Tag Archives: Racial Politics

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


Interviewed by Alimuddin Usmani


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


For the Second Sunday in Easter, Ponder the Words of the Former Archbishop of Canterbury

‘Vilified’ Christians ‘fear arrest’ in the United Kingdom—where is the Queen, still the Fidei Defensor?

Press AssociationRELATED CONTENT

  • Lord Carey said Christians were excluded from many sectors of employment because of their beliefsView Photo

    Lord Carey said Christians were excluded from many sectors of employment because of their beliefs

Christians are being “persecuted” and “driven underground” while the courts fail to protect their religious values, a former Archbishop of Canterbury has claimed.

Lord Carey said Christians were excluded from many sectors of employment because of their beliefs, “vilified by state bodies” and feared arrest for expressing their views.

The former archbishop’s claims are part of a written submission to the European Court of Human Rights, seen by the Daily Telegraph, ahead of a landmark case on religious freedom.

The hearing will deal with the case of two workers forced out of their jobs after visibly wearing crosses, the case of a Relate therapist sacked for saying he may not be comfortable giving sex counselling to homosexual couples, and a Christian registrar who wishes not to conduct civil partnership ceremonies.

In the submission, Lord Carey said the outward expression of traditional conservative Christian values has effectively been “banned” under a new “secular conformity of belief and conduct”.

The former archbishop argued that in “case after case” British courts have failed to protect Christian values and urged European judges to correct the balance. He said there was a “drive to remove Judeo-Christian values from the public square” and argued UK courts have “consistently applied equality law to discriminate against Christians” as they show a “crude” misunderstanding of the faith by treating some worshippers as “bigots”.

In his submission, Lord Carey, who was archbishop from 1991 to 2002, wrote: “In a country where Christians can be sacked for manifesting their faith, are vilified by state bodies, are in fear of reprisal or even arrest for expressing their views on sexual ethics, something is very wrong. It affects the moral and ethical compass of the United Kingdom. Christians are excluded from many sectors of employment simply because of their beliefs; beliefs which are not contrary to the public good.”

He added: “It is now Christians who are persecuted; often sought out and framed by homosexual activists. Christians are driven underground. There appears to be a clear animus to the Christian faith and to Judaeo-Christian values. Clearly the courts of the United Kingdom need guidance.”

He argued British judges have used a strict reading of the equality law to strip the legal right to freedom of religion of “any substantive effect.”

Keith Porteous-Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, told the Telegraph: “The idea that there is any kind of suppression of religion in Britain is ridiculous. Even in the European Court of Human Rights, the right to religious freedom is not absolute – it is not a licence to trample on the rights of others. That seems to be what Lord Carey wants to do.”

I say, for my part: God Save the Queen and May She Yet Live to Appoint Nick Griffin as Prime Minister someday of a BNP Led Government to restore the national values of Winston Churchill! (She wouldn’t have him to tea as I recall, but I presume that would change if he were elected—we’ll see how Marine Le Pen does in France—that will be a key test!  I mean, I like Nick and the BNP just fine, but I’d rather have Marine ANY DAY as my President…. if only there were anybody like her AT ALL in the USA….)

Constitutional Attorney Needed to Challenge Non-Judicial Foreclosure & Eviction Law in California



Specifically, we need a Constitutional Lawyer with experience and/or interest in state-federal jurisdictional comity to represent defendants (possible class action) who filed civil rights removal to federal court;  we specifically need immediate representation on the question of the Court’s judicially fashioned racially discriminatory scheme in application and enforcement of civil rights laws (“all race based schemes should be subject to strict scrutiny, even those called” benign which were instituted by the U.S. Supreme Court).

A hearing is set for July 19, 2010, but new and qualified counsel could probably get a continuance.  However, the arguments are really extremely simple: Judge David O. Carter has ordered Defendant Renada Nadine March to explain why her removal of a forcible detainer case from California Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Central District of California should not be remanded for failure to comply with a judicially mandated program of racial discrimination in the application of certain federal statutes, to wit 28 U.S.C. Sections 1443 and 1447, which are facially colorblind and contain broad, racially neutral language regarding their intended purpose and application.  The express purpose is to ensure that defendants who are condemned by an express statement of state law to lose, so that all cases are fixed, whether facially or as applied, can remove the prosecutions against them to the U.S. District Court to raise defenses which are unavailable to them, as a practical matter of law or local customs and policies having the force of law, in state Court.  It is beyond reasonable doubt that California Superior Courts presiding over forcible eviction/unlawful detainer prosecutions following non-judicial foreclosures are such “one way streets” in which each and every Defendant’s federally secured rights are designed to be denied by the mere fact of bringing the Defendant to trial in state court—swiftly and efficiently.  Defendants Joseph & Ana Cohen and Aurora I. Diaz are directly interested in the outcome of this issue because they have removed their own forcible eviction/unlawful detainer cases from California Superior Court to U.S. District Court.

