Tag Archives: Palestine

Friday 19 September in Santa Barbara at Karpeles Library, 21 Anapuma Street; Sunday 21 September in Beverly Hills at JEM Center 9930 Santa Monica

THE NEW RIGHT IN EUROPE & GLOBAL ISLAM

Exactly week from this evening—starting at 6:00 PM on Friday September 19, 2014, we’ll be opening the doors of the Karpeles Manuscript Library in Santa Barbara for the opening reception of Tom Sunic’s week-long lecture tour of Southern California. Please join me there at 21 Anapuma Street in Downtown Santa Barbara. Call Robert Stark at 805-280-8188, or call me at 504-408-5492 for more information. We need to make this a big success.

DETENTE: THE NEW RIGHT CHRISTIANS AND JEWS IN EUROPE and the Near East: 1400 YEARS OF ISLAMIC IMPERIALISM from the Caliphate through the Ottoman Empire to 9-11 and Isis: Historical Metaphors and Mythic REALITY (Croatia & Bosnia and Israel & Palestine).
On Sunday, 21 September, in Beverly Hills at 9930 Santa Monica Boulevard, in Beverly Hills, we have what I expect will be an historical meeting of unparalleled importance at the old YMCA building—at which Dr. Sunic will share the stage with Luke Ford, with American Freedom Party Founder William D. Johnson and Rabbi Hertzel Illulian in attendance, to try to usher in a new era of communication and cooperation between White Christian Nationalists and both religious Jews and Zionists.

DR TOM SUNIC 9-12-14  Dr Tomislav Sunic Fund Raising Flyer 09-11-2014Dr Tomislav Sunic Lectures September 18-26 2014 Flyer for Sunday 31 August 2014

1 Tom SUNIC photo3 sunicSUNIC1024px-Croatia_topoDr Tomislav Sunic Fund Raising Flyer 09-11-2014
Flag_of_Croatia.svg

I am contemplating setting up a Meetup: Who would be interested in a full and open forum about Race-Relations in Los Angeles and Southern California?
Meetup is going to invite potential Racially Conscious Americans to

Race, Lies, and American Politics: Southern California 2014
Description:

Is lying about Race Relations the American Way? In this “Summer of Our Discontent” places like “Ferguson” and “Gaza” are very much on our minds. A year ago it was Trayvon Martin. For several years, immigration across the border has been on our minds. So have race relations become more tense or better since Barack Hussein Obama became President? Do we even dare to talk about it? Or are certain topics taboo? Are we becoming a dishonest nation? Will be open to everyone who can engage in civil, intelligent (non-violent) discussion of RACE. Are you: Interested in the Police Abuse in the USA? Ferguson? the Black Panthers? La Raza Unida? Fascism or Neo-Nazi Race Issues? Israeli Politics? The Fate of White South Africa? Jim Crow in the USA? Can you discuss these issues with the calm of LA Magazine, whose cover story in May 2012 was:
“Race In L.A.
Twenty years after the riots, the city has a different complexion. So what does race mean anymore? Everything
Posted on 5/1/2012 12:00:00 PM by Los Angeles magazine

Ours is a city of many voices and cultures, of disparate backgrounds and conflicting interests. Twenty years ago this month, those fault lines ruptured. Whether you call it an uprising, a riot, or civil unrest, what happened on April 29, 1992, changed Los Angeles and the people in it, prompting Rodney King to famously ask, “Can we all get along?” We still want the answer to be yes. But it’s complicated.

Everyone who’s interested, please write me here or call either 504-777-5021 or 504-777-5023.

Gilad Atzmon: THE JEWISH PLAN FOR THE MIDDLE EAST

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/the-jewish-plan-for-the-middle-east-and-beyond.html

FRIDAY, JUNE 13, 2014 AT 12:09PM GILAD ATZMON
By Gilad Atzmon

Surely, what’s happening now in Iraq and Syria must serve as a final wakeup call that we have been led into a horrific situation in the Middle East by a powerful Lobby driven by the interests of one tribe and one tribe alone.

Back in 1982, Oded Yinon an Israeli journalist formerly attached to the Israeli Foreign Ministry, published a document titled ‘A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties.’This Israeli commentator suggested that for Israel to maintain its regional superiority, it must fragment its surrounding Arab states into smaller units. The document, later labelled as ‘Yinon Plan’, implied that Arabs and Muslims killing each other in endless sectarian wars was, in effect, Israel’s insurance policy.

Of course, regardless of the Yinon Plan’s prophesies, one might still argue that this has nothing to do with Jewish lobbying, politics or institutions but is just one more Israeli strategic proposal except that it is impossible to ignore that the Neocon school of thought that pushed the English-speaking Empire into Iraq was largely a Jewish Diaspora, Zionist clan. It’s also no secret that the 2nd Gulf War was fought to serve Israeli interests – breaking into sectarian units what then seemed to be the last pocket of Arab resistance to Israel.

