Anti-Imperialism & Anti-Humanist Rhetoric of Gilad Atzmon

[barracuda]

I just came across this and found it worth sharing.

Let's see...

- master at covert abuse

- lacks insight into feelings

- unable to express anger in a healthy way

- repressed

- under-handed

- ignores problems

- has a skewed sense of reality

- lies

And I gather this is supposed to be a description of compared2what??

You need to take a long, hard look at yourself, kiddo. Somewhere along the way your key got bent.

[Searcher08]

Err, obviously I may be wrong, but I don't think Alice was referring to c2w.
As you said, it doesn't describe her at all.

I just came across this and found it worth sharing.

Let's see...

- master at covert abuse

- lack of insight into feelings

- inability to express anger in a healthy way

- repressed

- under-handed

- ignores problems

- skewed sense of reality

- lies

And I gather this is supposed to be a description of compared2what??

You need to take a long, hard look at yourself, kiddo. Somewhere along the way your key got bent.

[AlicetheKurious]

And I gather this is supposed to be a description of compared2what??

You need to take a long, hard look at yourself, kiddo.

Funny how you and Sounder both seem to have no doubt that I was referring to c2w. Go figure.

As for you, barracuda, I'm awed at your self-righteousness, what with all the sneering, defaming, evasions and ascribing false "feelings" to others, throwing shoes, etc., all to sabotage this thread.

C2W just tries to help people uncover their inner Nazi, which she seems to believe is lurking just beneath the surface, ready to pounce, but does it nicely, so people won't think less of her. And some don't, bless their innocent hearts.

AD's got the easiest job of all: two fingers, two brain cells and mostly two sources.

RI's very own ADL! Now you don't have to rely on Gilad Atzmon to see how they operate, watch them in action!

PS: the items on your list are impressively amorphous, except for one -- "lies". I don't lie, as far as I know, ever. In fact, just on this thread, both you and c2w have lied, but I haven't. Please enlighten me if you know better: how did I lie?

[barracuda]

Funny how you and Sounder both seem to have no doubt that I was referring to c2w. Go figure.

Even funnier how we both turned out to be right. Sniffing out the object of your post was tricky, but like all such investigations it's mostly about the legwork: searching for clues, knocking on doors, questioning witnesses at the scene, and then applying the rigor of logic to the case. I managed to get a photo of the two of us at work unraveling your tangled little mystery:



That's me on the left.

As for you, barracuda, I'm awed at your self-righteousness, what with all the sneering, defaming, evasions and ascribing false "feelings" to others, throwing shoes, etc., all to sabotage this thread.

Awed? Yeah, I get that a lot. But I guess I really ought to have just sat back lurking while you schooled us all once again with your nonpareil of tolerance, restraint, and respect.

PS: the items on your list are impressively amorphous, except for one -- "lies". I don't lie, as far as I know, ever. In fact, just on this thread, both you and c2w have lied, but I haven't. Please enlighten me if you know better: how did I lie?

Um, it's your list, not mine, 'member? I'm not pointing it at you or saying it describes you at all. You've misunderstood me there.

What I'm saying is a touch of self-examination couldn't hurcha. Maybe more than a touch.

But I'm not holding my breath.

[AlicetheKurious]

As for you, barracuda, I'm awed at your self-righteousness, what with all the sneering, defaming, evasions and ascribing false "feelings" to others, throwing shoes, etc., all to sabotage this thread.

Awed? Yeah, I get that a lot. But I guess I really ought to have just sat back lurking while you schooled us all once again with your nonpareil of tolerance, restraint, and respect.

So those are the only two choices in your repertoire, when someone dares to disagree with you? Personal abuse or lurking? How about respecting the people on this board enough to make a sincere effort to write posts that are honest, informative and intellectually stimulating?

[barracuda]

This, after the "respect" you showed American Dream upthread? You throw your shit, but god forbid any of it should get on your sainted garment.

