Book review of Gilad Atzmon's The Wandering Who?

[iskander]

once upon a time :
attachment

who b.PNG (218.14 KiB) Viewed 10657 times

[JoeWallack]

JW:
In These Very Moments, The Protocols Are Being Rewritten [Gilad Atzmon]

American Jewry makes any debate on whether the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ are an authentic document or a forgery irrelevant. American Jews do control the world.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Russian: Протоколы сионских мудрецов) or The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion is an antisemitic fabricated text purporting to describe a Jewish plan for global domination.
...
Henry Ford funded printing of 500,000 copies that were distributed throughout the United States in the 1920s. The Nazis sometimes used the Protocols as propaganda against Jews; it was assigned by some German teachers, as if factual, to be read by German schoolchildren after the Nazis came to power in 1933,[1] despite having been exposed as fraudulent by The Times of London in 1921.

Atzmon's attitude towards the Protocols is representative of his attitude in his book. He starts with his conclusion that "The Jews" are evil and wicked and everything else is secondary. Since the Protocols agree with his conclusion that "The Jews" are evil and wicked he sees it as having significant value and whether or not the Protocols are a forgery is secondary and relatively unimportant. Because the Protocols agree so strongly with his conclusion he gives them credibility and that makes him leave the question of forgery open.

This is illustrative of Atzmon's backwards relationship between evidence and conclusions. Evidence should support conclusions and not verses-vicea. Since the Protocols are an obvious forgery and are prominently used to conclude that "The Jews" control the world, it is evidence of the opposite, that Jews do not control the world since such claimed evidence is forged. This is the primary message that one should get from it. We always see this relationship with Atzmon, any major item, such as the Holocaust, which started with the conclusion that "The Jews" were evil and wicked and is another illustration of antisemitism is turned around by Atzmon into a supposed example of the evil and wicked "The Jews"/Zionists. The evidence of antisemitism is minimized/ignored/denied and Atzmon's lesson from it is in fact that it is the Jews who are misusing the Holocaust by unfairly using it for sympathy at the expense of their current victims who are now the Jews of the Holocaust while the current Jews are the Nazis of the Holocaust. And again, when the Jews are the victims of antisemitism, that is an open question for Atzmon, but when "The Jews" are the supposed perpetrators, that is not.

As this relates to The Wandering Who? Atzmon likewise starts with the conclusion that "TheJews"/Zionists are evil and wicked (guilty). The intended purpose of the book is to explain why. Thus regarding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict he avoids the primary issues such as the relationship between security measures and Terrorism and potential terms for peace negotiations. Since Israel is not just wrong but evil according to Atzmon and he does not give the Palestinians any criticism he does not think there should be any negotiations or dialogue. He thinks the Jews in Israel should just leave and he doesn't care where they go except if its where he is or to America.

You see this attitude in Palestinian supporters in US colleges now. They don't want any Jew to be involved in leadership or decision making of groups because they've already decided that Jews in general are evil and wicked. They understand that not all Jews are but they think that the benefit of not allowing a Jew to participate because they are or might be a supporter of Israel outweighs the cost of banning a Jew who is not a "Jew First". Likewise you see this attitude in Palestinian supporters trying to prevent speech in favor of Israel or even just dialogue on the subject. They have already decided that support for Israel is evil and wicked and therefore no pro Israel speech or related dialogue should be allowed.

As to one Godfree, he also starts with the conclusion that Israel/supporters of Israel are guilty. Therefore, he never criticizes Palestinians. He censors criticism of criticism of Israel at his blog and refuses to post at pro Israel blogs. Now Godfree did once believe that God sacrificed himself to himself and ended death by dying in order to end his eternal Law as a result of Christian propaganda. So maybe he is just not the brightest star and is still susceptible to Atzmon like propaganda. Or maybe Godfree is smarter than his writing looks and is just an advocate for the Palestinians who wants to look like a judge. Advocates do the same thing, they start with their conclusions.


Joseph

The New Porphyry

[iskander]

Was Amalek anti-Semite?

Parshat Zakhor

"In our Torah tradition the Shabat before Purim we publicly read the Biblical commandment never to forget the evil perpetuated by the most violent and godless people of all time, Amalek.

G-d Himself swore that He would utterly destroy Amalek from under the Heavens.

For centuries our Sages have always identified Amalek as not so much being a nation defined by location or by bloodline, but rather by attitude."






Attributing an amalek attitude to a good Samaritan , like Mr Gilad Atzmon,, is the employment of a foul-mouthed boor.

Gilad Atzmon is a tzaddik :

The true tzaddikim, who are supernal, holy beings, in their essence rise beyond all toil and fatigue.
They would be satisfied to endure toil and trouble, suffering and difficulty, sacrifice and backbreaking labour, in order to do the will of the living God and King of the world, the Creator of their souls, the King of Israel and its Redeemer, the Master of all creatures and God of all spirits.