We are now seeking an attorney who is either well-versed in, passionately interested in, or at the very least willing to become well-versed in and passionately interested in the question whether “strict scrutiny” should apply to a judicially shaped policy which turns a statute which is colorblind and racially neutral on its face into an instrument of so-called “benign” (i.e. pro minority, mostly pro-African American) Discrimination by denying equal access to removal for serious violations of civil rights which are not explicitly racial in nature or context.

Simply summarized, 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 is directly violated by the California Legislative-Judicial two step program of non-judicial foreclosure followed by judicial evictions devoid of due process or any normal or realistic possibility for ordinary defendants to win.  California non-judicial foreclosure is effectively insulated from most common law contract-based challenges under under California Civil Code 2924 et seq. both on its face as enacted by the California Legislature and as applied by the Superior Courts of the State of California.

California non-judicial foreclosure is followed by California Superior Court judicial evictions which are carefully designed and expressly limited to obliterate all the rights secured by 42 U.S.C. Section 1981(a): “All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property” and 1981(b) “For purposes of this section, the term “make and enforce contracts” includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.”   The total effect and combined result of this language is or ought to be that the common law of contract and property is insulated from legislative or judicial impairment: 1981(c) “The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.”  That contractual rights are related to property rights is obvious from 1981, but confirmed by 1982, which enforces equality “to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.”

Freedom of Contract and the Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights to the security of property from invasion or seizure by the government or private properties acting under governmental authority or delegation depended in the Reconstruction era on state adherence to the common law, and in essence, they still do.

We also take the position that the references to “white citizens” in 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981 and 1982 is as archaic and out of place, and as subject to analysis under strict scrutiny requiring excision from the U.S. Code like any other irrational and racially discriminatory provisions of any law which does not serve a legitimate and compelling governmental objective.

Our position is that there should be no racial discrimination in the application of 28 U.S.C. Sections 1443 and 1447, and that this legal argument is so plain and simple that any attorney licensed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California should be capable of presenting this case.  The main difficulty is a willingness to challenge the race-based scheme mandated by plain Supreme Court precedent (from 1966-1975) which is directly contrary to and contradictory of the Bakke through Bollinger jurisprudence on equal protection from 1978-2003 and which is “good law” at the present time.

The mortgage foreclosure and eviction crisis currently sweeping the United States in general, and California in particular, goes to the heart of a basic question: are common law concepts such as privity of contract, holder in due course standing, and legal capacity or formation as an entity, so essential to constitutional definitions of private property and freedom of contract that any state statute which abrogates or infringes upon these rights, for example, by creating by statute (such as exists in California) a two step non-judicial foreclosure procedure followed by a predetermined one-way judicial eviction policy, may be said to be a statute unconstitutionally impairing the obligations of contract?

Note from Charles Lincoln:  Founder of Tierra Limpia Trust and Deo Vindice Foundation.  As any regular reader of this blog knows, in addition to holding a Master’s and Doctoral degree from the Harvard Graduate School of Arts & Sciences, wherein I wrote a dissertation entitled, “Ethnicity and Social Organization,” I am a graduate of the University of Chicago Law School who does not currently possess a valid license to appear on behalf of others in the state courts of California, Florida, or Texas where I was once licensed.  There are those both on-line and in the State Bar Organizations who think that the historical context of my disbarment is unimportant, and that one need only look at the formal charges against me to determine that I should not be taken seriously.  Naturally, I disagree and submit that historical context is everything: I was disbarred as a result of charges and an indictment handed down for one purpose and one purpose only: to silence me and to prevent the effective prosecution of my civil rights cases on behalf of non-minority victims of police brutality and systematic policies of violation of Fourth and Fifth Amendment Constitutional Rights in Texas.  In short, all of the events leading to my indictment and disbarment were the direct result of my having stood up for the principle that Civil Rights Law is for everybody, including the white majority, and not just for minorities.  I think that the “powers that be” in Texas in the 1990s who later took national office in the elections of 2000 and all their supporters at every level are deeply threatened, indeed offended, by the idea that all Americans should have civil rights.  As long as Civil Rights are only available to minorities, the concept of “discrimination” can be used to create divisions among the people and to enhance the power of transcendent government and its corporate conglomerate allies.  A nation in which civil rights applied to everyone would, from the standpoint of our national government, and most of its partisans and political officers, seem simply ungovernable.  It is my position that “none can be free until all are free” and that a civil rights policy which enhances the rights of any minority while denying the same rights and access to the courts to the majority is unworthy of the name of American Constitutional government.