Similarly, it is well established that when Tony Blair decided to launch that criminal war, Lord Levy was the chief fundraiser for his Government while, in the British media, Jewish Chronicle writers David Aaronovitch and Nick Cohen were busy beating the drums for war. And again, it was the exact same Jewish Lobby that was pushing for intervention in Syria, calling for the USA and NATO to fight alongside those same Jihadi forces that today threaten the last decade’s American ‘achievements’ in Iraq.

Unfortunately, Yinon’s disciples are more common than you might expect. In France, it was the infamous Jewish ‘philosopher’ Bernard Henri Levy who boasted on TV that ‘as a Jew’ campaigning for NATO intervention, he liberated Libya.

As we can see, a dedicated number of Jewish Zionist activists, commentators and intellectuals have worked relentlessly in many countries pushing for exactly the same cause – the breaking up of Arab and Muslim states into smaller, sectarian units.

But is it just the Zionists who are engaging in such tactics? Not at all.

In fact, the Jewish so-called Left serves the exact same cause, but instead of fragmenting Arabs and Muslims into Shia, Sunnis, Alawites and Kurds they strive to break them into sexually oriented identity groups (Lesbian, Queer, Gays, Heterosexual etc’)

Recently I learned from Sarah Schulman, a NY Jewish Lesbian activist that in her search for funding for a young ‘Palestinian Queer’ USA tour, she was advised to approach George Soros’ Open Society institute. The following account may leave you flabbergasted, as it did me:

“A former ACT UP staffer who worked for the Open Society Institute, George Soros’ foundation, suggested that I file an application there for funding for the tour. When I did so it turned out that the person on the other end had known me from when we both attended Hunter [College] High School in New York in the 1970s. He forwarded the application to the Institutes’s office in Amman, Jordan, and I had an amazing one-hour conversation with Hanan Rabani, its director of the Women’s and Gender program for the Middle East region. Hanan told me that this tour would give great visibility to autonomous queer organizations in the region. That it would inspire queer Arabs—especially in Egypt and Iran…for that reason, she said, funding for the tour should come from the Amman office” (Sarah Schulman -Israel/Palestine and the Queer International p. 108).

The message is clear, The Open Society Institutes (OSI) wires Soros’s money to Jordan, Palestine and then back to the USA in order to “inspire queer Arabs in Egypt and Iran (sic).”

What we see here is clear evidence of a blatant intervention by George Soros and his institute in an attempt to break Arabs and Muslims and shape their culture. So, while the right-wing Jewish Lobby pushes the Arabs into ethnic sectarian wars, their tribal counterparts within George Soros’s OSI institute, do exactly the same – attempt to break the Arab and Muslims by means of marginal and identity politics.

It is no secret that, as far as recent developments in Iraq are concerned, America, Britain and the West are totally unprepared. So surely, the time is long overdue when we must identify the forces and ideologies within Western society that are pushing us into more and more global conflicts. And all we can hope for is that America, Britain and France may think twice before they spends trillions of their tax payers’ money in following the Yinon Plan to fight ruinous, foreign wars imposed upon them by The Lobby.

The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity politics and Jewish Power in particular – available on Amazon.com & Amazon.co.uk

GILAD ATZMON: The Most Extraordinary Jewish Writer of Modern Times…..he calls himself a “Hebrew-Speaking Palestinian” and I am very proud to know him…

Controlled Opposition –From Goldstein to Soros and Beyond, Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 1:29PM

Gilad Atzmon

http://www.counterpunch.org

By Gilad Atzmon

Jewish power is the unique capacity to stop us from discussing or even contemplating Jewish power.   It is the capacity to determine the boundaries of the political discourse and criticism in particular.

In his new book, “The Invention Of The Land of Israel”, Israeli academic Shlomo Sand, manages to present conclusive evidence of the far fetched nature of the Zionist historical narrative – that the Jewish Exile is a myth as is the Jewish people and even the Land of Israel.

Yet, Sand and many others fail to address the most important question: If Zionism is based on myth, how do the Zionists manage to get a way with their lies, and for so long?

If the Jewish ‘homecoming’ and the demand for a Jewish national homeland cannot be historically substantiated, why has it been supported by both Jews and the West for so long?  How does the Jewish state manage for so long to celebrate its racist expansionist ideology and at the expense of the Palestinian and Arab peoples?