Aren't you late for your beatification rehearsal or something?

[Searcher08]

This, after the "respect" you showed American Dream upthread? You throw your shit, but god forbid any of it should get on your sainted garment.

Aren't you late for your beatification rehearsal or something?

Saintly? Give me a break. She is obviously the very Demon Spawn of Satan himself.

Personally, I have always found Alice consistent, truthful and engaging even if that means duking it out mano a mano. AD drives me nuts because when HE himself engages, he is interesting, funny and worth listening to, even if we are poles apart on a subject OR if he just brings back good stuff, links and departs - like in most of the TIDS thread, he is full of WIN.

Cuda, if YOU spent an hour thinking through a post and requesting an answer from someone you had known as a fellow forum member for five years and were greeted with flouncy huff and a Godzilla jpg, what do YOU think is a good response, if you have an outcome to further the discussion?

[barracuda]

American Dream made it pretty clear about thirty pages ago that he wasn't really interested in entering into the discussion on this thread on any terms but his own. His response to you did not surprise me. I suggest you formulate your question into a new thread, perhaps one not so colored by the history and animosity overflowing the rim of this one, and post it to General Discussion a month or so after this one finally dies, if that ever happens to come to pass.

[AlicetheKurious]

Perhaps the most insidious corruption imposed on the Jewish people and on their religion by the Zionists who garnered control of the new state of Israel was the manipulation of the Holocaust into both a religion and an industry. Norman Finkelstein covers the creation of the industry, Atzmon, with the help of Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz, a Latvian-born philosopher at the Hebrew University, and Adi Ophir, an Israeli philosopher and Associate Professor at the Cohn Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Ideas at Tel Aviv University, takes on the description and the consequences of transforming the Holocaust into a religion. Leibowitz, according to Uri Avnery (19.3.05, “Remember What? Remember How?'), stated that “The Jewish religion died 200 years ago. Now there is nothing that unifies the Jews around the world apart from the Holocaust.” Atzmon suggests that Lebowitz might have been the first to recognize that the Holocaust had been made into a religion with priests, prophets, commandments and dogmas, rituals and temples.

The Holocaust religion is, obviously, Judeo-centric to the bone. It defines the Jewish raison d’etre. For Zionist Jews, it signifies a total fatigue of the Diaspora, and regards the goy as a potential irrational murderer. This new Jewish religion preaches revenge. It could well be the most sinister religion known to man, for in the name of Jewish suffering, it issues licenses to kill, to flatten, to nuke, to annihilate, to loot, to ethnically cleanse. It has made vengeance into an acceptable Western value (127).

- Gilad Atzmon's "The Wandering Who": Tearing the Veil From Israel’s Civility, by William A. Cook

When Netanyahu described Iran as Amalek — read, Hitler– NYT passed this along as rational thinking
by Philip Weiss on May 1, 2012

Yesterday I pointed out that Israel advocacy is so embedded in American public life, and the concern for Israel's survival is taken as such a solemn charge by the media, that it requires Israeli establishment critics speaking out for our media to cotton to the idea that Netanyahu is feverish and irresponsible. Specifically, it has required former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert saying that he doesn't trust Netanyahu on the Iran issue, and former Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin describing Netanyahu and Defense Minister Barak as "messianic" to give American media permission to openly question Netanyahu's judgment.

Well, American critics have been telling us this about Netanyahu for years; and they have been ignored, while the hysterics have been privileged, c.f. this cover story in the Times in January. Even President Obama's warning about "loose talk" of war has had less effect than the Israelis speaking out.


NYT hysteria in January

Here is another landmark in the American media's passive acceptance of Israeli messianism: a huge 2009 op-ed in the New York Times, written by Jeffrey Goldberg, rationalizing Netanyahu's extremism as a reasonable response to the next Hitler arising in Iran.

At the time, Dan Luban at Lobelog called Goldberg out as a zealot-- but who paid attention? Luban spoke out at a small news service, while Goldberg had the pages of the New York Times to promote hysteria about the next holocaust.