But despite their readiness to do so, they are filled with tranquillity and peace

[Joseph D. L.]

... "Since the Protocols are an obvious forgery...

I'm curious but what actually is the evidence that proves that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a forgery? And I'm not talking about what others think of it. I mean internal discrepancies, or external circumstances regarding its publishing.

I've never read it so I can't answer this myself.

[JoeWallack]

Atzmon, you antisemitic bastard, I read your book!

JW:
Chapter 6:
With this heading:

Think Tribal, Speak Universal

and what Atzmon has previously written, you have to wonder if Atzmon is actually an antisemitic troll, the Andy Kaufman of antisemitism, thinking it a type of art seeing just how blatantly antisemitic he can be and still have people think he is being serious. Maybe he is just sympathetic to Palestinians because he sees them as the underdogs and is going full blown antisemite to get attention to the issue thinking that being an antisemite in general will help the Palestinians more than it will hurt the Jews.

His "think tribal" of course is his stereotype of what "The Jews" are and his "Speak universal" is what he thinks "The Jews" should be. The irony though is that he is the one who has become tribal according to his definition of Identity Politics because what is not just more important to him than anything else, but much more important, is being Not A Jew. Also of course "The Jews" enemy on location, the Palestinians are more tribal than the Jews. There's the same irony for the second part, speak universal. He is the one who says The Jews are different and should not be included. Jews are clearly more universal than the other religions, Christianity and Islam, which unlike Judaism, proselytize and want the entire world to be their religion. This is why even though Judaism is much older there are so many fewer Jews.

At a certain stage, around 2005, I thought to myself that I might be King of The Jews. I have achieved the unachievable, accomplished the impossible. I have managed to unite them all:

And the contradictions start to steaming pile up. He is seen as simply anti-Jewish (in his own words).

I was not the canonical enemy – I was a jazz musician and author. I was not a politician, nor was I a member of any party. I did not present or support any political agenda or power. I wasn’t supported by any party either.

Just a few chapters later, in his own book, he has forgotten his definition of Identity Politics. Sad... Terrible... Pathetic...

I have never been involved in any act of violence (not even as an Israeli soldier) nor had I ever called for violence.

Meanwhile he supports Hamas and Hezbollah. It's a short backwards step for him to "Liar". Hitler didn't call for violence either against The Jews in Mein Kampf. But what was the implication?

At the time I came across an interesting insight into the subject of anti-Semitism. It goes like this: ‘While in the past an “anti-Semite” was someone who hates Jews, nowadays it is the other way around, an anti-Semite is someone the Jews hate.We all know that Jews have been suffering hatred and discrimination for centuries. Yet the Jewish ethnic activists seem to have learned hatred from their enemies so well that the secular Jewish political discourse has been totally shaped by it.

Again with the backwards definitions that can only be used to criticize "The Jews" and never for Jewish sympathy or evidence of antisemitism.

Moreover, hate has become the main matrix of negation: the Israelis hate the Arabs, the Zionists hate the Goyim (in general), Jews against Zionism also hate the Goyim but they also hate Israel as well as Atzmon (in particular). But why do they hate so much?

No end to the backwards observations. Who hates more Israel or Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinians.

Once Judaism is renounced, what remains of Jewish identity is pretty threadbare. Once stripped of religious spirituality, all that is left of Jewish-ness is a template of negation fuelled by racial orientation and spiced up with some light cultural references such as matza balls and chicken soup.

So it's not just Identity Jews but Judaism that is the problem. What a surprise.

Rather than encouraging the modern Jew to genuinely assimilate into a homogenous authentic universal ethos of equality, the Haskalah Jew is destined to live in a dual, deceptive mode, if not practically a state of schizophrenia. He is split between the solitary pleasure of a cosy, homely Jewish identity and the public appearance of the surrounding reality. The Haskalah Jew is deceiving his or her God when at home, and misleading the Goy once in the street.

Having Jews be less/not Jewish is not going to change any other country in the world from being Christian, Muslim or not Jewish (it's not going to make any difference).

If you don’t know who you are, just find yourself an enemy. In other words, ‘tell me who you hate and I will tell you who you are.’

He keeps being accurate if you switch his sides.


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

[JoeWallack]

How Do We Know That Neil Godfree Is Not Really Mel Torme?

... "Since the Protocols are an obvious forgery...

I'm curious but what actually is the evidence that proves that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a forgery? And I'm not talking about what others think of it. I mean internal discrepancies, or external circumstances regarding its publishing.

I've never read it so I can't answer this myself.