Jewish power is obviously one answer, but, what is Jewish power? Can we ask this question without being accused of being Anti Semitic?  Can we ever discuss its meaning and scrutinize its politics?  Is Jewish Power a dark force, managed and maneuvered by some conspiratorial power? Is it something of which Jews themselves are shy? Quite the opposite – Jewish power, in most cases, is celebrated right in front of our eyes. As we know, AIPAC is far from being quiet about its agenda, its practices or its achievements. AIPAC, CFI in the UK and CRIF in France are operating in the most open manner and often openly brag about their success.

Furthermore, we are by now accustomed to watch our democratically elected leaders shamelessly queuing to kneel before their pay-masters. Neocons certainly didn’t seem to feel the need to hide their close Zionist affiliations. Abe Foxman’s Anti Defamation League (ADL) works openly towards the Judification of the Western discourse, chasing and harassing anyone who dares voice any kind of criticism of Israel or even of Jewish choseness. And of course, the same applies to the media, banking and Hollywood. We know about the many powerful Jews who are not in the slightest bit shy about their bond with Israel and their commitment to Israeli security, the Zionist ideology, the primacy of Jewish suffering, Israeli expansionism and even outright Jewish exceptionalism.

But, as ubiquitous as they are, AIPAC, CFI, ADL, Bernie Madoff, ‘liberator’ Bernard Henri Levy, war-advocate David Aaronovitch, free market prophet Milton Friedman, Steven Spielberg, Haim Saban, Lord Levy and many other Zionist enthusiasts and Hasbara advocates are not necessarily the core or the driving force behind Jewish Power, but are merely symptoms. Jewish power is actually far more sophisticated than simply a list of Jewish lobbies or individuals performing highly developed manipulative skills. Jewish power is the unique capacity to stop us from discussing or even contemplating Jewish power. It is the capacity to determine the boundaries of the political discourse and criticism in particular.

Contrary to popular belief, it is not ‘right wing’ Zionists who facilitate Jewish power, It is actually the ‘good’, the ‘enlightened’ and the ‘progressive’ who make Jewish power the most effective and forceful power in the land. It is the ‘progressives’ who confound our ability to identify the Judeocentric tribal politics at the heart of Neoconservatism, American contemporary imperialism and foreign policy. It is the so-called ‘anti’ Zionist who goes out of his or her way to divert our attention from the fact that Israel defines itself as the Jewish State and blinds us to the fact that its tanks are decorated with Jewish symbols. It was the Jewish Left intellectuals who rushed to denounce Professors Mearsheimer and Walt, Jeff Blankfort and James Petras’ work on the Jewish Lobby. And it is no secret that Occupy AIPAC, the campaign against the most dangerous political Lobby in America, is dominated by a few righteous members of the chosen tribe. We need to face up to the fact that our dissident voice is far from being free. Quite the opposite, we are dealing here with an institutional case of controlled opposition.

In George Orwell’s 1984, it is perhaps Emmanuel Goldstein who is the pivotal character. Orwell’s Goldstein is a Jewish revolutionary, a fictional Leon Trotsky. He is depicted as the head of a mysterious anti-party organization called “The Brotherhood” and is also the author of the most subversive revolutionary text (The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism). Goldstein is the ‘dissenting voice’, the one who actually tells the truth. Yet, as we delve into Orwell’s text, we find out from Party’s ‘Inner Circle’ O’Brien that Goldstein was actually invented by Big Brother in a clear attempt to control the opposition and the possible boundaries of dissidence.

Orwell’s personal account of the Spanish Civil War “Homage To Catalonia” clearly presaged the creation of Emmanuel Goldstein. It was what Orwell witnessed in Spain that, a decade later, matured into a profound understanding of dissent as a form of controlled opposition. My guess is that, by the late 1940’s, Orwell had understood the depth of intolerance, and tyrannical and conspiratorial tendencies that lay at the heart of ‘Big Brother-ish’ Left politics and praxis.

Surprisingly enough, an attempt to examine our contemporaneous controlled opposition within the Left and the Progressive reveal that it is far from being a conspiratorial. Like in the case of the Jewish Lobby, the so-called ‘opposition’ hardly attempts to disguise its ethno-centric tribal interests, spiritual and ideological orientation and affiliation.

A brief examination of the list of organisations founded by George Soros’ Open Society Institute (OSI) presents a grim picture – pretty much the entire American progressive network is funded, partially or largely by a liberal Zionist, philanthropic billionaire who supports very many good and important causes that are also very good for the Jews. And yet, like staunch Zionist Haim Saban, Soros does not operate clandestinely. His Open Society Institute proudly provides all the necessary information regarding the vast amount of shekels it spreads on its good and important causes.

