Anti-Imperialism & Anti-Humanist Rhetoric of Gilad Atzmon

[eyeno]

barracuda my hasty response to you was rude and I apologize. If you notice I did not impute moral judgement in my comments. I was speaking in a historical sense (attempting to) in much the same way Dr. Volin and Ben D did.

Written discourse is sometimes frustrating because of the inability to clarify when people attach meaning that is not intended. It is not my intent to dogpile Judaism. If that were my intent I could have joined the Rothschild threads and attempted to do the dirty deed in those threads.

The very definition of Judaism is fleeting due to the historical schisms within. The attempts to create an all encompassing collective and the push pull factions within is an interesting subject from a historical perspective. The winners write the history and revise it as history plays itself out. Attempting to crack the code of revisionist historical narrative is labeled as "revisionist" and derided as such. If this were a free speech zone we could discuss some of these fascinating details but it isn't so we can't.

I view Gilad as person that has recognized the fact that he was raised in an iron thought fence. He broke free and dared to explore the revisions of historical narratives. I am not saying that Gilad is 100% correct. I am saying that he 'dared.'

There is revisionism and then there is revisionism. Revising history as it plays itself out using the power of naming is the seemingly accepted formula. Questioning the written revision is seen as "taboo revisionism" and much frowned on.

For myself this is actually a fairly sterile discussion free of hatred for any one particular philosophy i.e. Judaism, Christianity, far right, far left, etc...The reason I feel this way is sort of close to the Venn Diagram illustrations upthread. It all overlaps with the people living outside the center being the used tools, and the people in the center being the tool makers.

The tool makers revise history as it happens. When those outside the center attempt to explore the revision they become the scorned "revisionist."

Attempts to create a collective and burnish the collective with the smallest and worst facets of the collective is a revisionist activity. We need look no further than this picture below. Is this an accurate reflection of the movement to save Palestine? I think not. In reality the people in the picture below probably don't even understand the plight of Palestine and give it very little thought, if any. This is probably the least accurate portrait of a person concerned with Palestine that I have ever seen.



History is mostly written inaccurately. Unwinding the inaccurate revisions is obviously tedious. This ^^^ ranks as one of the all time most inaccurate revisions of history that currently exists. IMO These people above mostly don't know about Palestine and could care less. I mean really...

[Iamwhomiam]

Christ! (no, slim, I'm not interjecting him into this discussion... it's an exclamation.) But it's your ridiculous comment above that prompts me to enter the conversation and respond.

C2w?'s referred to holocaust while using a capitol 'H'. You know perfectly well 'which' holocaust she's referring to.

Perhaps it's time you read or re-read the OP, as C2w?'s mention of Icke is her merely quoting the author .

[Ben D]

You say that ...these predictions (such as they are) are all about things that already would have been more or less within the scope of the average person's imagination at the time, but I really can't imagine that to be the case.

Not only was it well within the imagination of the average person, these concerns permeated the social fabric in the late 19th century Europe and North America. Concern over the breakdown of the family and its effects, to take only one example, underlay both the eugenics movement and the growth of early Sociology. With increasing urbanization, and with the increasing distance between subsistance and small scale farming, the traditional agrarian constraints on marriage were relaxed. Since newly urbanized peasants no longer depended for their subsistence on access to land, inheritance through legitimate kinship was suddenly devalued, since the capacity for labour, now the main commodity, was inherent in the individual. This allowed individuals to make decisions they would not have made before, such as divorcing and remarrying. This in turn challenged the power of the institutions that traditionally granted the rights related to marriage, kinship, and inheritance, such as the church and landed aristocracy, but also village and family elders.

The above fears are consistently discussed as part of the British and continental reactions to the French revolution as early as the late 18th century, and gather momentum through the industrial revolution and its attendant urbanization. They become the core of the reaction to socialism after the troubles of the late 1840s. We are still living through these transformations and we can notice change in social structure through our lifetime, but earlier stages of the same changes were very visible and the focus of intense popular discussion, political debate, and academic study at the time of the writing(s) of the Protocols. There is no evidence of prescience here.

Thanks DrVolin and C2W for your comments, however my context was meant to focus on the devil in the details, let me explain.

Let us assume then that even the common folk at that time were consciously aware of a future whereby the mass media was to be controlled by entities who would promote the destruction of reality as they lived it until then, and the fact that a century plus on, we now know that indeed they were right to be anxious, for it has actually been realized.

If one considers that the coincidence of the MO/strategy as laid out in the Protocols in the late 19th century matching the actual strategies of real actors from that point in time to now as not being due to prescience, then surely the alternative explanation is that there really did and does exist perps/cabal who consciously implemented the now historical mass media acquisition and control, and subsequently began the corruption process of the cultural mindset of the people.

Do you follow? If there has been no cabal behind these developments referred to (not the Protocols themselves), then it must be concluded that the actual actors who today own and control the prime mass media assets of the world are in that position by some natural evolutionary process, and in which case the Protocols 'predicting' this development can be reasonably considered an example of prescience. On the other hand, if as you say, even the common folk knew this was coming, and that the Protocols were exploiting the anxiety about such development, then the actual actors who today own and control the prime mass media assets of the world are in that position, not be some uncanny coincidence, but because they knew also what was in the pipeline for humanity's future, and acted as agents of the first order to make it happen.

[Simulist]

US/EU social justice movement = full of millions & millions of activist Jews who refute Zionism.

I'm not sure that it can be stressed too much just how important this point is.

Because it is (more than) ironic how BOTH Zionists AND antisemities would seem to prefer that everyone believe that Jews = Zionists.

(For quite different reasons, of course.)

[compared2what?]

Thanks.