JW:
What a great question (especially for anyone who has never heard of Wikipedia). The Protocols don't really give any specifics like Jew, What, Where or When, just Why, so how can they be proven a forgery? And Jewish Identity Politics (whatever that is) immediately label anyone who questions its forgery as an "antisemite":

Modern Era

The 1988 charter of Hamas, a Palestinian Islamist group, states that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion embodies the plan of the Zionists.[91] Recent endorsements in the 21st century have been made by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Sheikh Ekrima Sa'id Sabri, the education ministry of Saudi Arabia,[90] member of the Greek Parliament Ilias Kasidiaris,[92] and Young Earth creationist and tax evader Kent Hovind.[93]

Neil Godfree thinks Palestinian sources are extremely credible, especially on the issue of Israel/Zionists/Jews:

Palestinian news sources

so I think he should write an article asking for proof that The Protocols are a forgery. Right up his Alley.


Joseph

The New Porphyry

[iskander]

Gilad Atzmon was saddened by the political ideology of some of his brothers, just as good Catholics were saddened by the political ideology of some of their brothers .
May G-d bless Gilad.

attachment

ga p16.PNG (65.79 KiB) Viewed 10533 times

[iskander]

Gilad Atzmon was saddened by the political ideology of some of his brothers, just as good Catholics were saddened by the political ideology of some of their brothers .
May G-d bless Gilad.

attachment
ga p16.PNG

Gilad Atzmon considers the first two categories as a harmless and innocent group of people, just as any catholic consider other Catholics as harmless and innocent.

For Gilad it is the 3rd category the one that is problematic, just as it is for some Catholics the Catholic group belonging to the Holy Inquisition .

ga page 17.PNG (74.03 KiB) Viewed 10522 times

[andrewcriddle]

... "Since the Protocols are an obvious forgery...

I'm curious but what actually is the evidence that proves that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a forgery? And I'm not talking about what others think of it. I mean internal discrepancies, or external circumstances regarding its publishing.

I've never read it so I can't answer this myself.

The Protocols are partly based on an earlier political satire Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu which has nothing to do with Jews but which was rewritten by the author of the Protocols as an account of the supposed secret Jewish agenda.

Andrew Criddle

[neilgodfrey]

From pages 94 to 96 of The Wandering Who (coloured emphasis is mine, of course)

The Anti-Semite

Following his own paradigm, Weininger argues: ‘People love in others the qualities they would
like to have but do not actually have in any great degree. So we only hate in others what we do not
wish to be and what, notwithstanding, we are partly. We hate only qualities to which we approximate,
but which we realise first in other persons … Thus the fact is explained that the bitterest anti-Semites
are to be found amongst the Jews themselves.’58

According to Weininger, some Jews oppose in others that which they despise in themselves. This
tendency is called anti-Semitism, but Jews are not alone. Some non-Jews find Jewish tendencies
within themselves as well. Weininger elaborates: ‘Even Richard Wagner, the bitterest anti-Semite,
cannot be held free of accretion of Jewish-ness, even in his art.’59 I would argue that, for Weininger,
Jewish-ness isn’t at all a racial category, but a mindset that some of us possess and a very few of us
try to oppose.

Isn’t that merely to repeat Marx’s treatment of Jewish identity, explored in his famous essay ‘On
The Jewish Question’? Marx equates Jews with capitalism, self-interest and money-grubbing. For
him, capitalism is Judaism, and Judaism is capitalism. The Jews have liberated themselves to the
point where Christians have become Jews. He concludes ferociously: ‘The social emancipation of the
Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism.’60 Judging Marx’s ideas in the Weiningerian frame
of reference may suggest that Marx’s analysis is the outcome of Marx being Jewish himself. In other
words, Marxism is the outcome of Marx’s capacity to oppose the Jew within.

As we can see, Weininger has provided us with a pretty useful analytical tool. He is granting us
insight into the subject of hatred and self-hatred, going as far as arguing: ‘The Aryan has to thank the
Jew that through him, he knows to guard against Judaism as a possibility within himself.’61 In other
words, antagonism towards others can be grasped as a manifestation of self-contempt. Thus the Nazi
hatred toward anything even remotely Jewish could also be explained as a form of hostility towards
the Jew within.

But if hatred is, at least partly, a form of self-negation, I have to admit that my own personal war
against Zionism and Jewish identity politics could be seen as a war I have declared against myself.
Taking it a step further, we may all have to admit that fighting racism for real primarily entails
opposing the racist within.

Otto Weininger was just twenty-three when he committed suicide. One may wonder how he
knew so much about women. Why did he hate them so? How did he know so much about Jews, and
why did he hate them so? The answer can be elicited from Weininger’s thoughts, though not from his
own words. He hated women and Jews because he was a woman and a Jew. He adored Aryan
masculinity because he probably lacked that quality in any significant amount in his own being. This
revelation probably led Weininger to kill himself, just a month after the publication of his book. Very
likely, he had managed to understand what his book was all about.