So one can’t accuse Soros or the Open Society Institute of any sinister vetting the political discourse, stifling of free speech or even to ‘controlling the opposition’. All Soros does is to support a wide variety of ‘humanitarian causes’: Human Rights, Women’s Rights. Gay Rights, equality, democracy, Arab ‘Spring’, Arab Winter, the oppressed, the oppressor, tolerance, intolerance, Palestine, Israel, anti war, pro-war (only when really needed), and so on.

As with Orwell’s Big Brother that frames the boundaries of dissent by means of control opposition, Soros’ Open Society also determines, either consciously or unconsciously, the limits of critical thought. Yet, unlike in 1984, where it is the Party that invents its own opposition and write its texts, within our ‘progressive’ discourse, it is our own voices of dissent, willingly and consciously, that are compromising their principles.

Soros may have read Orwell – he clearly believes his message – because from time to time he even supports opposing forces. For instance, he funds the Zionist-lite J Street as well as Palestinian NGO organisations. And guess what? It never takes long for the Palestinian beneficiaries to, compromise their own, most precious principles so they fit nicely into their paymaster’s worldview.

The Visible Hand

The invisible hand of the market is a metaphor coined by Adam Smith to describe the self-regulating behaviour of the marketplace. In contemporary politics. The visible hand is a similar metaphor which describes the self-regulating tendency of the political-fund beneficiary, to fully integrate the world view of its benefactor into its political agenda.

Democracy Now, the most important American dissident outlet has never discussed the Jewish Lobby with Mearsheimer, Walt, Petras or Blankfort – the four leading experts who could have informed the American people about the USA’s foreign policy domination by the Jewish Lobby. For the same reasons, Democracy Now wouldn’t explore the Neocon’s Judeo-centric agenda nor would it ever discuss Jewish Identity politics with yours truly. Democracy Now will host Noam Chomsky or Norman Finkelstein, it may even let Finkelstein chew up Zionist caricature Alan Dershowitz – all very good, but not good enough.

Is the fact that Democracy Now is heavily funded by Soros relevant? I’ll let you judge.

If I’m correct (and I think I am) we have a serious problem here. As things stand, it is actually the progressive discourse, or at least large part of it. that sustains Jewish Power. If this is indeed the case, and I am convinced it is, then the occupied progressive discourse, rather than Zionism, is the primary obstacle that must be confronted.

It is no coincidence that the ‘progressive’ take on ‘antisemitism’ is suspiciously similar to the Zionist one. Like Zionists, many progressive institutes and activists adhere to the bizarre suggestion that opposition to Jewish power is ‘racially motivated’ and embedded in some ‘reactionary’ Goyish tendency. Consequently, Zionists are often supported by some ‘progressives’ in their crusade against critics of Israel and Jewish power. Is this peculiar alliance between these allegedly opposing schools of thoughts, the outcome of a possible ideological continuum between these two seemingly opposed political ideologies? Maybe, after all, progressiveness like Zionism is driven by a peculiar inclination towards ‘choseness’. After all, being progressive somehow implies that someone else must be ‘reactionary’. It is those self-centric elements of exceptionalism and choseness that have made progressiveness so attractive to secular and emancipated Jews. But the main reason the ‘progressive’ adopted the Zionist take on antisemitism, may well be because of the work of that visible hand that miraculously shapes the progressive take on race, racism and the primacy of Jewish suffering.

We may have to face up to the fact that the progressive discourse effectively operates as Israel’s longest arm – it certainly acts as a gatekeeper and as protection for Zionism and Jewish tribal interests. If Israel and its supporters would ever be confronted with real opposition it might lead to some long-overdue self-reflection. But at the moment, Israel and Zionist lobbies meet only insipid, watered-down, progressively-vetted resistance that, in practice, sustains Israeli occupation, oppression and an endless list of human rights abuses.

Instead of mass opposition to the Jewish State and its aggressive lobby, our ‘resistance’ is reduced into a chain of badge-wearing, keffiyeh-clad, placard-waving mini-gatherings with the occasional tantrum from some neurotic Jewess while being videoed by another good Jew. If anyone believes that a few badges, a load of amateur Youtube clips celebrating Jewish righteousness are going to evolve into a mass anti-Israel global movement, they are either naïve or stupid.

In fact, a recent Gallup poll revealed that current Americans’ sympathy for Israel has reached an All-Time High. 64% of Americans sympathise with the Jewish State, while only 12% feel for the Palestinians. This is no surprise and our conclusion should be clear. As far as Palestine is concerned, ‘progressive’ ideology and praxis have led us precisely nowhere. Rather than advance the Palestinian cause, it only locates the ‘good’ Jew at the centre of the solidarity discourse.

