compared2what? wrote:I am arguing against fascist mythology, on the grounds that it is false and destructive and beneficial only to fascists. I am also arguing for a clear-eyed and comprehensive understanding of historical power structures as they existed and were abused to the general detriment of the many and the benefit of the few, as well as a clear-eyed and comprehensive understanding of contemporary power structures as they presently exist and are abused to the same ends.
So is Atzmon.
If you want to -- and can -- make an argument that what Gilad Atzmon says is not substantially a reiteration of fascist mythology, or, alternately, that said mythology is true -- ie, that there was no holocaust, that Jews did kill Christ, or that that Israel, zionism, and/or Judaism are uniquely evil in some way that derives from the state of Jewishness, then please do so. Because that would be a rebuttal of/engagement with what I'm saying.
But that's what I've been doing: how can he be a "fascist" if his own words and actions are all expressions of his belief in human freedom, for everybody? How can he be a fascist when he believes that no state or individual has the right to discriminate against or oppress anybody on a religious, or racial or ethnic or any other basis?
He never said that there was no holocaust. Never. He said that it should be treated like the historical event it was, and that people should have the right to investigate the evidence, or even dispute the conclusions for themselves if they want to, like with any other historical event. You can call that what you want, but it's not "fascist"; on the contrary.
He didn't say that "the Jews did kill Christ"; this is what he
does say:
I would like to state clearly that I don't believe the majority of Jewish people associate themselves with their biblical ancestors. I do not think that gentiles tend to do so either. None of the Jewish people I know feel remotely responsible for Christ's death and what's more none of my Jewish friends have ever been blamed for the killing of Christ.
There. That's pretty clear, right? Then he continues,
The majority of Jewish people would never consider exploiting the Israeli racist 'law of return' which welcomes every Jew, wherever he is and whoever he is (even alleged criminals) to settle in Palestine at the expense of the Palestinian people.
But the truth must be revealed; there are some Jews that happily endorse this Israeli open invitation. Those people regard themselves as the offspring of their biblical ancestors. Those Jews are called Zionists. Since the late 19th century they have migrated to Palestine, they have revived the Hebraic language. They regard themselves as reborn biblical entities. So far it sounds pretty romantic and even heroic but some problems are entangled with this 'new' nationalistic identity. It is expansionist, racist, and fundamentally intolerant not only to its neighbours but to any realisation of peaceful existence.
The Zionist endorsement of the biblical lesson is pretty narrow-minded. Somehow it ignores the spiritual and ethical teaching of the Jewish religion while blindly adopting the most brutal interpretation of the biblical notion of conquest. It should be mentioned that the land of Zion has never been free of indigenous inhabitants, neither in biblical times nor in the late 19th century. This very fact didn't stop the Zionists. On the contrary, fuelled with missionary zeal, they followed their biblical ancestors in the conquest of the holy land. In their new reborn Hebraic terminology they named their violent assault 'redeeming the land', injecting their viciousness with some historic content. As if an historic repetition is a form of moral justification.
Perhaps the Zionist tendency to associate themselves with their ancestors can help us to understand the oppression and the atrocities against the Palestinian people in terms of a repetition of Christ's via dolorosa, the way of suffering. Apparently the Palestinian people are today's Jesus.
In the film Pilate, the Roman governor of Palestine, says, "Behold the man" displaying the broken and bleeding Jesus to the crowd. But the high priest insists, in Aramaic, "Crucify him." Pilate responds, "Isn't this enough?" The mob roars, "No," and only then does the Roman leader agree to the Crucifixion.
In today's reality the world says, "Behold the man" displaying the broken and bleeding Palestinians asking 'isn't it enough?' The Palestinians, the indigenous inhabitants of the land of 'milk and honey', are now reaching a level of starvation and malnutrition that puts them amongst the populations of the poorest African regions. But the Israeli mob do not care, they roar "No" to requests for mercy. If anything, they want more persecution and misery. Evidently, the popularity of the high priest Sharon rises sharply after each killing of Palestinians. Like their biblical ancestors, the image of blood fills the Zionist with cheer.
So often the Israeli crowds shout 'death to the Arabs'. The Israeli 'democratically' elected 'priests' whether it be Sharon, Peres, Rabin or Ben Gurion, have managed to perfect the Palestinian's via dolorosa. Everything goes: massacres, legal persecution, financial pressure, continual humiliation, assassinations and now the 'Separation wall'. From time to time the European community or even the American administration ask like Pilate 'isn't it enough?' but somehow they always give-in and allow the Zionists to continue the outrageous destruction of the Palestinian people.
Now, you may not like his metaphor, but clearly, that is just what it is: the zionists
identify with the Biblical Hebrews, and they are reenacting the worst aspects of the Biblical Hebrews that they identify with. That's not the same as saying that "the Jews killed Christ".
compared2what? wrote:You can go on quoting very extreme and reactionary right-wing Jews and/or Israelis saying very extreme and reactionary right-wing things until the cows come home, if you wish. It would only prove my point, which is that such rhetoric is characteristic of the very extreme and reactionary right wing, which I utterly and absolutely reject in all its forms and manifestations, equally, whether the person spewing it happens to be Gilad Atzmon or Benjamin Netanyahu or Ernst Zundel.
You're the one who's using a double-standard on that one. As you're perfectly entitled to do, if you deem it advisable and merited, btw. Just don't straw-man me as if I were doing the same. Because I'm not. And because -- once again -- it is, quite frankly, beneath you to insinuate otherwise.
You're very mistaken if you think it's just rhetoric; rhetoric is words, bullshit, hot air. Once it became part of the ideological apparatus of an oppressive state, it became the blueprint for the abusive treatment of real human beings over whom that state has the power of life and death. It is a moral and religious authorization for the ongoing, systematic dehumanization of an entire people who have committed no crime but to not be Jewish. Please don't dismiss it as just "rhetoric".
Finally, there is nothing about Atzmon that is extreme or reactionary or right-wing -- reactionary right wing fascists do not advocate abandoning tribal chauvinism and militarism and living in freedom and equality with people of all colors, all backgrounds, all ethnicities, all religious faiths. They do not advocate absolute respect for human rights, as he does. It is not Atzmon who is harassing and threatening others in order to shut them up, and frightening people into making humiliating disavowals, as though some Stalinist thought-police has accused them of something they haven't done. I've been reading him for years, and frankly, he's neither right-wing nor left-wing; he wants to be free to express his views, and play his music and meet and mingle and dialogue with all sorts of people, without anybody standing over him with a stick and telling him what he's allowed to think or say, or who are "his people".
compared2what wrote:Dude, you wouldn't recognize many of the modern incarnations of fascism if they were on the brink of herding you into a death camp, sadly. Because you're completely focused on one, to the exclusion of all others. That's a very serious concern to me, obviously. I just wish it were to you.
No, because fascism is as fascism does. It's not about who you are, or what race or religion or ethnicity you belong to, but what you do that marks you as a fascist.
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