First, Goldberg excerpts (Hitler boldface is mine):


I recently asked one of his advisers to gauge for me the depth of Mr. Netanyahu’s anxiety about Iran. His answer: “Think Amalek.”

“Amalek,” in essence, is Hebrew for “existential threat.” Tradition holds that the Amalekites are the undying enemy of the Jews. They appear in Deuteronomy, attacking the rear columns of the Israelites on their escape from Egypt. The rabbis teach that successive generations of Jews have been forced to confront the Amalekites: Nebuchadnezzar, the Crusaders, Torquemada, Hitler and Stalin are all manifestations of Amalek’s malevolent spirit.

If Iran’s nuclear program is, metaphorically, Amalek’s arsenal, then an Israeli prime minister is bound by Jewish history to seek its destruction, regardless of what his allies think...

there should be little doubt that, by the end of this year [2009], if no progress is made, Mr. Netanyahu will seriously consider attacking Iran. His military advisers tell me they believe an attack, even an attack conducted without American help or permission, would have a reasonably high chance of setting back the Iranian program for two to five years.

...When I visited recently with [Israeli President Shimon] Peres, who is now Israel’s president, I asked him if there is a chance that his country has over-learned the lessons of Jewish history. He answered, “If we have to make a mistake of overreaction or underreaction, I think I prefer the overreaction.”

Goldberg brags a lot about his access there. But Netanyahu didn't attack in 2009. So much for that alarmism. And Netanyahu doesn't even represent the Israeli establishment. Diskin, and Olmert, and now Livni prove that.

Here is Dan Luban deconstructing Goldberg in 2009 as someone trying to make nuclear war acceptable:


Strangely, Goldberg does not mention what is perhaps the most striking and well-known fact about the Amalekites: they were the targets of divinely sanctioned genocide. As related in 1 Samuel 15, God instructed the Israelite king Saul to “go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” Saul “utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword,”

Goldberg clearly does not wish to rattle his right-thinking liberal New York Times audience, so he conveniently omits all this from his account of Amalek. However, if Netanyahu’s advisors are right to say that Bibi sees Iran as the new Amalek, this is a fact with profoundly disturbing implications. After all, the biblically ordained way to deal with the Amalekites is not through “smart but tough” diplomacy, “crippling” sanctions, or even precise and targeted military strikes. Rather, it is through root-and-branch extermination — that is, wiping Iran off the map.

Then Goldberg defended himself, and Luban went right back at him:


His op-ed deployed the Amalek reference to convince American audiences that, far from being a shallow opportunist or unthinking warmonger, Netanyahu is in fact a serious statesman whose belligerence toward Iran is deeply rooted in Jewish history, the Bible, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, and so on. Readers are meant to come away with the impression (although it is never quite stated explicitly) that they should put aside their skepticism of the new Israeli government and trust its hawkish inclinations on the Iranian issue.

As it turns out, his op-ed seems to have had the opposite effect. Rather than reassuring American Jews about Netanyahu’s seriousness of purpose, all the talk of Amalek has simply reinforced their impression that Netanyahu is a dangerous zealot who should not be dictating U.S. policy towards Iran. [Luban was hopeful here; it didn't happen]

It is only now that Goldberg steps in to do damage control — claiming at first that there is nothing at all troubling about the Amalek analogy, next that there may be troubling aspects of the analogy but that these were completely unintended by those who used it, before finally falling back on the position that Netanyahu never espoused the analogy at all.