When was the last time a Palestinian freedom fighter appeared on your TV screen? Twenty years ago the Palestinian were set to become the new Che Guevaras. Okay, so the Palestinian freedom fighter didn’t necessarily speak perfect English and wasn’t a graduate of an English public school, but he was free, authentic and determined. He or she spoke about their land being taken and of their willingness to give what it takes to get it back. But now, the Palestinian has been ‘saved’, he or she doesn’t have to fight for his or her their land, the ‘progressive’ is taking care of it all.

This ‘progressive’ voice speaks on behalf of the Palestinian and, at the same time, takes the opportunity to also push marginal politics, fight ‘Islamism’ and ‘religious radicalisation’ and occasionally even supports the odd interventionst war and, of course, always, always, always fights antisemitism. The controlled opposition has turned the Palestinian plight into just one more ‘progressive’ commodity, lying on the back shelf of its ever-growing ‘good-cause’ campaign store.

For the Jewish progressive discourse, the purpose behind pro-Palestinian support is clear. It is to present an impression of pluralism within the Jewish community. It is there to suggest that not all Jews are bad Zionists. Philip Weiss, the founder of the most popular progressive pro-Palestinian blog was even brave enough to admit to me that it is Jewish self -interests that stood at the core of his pro Palestinian activity.

Jewish self-love is a fascinating topic. But even more fascinating is Jewish progressives loving themselves at the expense of the Palestinians. With billionaires such as Soros maintaining the discourse, solidarity is now an industry, concerned with profit and power rather than ethics or values and it is a spectacle both amusing and tragic as the Palestinians become a side issue within their own solidarity discourse.

So, perhaps before we discuss the ‘liberation of Palestine’, we first may have to liberate ourselves.

The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity Politics and Jewish Left’s spin particular Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk

Article originally appeared on Gilad Atzmon (http://www.gilad.co.uk/).
See website for complete article licensing information.

Gilad Atzmon on his support for Dieudonne—interviewed on Al Jazeerah—I had the honor and privilege of meeting Gilad Atzmon last week in New York

I have been following Gilad Atzmon’s writings and advocacy for about six years now, and I consider him one of the foremost cultural, ethnic, socio-historical and political philosophers of our time.  Gilad is traveling in the United States and, if you get a chance to listen to his lectures or music, I urge you to do so.  I have NEVER met anyone quite like him.  I met him last week in New York City when he was staying as the guest of Michael Santomauro on the Upper East Side.  The several days spent with these two were one of the most intense intellectual experiences of my life, fully comparable to any seminar discussion on historical formation or cultural process, micro-or-macro evolution and ethnic identity or politics that I ever had in Anthropology, Biology, or History at Harvard or in Law at the University of Chicago—the level of feverish debate was (in my personal memory anyhow) closest to in chambers meetings between law clerks and Externs for the Ninth Circuit between clerks for Stephen Reinhardt and Alex Kozinski….  Everyone concerned with American, European, or Middle Eastern Culture, Economy, or Politics today needs to read Gilad Atzmon’s latest book The Wandering Who?

Al-Jazeerah: Cross-Cultural Understanding

Opinion Editorials, February 2014




Dieudonné, Alain Soral, and Zionism:Gilad Atzmon Interviewed By Alimuddin UsmaniAl-Jazeerah, CCUN, February 24, 2014

AU: What led you to offer Dieudonné such support in his struggle against the French government?

GA: Dieudonné is the true meaning of resistance.  Being cogent and coherent, he has managed to expose in France the corrosive bond between contemporary Zionised socialism and Jewish political power.

For some time now, many of us who, in the 60s and 70s, were inspired by Left thinking have been confused by contemporary ‘progressive’ politics. For some reason, the so-called ‘New Left’ was very quick to compromise on crucial issues to do with labour and working class politics. Instead of siding with the workers and those struggling in society, the post-68 Left  adopted an identity-politics discourse that was actually aimed at breaking up society and the working class into isolated marginalisd groups. This led to political paralysis which in turn prepared the way for the invasion of big money, monopoly culture and globalization. It is this that Dieudonné, has managed to expose. He has also identified the power of the Holocaust religion and Jewish lobby power at the very heart of political establishment. Being the author of The Wandering Who – the book that took apart Jewish identity politics, I see Dieudonné as a continuation of myself. He is my twin and I stand up for both him and his cause.

AU: Dieudonné’s detractors accuse him of antisemitism and as evidence they offer that in his show, (now banned) he said this about a prominent Jewish radio journalist: “You see, when I hear Patrick Cohen speak, I think to myself : Gas chambers…too bad”. His supporters explain that Dieudonné was simply responding to a provocation from this journalist who said that Dieudonné must be blacklisted from mainstream media and that people with “mental illness ” shouldn’t be invited to comment publically. What do you think? Did he go too far or do you think he had the right to respond to someone who wished for his social, economic and professional demise?

