible? Can we objectively define that this or that is “good” or “bad” without appealing to a religious revelation? Can you imagine a secular system of ethnics?

 

Gilad Atzmon: I would love to believe that universal ethics is a valid concept and independent of any religious thought. But the evidence of secular genocides around us is unfortunately compelling. I guess that if people are set to kill each other, all they need is an excuse.

 

The Saker: Lastly, what are your hopes for the future? Do you think that Russia, China and the BRICS will be able to bring down the AngloZionst Empire and that a multi-polar world order based on international law and respect for people’s and nation’s rights is possible, or are you pessimistic about our future?

 

Gilad Atzmon: I am always optimistic but this doesn’t necessarily mean that things are getting better. It may be possible that Jewish power will be restricted in the near future. It may even be possible that some future Jewish suffering is inevitable and this is, of course, unfortunate. I am confident that the Jewish elite is not going to be affected by such circumstances. If anything, they will be the first to benefit from any such a development. Ask yourself how many Rothschild died in the holocaust? Would Israel have been established without the Shoah? Would the Jews be as powerful without the Holocaust? These are open questions and in order to understand Jewish power we must engage in these topics and grasp once and for all the sophistication of the Jewish tribal matrix, the way in which it evolves and so on…

On Jazz, Love and Being In The World- E&R's extensive interview with Gilad Atzmon

In advance of our OHE's Paris  album launch at Théâtre de la Main d’Or (Dieudonné's Theatre) E&R produced this superb interview. We spoke about music, jazz, education, recording technique, art, success & failure, Zionist pressure, AZZ ... basically everything.

Gilad Atzmon – Entretien mélomane by kontrekulture

Bibi’s Comeback

By Gilad Atzmon

Yesterday’s Israeli election proved that Benjamin Netanyahu engineered a miraculously recovery from an imaginary ‘downfall.’ Netanyahu weathered the intense media campaign against him, both in Israel and internationally, and won despite the miniscule, yet noisy, Jewish international left that promised us that Bibi was about to be wiped out politically. This uniquely dangerous man scored an incredible political victory yesterday.

Israel is a true Jewish democracy. It has many problems but it genuinely represents the spirit and aspirations of the Israelis.  In the Israeli Knesset in 2015, there is not a single Jewish party that cares for the Palestinians and their plight.  There is not a single Jewish member who offers any plan for peace and reconciliation. Meretz, the only so called ‘left’ Jewish party that used to offer a vision of peace, has been reduced to a microscopic role and is primarily committed to LGBT matters.

In the Jewish democracy, the Arab Unity Party is the third biggest party in the Knesset. This is indeed great news. The so-called ‘anti’ Zionists must find this slightly embarrassing. While in the racist Zionists State, Arabs have become the third biggest political force in the parliament, in the ‘progressive’ Jewish pro Palestinian organisations such as JVP, JFJFP or IJAN, Goyim, let alone Arabs, are kept out of decision making circles.

Seemingly, racist Israel is slightly more advanced than its ‘progressive’ Jews only opponents.

We were told in the last few weeks that Netanyahu’s Congressional address was the last nail in his coffin. We read reports that suggested that the Israelis reacted negatively to his warmongering initiative. As usual, we were mislead. The Israelis, as shown by the election results, love Netanyahu and approved his foray into the US Congress. The Israelis love seeing their PM bowed to and cheered on by the American political elite as he persuades them to send their kids to die for Zion.   

Those who oppose Israel, its Lobby and Jewish Power must be happy about Bibi’s political victory yesterday. I admit I am certainly delighted.  It saves us a lot of time and delusional spins from Israel’s advocates, Hasbara merchants and the Jewish Left.  

Last week we learned that the vast majority of British Jews support Bibi and his Likud party. Apparently, the Jewish State is no different. Israel is Bibi and Bibi is Israel. 

Playing Jazz In Iran-Bob Belden Discusses Playing in Tehran