In any case, the basic message throughout seems to be “defer to Netanyahu”. Link

[jam.fuse]

As an American, or U.S. American, or whatever the proper term is, it pains me to write that I am the product of a largely sick, evil and depraved culture, one that visited hundreds of years of brutal slavery on fellow humans -- not to mention various Satanic (I think that word apropos) bloodbaths in Mexico, North America, the Phillipines, Viet Nam, Iraq, Korea, Japan, etc. My aunt's farm house had it's own torture chamber used, up until sometime in the 1800's at least, for 'punishing the slaves', for fuck's sake. If that's not sick I don't know what is. Although I love (L - U - V ) me some American rock'n'roll, house music, rap, blues, jazz, drama, (especially) dance, literature, cinema, cultural diversity in general, American lingo, etc., to deny the dark side seems, in a word, stupid. Although I have not read his book, it seems Atzmon is merely observing and exploring the dark side of his own culture, as is his, or anyone's right, to reflect on their own background, however taboo their conclusions. Everything and everybody has a dark side. As well as a wonderful and magical side.

“Enlightenment is not imagining figures of light but making the darkness conscious” -- Jung

Here's Chris Rock, on African-Americans, a nomenclature I cannot recall ever hearing an actual Black person use in everyday conversation, to describe themselves. Chris Rock is a Black American comedian, writer and actor.

Chris Rock said in 1996:

There's a lot of racism going on in the world today. Who's more racist, black people or white people? Black people, because we hate black people too. Everything that white people don't like about black people, black people really don't like about black people. There's some shit going on with black people right now. It's like a civil war going on with black people and there's two sides... There's black people, and there's niggers. The niggers have got to go. Every time black people want to have a good time, ignorant ass niggers fuck it up. Can't do nothing without niggers fucking it up. Can't keep a disco open more than three weeks. Grand opening, grand closing. Can't go to a movie the first week it comes out. Why? Cause niggers are going to shoot holes in the screen. What kind of ignorant shit is that? 'Hey this is a good movie, it's so good I gotta bust a cap in it' Hey, I love black people, but I hate niggers. Boy I hate niggers, I wish they'd let me join the Klu Klux Klan. I'm tired of niggers man, you can't have shit when you're around niggers. You can't have no big screen tv. You can have it, but you better move it in at three in the morning. You can't have shit in your house around niggers, because niggers will break into your house and steal it. Niggers that live right next door to you, will break into your house, and come over the next morning and say 'I heard you got robbed'. You know what's the worst thing about niggers? Niggers always want credit for some shit they're supposed to do. A nigger will say some shit like, 'I take care of my kids'. You're supposed to you dumb mother fucker! 'I ain't never been to jail." What you want, a cookie? You're not supposed to go to jail, you low expectation ignorant ass mother fucker! You know the worst thing about niggers, the WORST thing about niggers? Niggers love to not know. Nothing makes a nigger happier than not knowing the answer to your question. 'Hey man, what's the capital of Zaire?' 'Shoot, I don't know that shit! I'm just keeping it real, just keeping it real.' Yeah, you're keeping it real, real dumb. Niggers hate knowledge. Shit, if you're afraid a nigger will break into your house, and you wanna save your money, you know what you do? You put the money in a book. Cause niggers don't read. Books are like kryptonite to a nigger. 'Here's a book.' 'NOOOOOOOOO! NOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Not a book!'

Does Chris Rock really support the KKK? I kind of doubt it.

http://uncle_tom_rants.blogspot.de/2006 ... right.html

Remember that song by Tears for Fears, Everybody Wants to Rule the World? Funny, 'cause it's true, possibly. I know I wouldn't mind.

[American Dream]

...The Jewish nationalist would rob Palestine in the name of the right of self-determination, the Jewish progressive is there to rob the ruling class and even international capital in the name of world working class revolution.6

... Were Jewish Marxists and cosmopolitans open to the notion of brotherhood, they would have given up on their unique, exclusive banners and become ordinary human beings like the rest of us.7 ...

... Israel defines itself as a Jewish state, and Jewishness is, sadly enough, inherently intolerant; indeed, it may be argued that Jewish intolerance is as old as the Jews themselves.9

... The endless trail of Jewish collective tragedies is there to teach us that Jews always pay eventually (and heavily) for Jewish power exercises. Yet, surprisingly (and tragically) enough, Jews somehow consistently fail to internalise and learn from that very lesson.