GA: Those Jews who insist that the Holocaust become our new state religion must accept that such a claim comes with a price. If you choose to identify yourself with gas chambers, Auschwitz and victimhood you must also accept that you will be identified as such by others.  I have no problem with Dieudonné’s reaction to Cohen. Dieudonné is an artist, his duty is to reshape and revise the vision of the world around us. Accordingly, placing a mirror in front of Cohen was a most appropriate thing to do.

AU: The only main political party in France who didn’t join in this “Dieudonné bashing” is the nationalist National Front founded by Jean-Marie Le Pen. What is your explanation of that?

GA: It obviously means that in terms of tolerance and multi-cultural/ethnic openness your Nationalists are way ahead of any so called ‘progressives’ and the Left. But this does not surprise me. The Left has always found it difficult to bond with working people, in fact, the entire ‘progressive’ ethos is elitist to the bone. And again, this should come as no surprise. After all. identifying oneself as  ‘progressive’ surely means that someone else must be ‘reactionary’ – and that someone else is the working man or woman. This may explain why being ‘progressive’ is so attractive to so many Jews – it offers a godless alternative to their traditional choseness. It also explains why the workers generally stay away as far from the Left as they can. They much prefer identifying with the whole, the grand collective narrative, with the flag and with the language. rather than be progressive, they prefer to be patriotic and nationalist. And the outcome is clear: The  left eventually drifts away into a state of total detachment which is the exact state of the French socialist at the moment.

Now, Dieudonné, has managed to galvanize this Left detachment. Here we have a black person who enjoys the support of the National Front and is cheered on by a massive popular movement consisting of migrants and White working class – and all this has now matured into one giant Left collective neurosis. How amusing is this?

AU: Thanks to Nicolas Anelka, the British Media started to talk about Dieudonné. According to Alain Soral, the  BBC conducted quite fair interview with him : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8gdbXHsVks

Can you explain to us why the French media seem unable to give the same fair treatment to this story?

GA: To start with, let’s not delude ourselves. It is easy for Brits to mock French kosher totalitarianism but believe me, no one in the BBC dares discuss the embarrassing fact that 80% of our Tory MPs are Conservative Friends of Israel. No one in the BBC has ever been brave enough to delve into the embarrassing fact that when Tony Blair took us into an illegal war in Iraq, his chief fundraiser was Lord Levy and the LFI (Labour Friends of Israel). But let me answer your question as concisely as I can.

Jewish power is the capacity to control and limit the discussion on Jewish power. CRIF and BHL are not the essence of Jewish power, they are just symptoms of this power. The real Jewish power is the capacity to silence all discussion of the Lobby, CRIF and HBL. So Alain Soral should carry the ban against him as a badge of honour. It only reaffirms that the media doesn’t find within itself the intellectual capacity to challenge him and his work. This is hardly surprising, I’ve now begun to realise that George Orwell might well have been the last thinking person in the Left. The contemporary Left is a soundbite culture far removed from any dialectical thinking or intellectual exchange. It is indeed a tragedy.

AU: In our last interview you told us that you “learned that most Palestinian NGOs are funded by liberal Zionist George Soros’ Open Society Institute.”  A French cartoonist named Joe le Corbeau, who was briefly arrested over a photo of a quenelle http://www.crescentcityjewishnews.com/man-arrested-over-photo-of-quenelle-in-front-of-toulouse-jewish-school/, suggested in one of his cartoons that Femen are funded by Soros : http://judeologie.com/2013/05/28/the-femen-powers-prostitutes-par-joe-le-corbeau/

Do you think that may explain why these women perform only in mosques and churches and never in synagogues?

GA: Obviously, I don’t know whether Femen is funded by Soros but it wouldn’t surprise me if they are. Soros’ philosophy, as far as I understand it, is very simple. He is a Liberal Zionist who funds a lot of ‘good causes’ – causes that just happen to also be ‘good for the Jews’.

Now, let me address Femen’s preferred choice of ‘artistic’ venues. As you probably know, Post-Structuralism is pretty much a French philosophical school of thought and may be  defined as an attempt to dismantle all ‘grand narratives’ except the Jewish one. In concert with the spirit of the 68 students’ revolution and the Frankfurt Yeshiva, Femen are more than happy pull apart every French cultural heritage – except the Jewish ones. Just follow the money trail, those people who facilitated their move to France – the record label and the ANR who signed them. Surely, you’ll find the answers within just a few minutes.

Here is an interesting anecdote that may throw some light on the topic. It was recently pointed out to me that in spite of the fact that Jewish radicals despise the Talmud and the Rabbinical culture and have been caught burning many religious congregation houses, mainly churches in Spain and the Ukraine etc.,  they have never burned a single synagogue.