Please Call Renada Nadine March at 949-586-4020 or 949-276-1970 (renada.march@gmail.com) or Kathleen Waller (727) 277-9352; propertyrightsadvocate@yahoo.com; if you are an attorney interested in representing Renada Nadine March, and possibly Joseph & Ana Cohen and Aurora I. Diaz as well.

Is Diversity Self-Defeating (how can you maintain diversity if everyone and every situation is the same?)

What exactly IS diversity? How do you measure it? What is the purpose of diversity? Does diversity mean that everyone has to like the same thing, or can we make choices? Can the editors of a magazine say that they like all blondes or all blacks? If “Black is Beautiful”, as I happen to think it is, why would we want to mix it with white? If “Blondes have more fun”, why shouldn’t they have fun together? If everyone is all mixed up, is there really any diversity at all?  Is every person and every individual publication responsible for affirmative action quotas and diversity?  How about diversity of beliefs?  How about the belief the diversity might be completely self-defeating philosophy?

Vanity Fair’s “New Hollywood” issue completely lacks diversity

One thing magazines love to do is call dibs on who will be the new “It” celebrities in the year to come. Sometimes they pick stars whose careers are destined to take off, occasionally they make incredible calls with near-nobodies who later become A-listers, and usually the majority of their picks fade into oblivion. While we’d like to think celeb bible Vanity Fair puts a great deal of thought and planning into its annual “New Hollywood” issue, this year the editors really limited their scope when it came to choosing the next big stars. (Or perhaps they overemphasized the “Fair”? ) Every woman on its new cover is extremely thin and very, very white. Unless Vanity Fair considers one redhead to be diversity, we feel the need to cry foul.
Vanity FairThe cover of the March issue features Abbie Cornish, Kristen Stewart, Carey Mulligan, Amanda Seyfried, Rebecca Hall, Mia Wasikowska, Emma Stone, Evan Rachel Wood, and Anna Kendrick. Many, if not all of these women have good reason to grace the Vanity Fair cover, and to be a part of what they have dubbed “the fresh faces of 2010.” Evan Rachel Wood has garnered critical acclaim since her Golden Globe-nominated performance in 2003’s “Thirteen” as well as loads of media attention from her highly publicized romance with rocker Marilyn Manson. Kristen Stewart was catapulted to fame by the mega-successful “Twilight” franchise and will star as Joan Jett in the upcoming film, “The Runaways,”  while Amanda Seyfried’s career was put in motion after her role in 2008’s “Mamma Mia!” But WAIT: Vanity Fair already had both Stewart and Seyfried on an August 2008 cover touting “Hollywood’s New Wave.” And this was also a white-girl-only cover. Were there no promising young actors of color who could have been featured in either issue?

Vanity Fair

Vanity Fair, August 2008Though it’s true, Young Hollywood is predominantly Caucasian, we can think of a slew of non-white, non-rail thin actors who made a splash this year (Gabourey Sidibe from “Precious” anyone?). In the accompanying article, Vanity Fair writer Evgenia Peretz calls out the young cover stars by their best attributes: “downy-soft cheeks,” “button nose,” “patrician looks and celebrated pedigree,” “dewy, wide-eyed loveliness,” “Ivory-soap-girl features”—which sounds like an uppity white-girl stereotype, someone we’ve all become very familiar with seeing on the big screen, nothing new about it. Roles for black, Asian, and Latin actors are scarce in Hollywood, but surely Sidibe,  Zoe Saldana of “Avatar” and “Star Trek,” and Freida Pinto of “Slumdog Millionaire” are having their moment. Vanity Fair may have been looking for the most promising batch of talent for their issue, but they should have been looking for a diverse group of women as well.
Vanity FairVanity Fair

Vanity Fair, August 2008