... The remarkable fact is they don't understand why the world is beginning to stand against them in the same way they didn't understand why the Europeans stood against them in the 1930s. Instead of asking why we are hated they continue to toss accusations on others.

... I have hardly seen any Israelis or Jews attempt to understand the circumstances that led to the clear resentment of Europeans towards their Jewish neighbors in the 1920's-40's.

OK- time to start building a master list.

More points regarding Atzmon that some here continue to rigorously ignore:


Atzmon has gone out of his way to support and associated with those who declare themselves ‘proud’ to deny the holocaust. People like Paul Eisen, whose purpose is to ‘contextualize and re-humanize the person of Adolf Hitler, the National Socialist regime, and, indeed, the German people….’


Anti-Semitism is no longer a danger to Jews. It is dangerous for Palestinians. Not only does it threaten to misdirect the movement onto false targets, but it plays into the Zionists’ hands by racialising the struggle. Zionists constantly attack anti-Zionists as ‘anti-Semitic’ when they are no such thing. There is nothing more that the Zionist leadership desires than an upsurge in traditional anti-Semitism. Without anti-Semitism there are no Jewish immigrants to Israel and without immigration there can be no Zionism. It is the lack of such immigrants today, more Jews leave than go to live in Israel, which is, in part, responsible for the political crisis of Zionism.


Palestinians have faced two centuries of orientalist, colonialist and imperialist domination of our native lands. And so as Palestinians, we see such language as immoral and completely outside the core foundations of humanism, equality and justice, on which the struggle for Palestine and its national movement rests. As countless Palestinian activists and organizers, their parties, associations and campaigns, have attested throughout the last century, our struggle was never, and will never be, with Jews, or Judaism, no matter how much Zionism insists that our enemies are the Jews. Rather, our struggle is with Zionism, a modern European settler colonial movement, similar to movements in many other parts of the world that aim to displace indigenous people and build new European societies on their lands.


Challenging Zionism, including the illegitimate power of institutions that support the oppression of Palestinians, and the illegitimate use of Jewish identities to protect and legitimize oppression, must never become an attack on Jewish identities, nor the demeaning and denial of Jewish histories in all their diversity.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34135&start=270

More points regarding Atzmon that some here continue to rigorously ignore:


A Guide to the Sayings of Gilad Atzmon, the anti-Semitic jazzman




Excerpted from:
http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2011/03/guid ... -anti.html

‘The J’s are the ultimate chameleons, they can be whatever they like as long as it serves as some expedient. As soon as you criticise their expansionist militant national beliefs (Zionism) you hurt them as a race (Semites),… When you condemn their racist tendencies, they are transformed immediately into an innocent cultural identity… when it was right to be a Socialist they were right there in the forefront of the Bolshevik revolution, now when it is hard capitalism that sets the tone, you read about them in the Wall Street Journal, they are the new prophets from Manhattan. Life is never boring for ‘J’ people.’ It’s one never ending (Jewish) conspiracy.

'I am not a Holocaust scholar nor am I a historian. My primary interest is not the story of Auschwitz nor the destruction of European Jewry…. I do not wish to enter the debate regarding the truth of the Holocaust….

'Most of the scholars are themselves orthodox observants. Though they may be critical of different aspects of the exploitation of the Holocaust, they all accept the validity of the Nazi Judeocide and its mainstream interpretations and implications. Most of the scholars, if not all of them, do not challenge the Zionist narrative, namely Nazi Judeocide, yet, more than a few are critical of the way Jewish and Zionist institutes employ the Holocaust…. no one goes as far as revisionism, not a single Holocaust religion scholar dares engage in a dialogue with the so-called 'deniers' to discuss their vision of the events or any other revisionist scholarship’.

’

…. Holocaust religion was well established a long time before the Final Solution (1942)…. The Holocaust religion is probably as old as the Jews.’