AU: People who support the right of Femen to blaspheme are often the same people who call for the banning of Dieudonné’s shows. Don’t you think that these kinds of double standards will lead people to rise up against the elite?

GA: No doubt at all, and as we see, it’s already happening.

AU: Former Israeli minister Shulamit Aloni, who recently passed away, once said that accusation of antisemitism is a “trick” used to shut down critics of Israeli policy:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLbtu0-mgvw  How do you explain the current weakness of the Israeli left?

GA: ‘Weakness’ is an understatement. The Israeli left is non-existent and for a good reason: Jewish Left is an oxymoron. While ‘Left’ is a universal concept, Jewishness is a tribally driven ideology. Even Aloni,  whom I admired, wasn’t exactly a ‘universalist’. She didn’t really campaign for the return of the Palestinian refugees to their homes and villages, she was mainly concerned with Israel being a ‘Jewish civilization’ as opposed to a universal one.

It is not a secret that the so-called ‘Jewish Left’ is in practice, a form of National Socialism. Those ‘radical’ Israeli leftists support a racially-driven ‘egalitarian’ philosophy – which applies to Jews only. In other words, they are full of contradictions so it’s hardly surprising that they are now pretty much extinct. On the other hand, right wing Israeli politics,  is as consistent as it is crudely unethical. It postulates that Jews are entitled to return to Palestine, and it draws on a vile, militaristic ideology and practice that aims to maintain this  Jewish hold on the land. Right-wing Zionist  leaders admit daily to not being ethical – but they justify their national project in terms of survival. Since Israel defines itself as the Jewish State, it is only natural for Israelis to identify with a consistently tribal right-wing ideology instead of some half-baked, convoluted and totally inconsistent (but always kosher), socialist clap-trap.

The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity politics and Jewish Power in particular – available on Amazon.com  Amazon.co.uk

Interview: Atzmon on Dieudonné, Alain Soral and Zionism

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/interview-atzmon-on-dieudonne-alain-soral-and-zionism.html

Interviewed by Alimuddin Usmani

http://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/

Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah & ccun.org.

editor@aljazeerah.info editor@ccun.org

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20Editorials/2014/February/24%20o/Dieudonne,%20Alain%20Soral,%20and%20Zionism,%20Gilad%20Atzmon%20Interviewed%20By%20Alimuddin%20Usmani.htm

Where do we belong?—Meditations on the Feast of Saints Peter & Paul—where DO we belong?

Always hoped that I’d be an Apostle, knew that I could make it if I tried;….. then when we retire we can write the Gospels so they’ll still talk about us when we die….

Jesus Christ Superstar, Andrew Lloyd Weber (Broadway 1971, Movie 1973)

2 Timothy 4:1-8.   As for me, I am already being poured out as a libation, and the time of my departure has come.  I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.

Saint Peter’s self-chosen mission was as Apostle to the Jews, Saint Paul’s to the Greeks, though they both died in Rome.  Originally they belonged to the same Jewish Community as Joseph & Mary, John-the-Baptist, and Jesus himself.  We might imagine that Peter and Paul belonged, presumably as devout members of the Temple of Jerusalem, but possibly not even close, but they belonged to that race and religion and linguistic and ethnic group, in Roman Occupied Judea, aka Palestine, aka Syria, presumably being very close in age and community to Jesus Christ himself.  

In the service of the Anointed “Son of God”, heir of the Royal House of David, the tree that grew from Jesse’s loins, Peter and Paul became the most famous and visible to history of all Jesus’ Apostles. They belonged as apostlesPaul’s letters and writings were generally deemed to “belong” in the Bible by the Council of Nicea.  But the “Gospel of Peter” was deemed by that same body NOT to belong, although it scholars of early Christianity still discuss it extensively, see e.g.: 

http://earliestchristianity.wordpress.com/2013/04/19/the-walking-talking-cross-in-the-gospel-of-peter-goodacre-vs-foster/

My “Forward Day-by-Day Booklet” suggests that this is a day when we should all consider, like Peter and Paul, where we belong, whether we are Christians or Jews or Pagans, to begin with, and then what we should do next.  Without our community, what should we do and how?  Should we accept the world as it is or try to change it?  Where do we belong in history?

We are free, endowed by God and/or Natural Selection with Free Will, but that is perhaps the greatest of our burdens.  “Our world recognizes the subversive nature of the Christian faith and subverts us either by ignoring us or by giving us the freedom  to be religious—as long as we keep religion a matter of personal choice.”   (From “Resident Aliens” by Stanley Hauerwas.

Has the South “Run the Good Race?” Is it time for the South (and California and Texas and the Union as a whole) to choose a different Path?   If we cannot “keep the faith”—do we really belong here?