It occurs to me that I should state plainly and in so many words that Netanyahu's recent invocation of the Holocaust in connection with Iran is a good example of why I regret having called the kind of tactics used by The Hidden Hand Nazi propaganda. It's not just a Nazi thing. All the extreme and reactionary right-wingers use variations on the same model.

DISCLAIMER: The Holocaust wasn't invented for propagandistic purposes and The Protocols were. So. While it would always be inflammatory to invoke the Holocaust, it might also sometimes be perfectly legitimate. Or at least arguably legitimate. As, for example, with the term "zionazi."

That doesn't cover what Atzmon does, though -- eg, the Christ-killing/Palestinian-killing analogy. There's no basis or precedent for that except in the virulently anti-Judaic and anti-semitic texts of yesteryear. Repeating, endorsing, or otherwise subscribing to those views only ever benefits extreme right-wing reactionaries, with a long, long history of making intentionally false and deceptive appeals to popular sentiment.

As the authors of the OP note:

It is, as such, not surprising that Atzmon's work has received enthusiastic reviews by such prominent members of the racist right as former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, Kevin MacDonald of the Occidental Observer, David Icke, and Arthur Topham's the Radical Press. It should not be surprising that Atzmon has distributed articles defending Holocaust deniers and those who write of "the Hitler we loved and why."15 These connections ultimately serve the interests of Zionism, which seeks to conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Jewishness. Zionist agents have repeatedly attempted to ensnare and link Palestinian, Arab, and/or Muslim rights advocates to Neo-Nazism, through dirty tricks and outright lies.

And they're not the only ones. Because real Neo-Nazis have a rooting interest in the issue, too. But -- unless you're a Neo-Nazi or a zionist agent -- for practical purposes, it doesn't actually matter who's interpolating extreme, right-wing reactionary rhetoric into your movement. You don't even have to know that. You just have to know it for what it is when you see it.

Which particular holoclaust are you referrring to c2w ?

Would that be the only known holocaust amidst every current "reputable" historical source ? The only holocaust mentionable in current rhetoric ?

I guess I thought that my first use of the word rendered further elaboration unnecessary:

It occurs to me that I should state plainly and in so many words that Netanyahu's recent invocation of the Holocaust in connection with Iran is a good example of why I regret having called the kind of tactics used by The Hidden Hand Nazi propaganda.

See if you can figure it out.

I assume so.

I see. If I'd referred to the Reign of Terror (or the Great Purge, or the Cultural Revolution) would you have assumed that I was referring to the only known terror (or purge, or revolution) amidst every "reputable" historical source, and the only terror (or purge, or revolution) mentionable in current rhetoric?

Or do you just automatically equate acknowledgment of the Holocaust with genocide-elitism, irrespective of context?

Hey and do us all a favour, stop dropping Icke in at every opportunity.

I haven't dropped Icke in at any opportunity. His name was in the quote.

Otherwise, intelligent people might be forgiven for suggesting that you might be trying to direct attention from the thread, and maybe get it locked ?

I don't think so. Ignorant people would be, though.

From what I can see, theres no mention of the name recently on this thread other than yours.

Please see the above-but-one.

[compared2what?]

Ben D and eyeno --

Let's just agree to disagree.

ON EDIT: I mean "on those points where disagreement exists," not "let's just make that our formal policy even where we agree!"

But you knew that. Right?

[Ben D]

Ben D and eyeno --

Let's just agree to disagree.

Shalom...

ON EDIT:

[JackRiddler]

Ben D and eyeno --

Let's just agree to disagree.

But we can still beat up slimmouse, right? Cos that's just too much the bilge.

[slimmouse]

deleted duplicate

[slimmouse]

But we can still beat up slimmouse, right? Cos that's just too much the bilge.

Id be delighted at being your target Jack. Engaging me would probably be a far more productive use of your time around here anyways. Indeed if AD joined in that would be Nirvana. It might leave this place and a whole host of threads a bit less riddled (pun fully intended) with meaningless analysis, cos I dont really post much.

[JackRiddler]

I think you should post that a few more times, it's so amazing. You seriously overestimate the time your usually incoherent Protocols-plus-lizards redux posts merit in the way of refutation. I'd save everyone the time by banning obvious trolls and others who lower board IQ on a hair-trigger, but that's actually a reason why I refused the moderator's cap. Live and let die.

[slimmouse]

I think you should post that a few more times, it's so amazing. You seriously overestimate the time your usually incoherent Protocols-plus-lizards redux posts merit in the way of refutation. I'd save everyone the time by banning obvious trolls and others who lower board IQ on a hair-trigger, but that's actually a reason why I refused the moderator's cap. Live and let die.

Well we can't all have super IQs. Those guys usually end up working for the usual suspects anyways. They need that kind of intelligence ( compassion factor irrelevant, in fact better off zero) to defend the indefensible by all neccesary means. So, whats your excuse ?

[JackRiddler]

I think you should post that a few more times, it's so amazing. You seriously overestimate the time your usually incoherent Protocols-plus-lizards redux posts merit in the way of refutation. I'd save everyone the time by banning obvious trolls and others who lower board IQ on a hair-trigger, but that's actually a reason why I refused the moderator's cap. Live and let die.

Well we can't all have super IQs. Those guys usually end up working for the usual suspects anyways. Whats your excuse ?

Your implication that smart is suspicious comes as no surprise.

[slimmouse]

Your implication that smart is suspicious comes as no surprise.

IQ and smart arent all that compatible by most humanist standards would be where Im coming from. That idea is so mainstream. But I guess emotive reductionism is often the name of the game. So carry on if it makes you feel good. Id be happy to understand that you actually have some emotions.

[JackRiddler]

A third-grader bully's understanding of metaphor and generosity with respect to shorthand also come as no surprise.