‘If, for instance, the Nazis wanted the Jews out of their Reich (Judenrein - free of Jews), or even dead, as the Zionist narrative insists, how come they marched hundreds of thousands of them back into the Reich at the end of the war?’ ‘If the Nazis ran a death factory in Auschwitz-Birkenau, why would the Jewish prisoners join them at the end of the war? ‘We should ask for some conclusive historical evidence and arguments rather than follow a religious narrative...’ ‘Why were the Jews hated? Why did European people stand up against their next-door neighbours? Why are the Jews hated in the Middle East.’

‘To regard Hitler as the ultimate evil is nothing but surrendering to the Zio-centric discourse. To regard Hitler as the wickedest man and the Third Reich as the embodiment of evilness is to let Israel off the hook... Hitler has never flattened a country for no reason at all, and this is exactly what the Israelis have been doing in Lebanon for four weeks already and in Gaza for years and years….

If a comparison is to be made, then it is the Israelis who win the championship of ruthlessness and the reasons are obvious. Nazi Germany was a tyranny, Israel is a democracy led by a centre-left national unity government.’…

Nazis were indeed proper expansionists, they were trying to take towns and land intact. Carpet bombing and total erasure of populated areas that is so trendy amongst Israeli military and politicians (as well as Anglo-Americans) has never been a Nazi tactic or strategy.’

'I am suggesting that the only way to internalise the meaning of the Jewish Holocaust is to teach Jews how to start looking in the mirror, to teach Jews to ask themselves why conflicts with others happen to them time after time. Rather than blaming the Goyim, the Germans, the Muslims, the Arabs, it is about time the Jewish subject learns to ask the 6 million $ question: “why do they pick on me?”

posting.php?mode=quote&f=8&p=453203

Even More points regarding Atzmon that some here continue to rigorously ignore:

http://socialistworker.org/2010/07/15/n ... zmon-at-sw


Gilad Atzmon has revealed time and time again in his writings that he is less interested in being a part of a genuine anti-racist mass movement for the liberation of Palestine against Zionism than he is in trying to prove that there is something "inherently Jewish" about Zionist atrocities, attacking anti-Zionist Jews in England as "undercover Zionists" and, in the case of founder of the revolutionary anti-Zionist Israeli Socialist Organization, Moshe Machover, a "Judeo Marxist."

Atzmon has declared Machover to be worse than British neo-Nazi Nick Griffin, and in criticizing the printing of a speech by Moshe Machover in the International Socialist Review urged "Socialists and Marxists to save themselves from the Judeo political grip" and "consider liberating themselves of their tribal infiltrators." (If Moshe Machover's politics make him a "Judeo Marxist," then I am proud to identify as one--a Muslim Judeo-Marxist. Let's see how Atzmon tries to figure that one out.)

In addition to that, Atzmon has been known to circulate Holocaust denial literature and to associate with known fascists like the notorious racist Russian-Swede Israel Shamir, an open admirer of Hitler, David Duke, Jean-Marie Le Pen and Nick Griffin and the neo-Nazi British National Party (although apparently being very disappointed that the BNP isn't doing more these days to attack Jews). Israel Shamir has said of Atzmon: "Gilad takes up the tools of modern philosophical discourse...to explain our position: why we are against domination by Judaic spirit."

Atzmon also has previously been condemned by Palestine solidarity activists Ali Abunimah and Hussein Ibish. Atzmon's pseudo-philosophical writings include quotes like this: "In the light of Israeli brutality, the conviction of gross swindler Madoff and the latest images of Rabbis being taken away by FBI agents, it is about time we stop discussing the rise of anti-Semitism and start to elaborate on the rise of Jewish Crime."

To quote from a statement put out by the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign against any legitimacy in the movement for Gilad Atzmon and Israel Shamir:

Anybody who insists that Jews must give up their Jewishness, or Catholics their Catholicism, before being allowed to join the anti-Zionist movement, or even line up alongside the vast army of critics of Israeli murder, is not just an idiot, but is a menace to the Palestinians...