Pat Buchanan has always been one of my favorite political writers.  He now asks whether the South still belongs in the Union, and I think it is a valid question.  Frankly, I believe that the Union does not belong anymore.  As my long-time (but currently “vacationing” personal assistant Peyton Freiman said sagely some years ago, “The United States needs to Secede from itself.  I think this has only become truer with time.  The South should Secede; California and Hawaii and Texas and Alaska should Secede. New England and New York should secede.  The Federal Union should be dissolved.  Obama can have the District of Columbia all to himself and the Supreme Court and Congress.  Illinois and Michigan might want to secede but then let Chicago and Detroit Secede and form an Isolated trio of City States with D.C., Detroit and Chicago exist under Obama.  The states should not recall their congressmen, because they are only worthy to be forgotten, not recalled…. In fact, all the States should simply revoke their Congressmen’s citizenship and order them to remain in D.C. or emigrate to Afghanistan, Israel, or Saudi Arabia or Yemen, depending on their political preferences.

Does the South Belong in the Union?

Friday – June 28, 2013 at 12:27 am

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Is the Second Reconstruction over?

The first ended with the withdrawal of Union troops from the Southern states as part of a deal that gave Rutherford B. Hayes the presidency after the disputed election of 1876.

The second began with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a century after Appomattox. Under the VRA, Southern states seeking to make even minor changes in voting laws had to come to Washington to plead their case before the Justice Department and such lions of the law as Eric Holder.

Southern states were required to get this pre-clearance for any alterations in voting laws because of systematic violations of the 14th and 15th amendment constitutional rights of black Americans to equal access to polling places and voting booths.

The South had discriminated by using poll taxes, gerrymandering and literacy tests, among other tactics. Dixie was in the penalty box because it had earned a place there.

What the Supreme Court did Tuesday, in letting the South out of the box, is to declare that, as this is not 1965, you cannot use abuses that date to 1965, but have long since disappeared, to justify indefinite federal discrimination against the American South.

You cannot impose burdens on Southern states, five of which recorded higher voting percentages among their black populations in 2012 than among their white populations, based on practices of 50 years ago that were repudiated and abandoned in another era.

You cannot punish Southern leaders in 2013 for the sins of their grandfathers. As Chief Justice John Roberts noted, black turnout in 2012 was higher in Mississippi than in Massachusetts.

Does this mean the South is now free to discriminate again?

By no means. State action that discriminates against minority voters can still be brought before the Department of Justice.

Even the “pre-clearance” provision of the VRA remains. All the court has said is that if Congress wishes to impose a pre-clearance provision on a state or group of states, Congress must have more evidence to justify unequal treatment than what “Bull” Connor did in Birmingham back in 1965.

Congress could pass a bill today authorizing Justice Department intervention in any state where the registration of blacks, Hispanics or Asians fell below 60 percent of that electorate.

What Congress can no longer do is impose conditions on Southern states from which Northern states are exempt. Washington can no longer treat the states unequally — for that, too, is a violation of the Constitution.

The Roberts court just took a giant stride to restoring the Union.

Yet the hysterical reaction to the decision reveals a great deal.

What do critics say they are afraid of?

While conceding that immense progress has been made with the huge turnout of black voters in the South and the re-election of a black president, they say they fear that without the pre-clearance provision this would never have happened. And now that the provision no longer applies to the South, the evil old ways will return.

On several counts this is disheartening.

For what the critics of the court decision are saying is that, no matter the progress made over half a century, they do not trust the South to deal fairly and decently with its black citizens, without a club over its head. They do not believe the South has changed in its heart from the days of segregation.

They think the South is lying in wait for a new opportunity to disfranchise its black voters. And they think black Southerners are unable to defend their own interests — without Northern liberal help.

In this belief there are elements of paranoia, condescension and bigotry.

Many liberals not only do not trust the South, some detest it. And many seem to think it deserves to be treated differently than the more progressive precincts of the nation.

Consider Wednesday’s offering by Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson. The South, he writes, is the home of “so-called right-to-work laws” and hostility to the union shop, undergirded by “the virulent racism of the white Southern establishment,” a place where a “right-wing antipathy toward workers’ rights” is pandemic.

The South is the “the heartland of cheap-labor America. … When it wants to slum, business still goes to the South.” Then there are those “reactionary white Republican state governments.”

Were a conservative to use the term “black” as a slur the way Meyerson spits out the word “white,” he would be finished at the Post. Meyerson’s summation:

“If the federal government wants to build a fence that keeps the United States safe from the danger of lower wages and poverty and their attendant ills — and the all-round fruitcakery of the right-wing white South — it should build that fence from Norfolk to Dallas. There is nothing wrong with a fence as long as you put it in the right place.”

Harold looks forward to the day that a surging Latino population forces “epochal political change” on a detestable white South.