Palestinians need mass support--it won't come by associating ourselves with extreme-right sympathizers who miss no opportunity to spew their racist bile into a movement for human and national rights for the Palestinian people. For the Palestinians are groaning under Zionism, which is armed and sustained by Western imperialism. Not a Jewish world conspiracy. One of these ideas is the natural discourse of the left and liberal center: one is a blind cul-de-sac propagated by the extreme right.



viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34135

And of course, this kind of historymust be ignored:


Racism, anti-Semitism and the modern world

Racism is a set of ideas that takes older prejudices, and systematically makes them into a worldview. Contrary to what most folk think, it emerged specifically in the modern world, as a way of explaining and understanding what was happening as global society began to rapidly change. Most racialised views of different peoples made their victims out to be inferior, such as the claim black people are stupid and lazy for example.

But Jews had a long history in Christian thought as being thought of as demonic enemies. They were blamed for the killing of Jesus, and in the medieval world were regarded as clever and dangerous because they took part in trade and money lending. In the modern world Jews came to be understood by many people as some kind of absolutely monstrous Other, a huge evil threat. This was of course total nonsense, but it was a useful idea for those who couldn’t face the reality of what was going on in capitalist society, and for those in power who didn’t want people to see that reality.

Anti-Semitic ideas became to be encapsulated in the idea that there was a world Jewish conspiracy, which aimed to establish a global government under their control. They would do this by their international control of banks and money, as well as control of the media and education.


An anti-Semitic cartoon shows the crazy idea
of a global Jewish conspiracy

These ideas came together in a book called The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This was an anti-Semitic forgery put together in Russia at the turn of the 20th century, which claimed to be documents of meetings and plans of the Jewish elite to dominate the world. These documents were circulated around the world, and became particularly important after the Russian Revolution in 1917. Many, who were fooled into thinking the Protocols were real, used them as evidence that the revolution was part of the Jewish conspiracy, and that the Bolsheviks aimed to advance it. This was a huge part of why Hitler hated socialists and communists so much. But the same ideas also had massive circulation in the leading government and powerful circles of US politics, and were argued by many right wing US Congressmen and other political figures.

If it has ever confused you why right wing conspiracy nutters say they hate banks and big business, and then go on to say they hate communists and socialists who run the world, this is why. For them, communism and socialism are part of a wider conspiracy by a tiny elite to control the world. The aim of this group, they think, is to create a one world government. Whether they talk about Jews openly, or whether they restrict what they’re saying to names like “international bankers”, the origins of this idea go back to the Protocols and the mad ideas of 19th century anti-Semites.

The Protocols are a straight up work of fiction. But the ideas they put forward have surfaced again and again. Since World War Two it’s been increasingly difficult for racist groups to openly advocate anti-Semitism, because these ideas saw their ultimate expression in the slaughter of the Holocaust. Even before this, many didn’t talk openly about Jews, but instead about “international bankers”, the “secret cabal” who ran the world.

The problem with all this for socialists is obvious: financial capitalists really do hold a huge amount of power and influence over government policies, and the international ruling class does co-ordinate its actions secretly and conspiratorially to make sure that capitalism keeps working and that profits are maximised.

However, these things aren’t the result of a plot of a small group of evil men. The fact is that capitalism is a self-sustaining economic system with a life of its own. It doesn’t really matter who is at the top as long as somebody is. People find it hard to grasp the reality of the way our economic and social system works, because it’s complex and hard to understand. Put simply, capitalists don’t want to just get rich and sit back. They want to find ways they can invest profits to create more profits and keep the economy growing. That’s the driving force, not the evil desires of a small group of men. But it’s hard to get your head round that, and many people find it much easier to blame an identifiable group they can easily conceptualise, like Jews.

The 19th century German socialist August Bebel once said that “Anti-Semitism is the Socialism of fools,” because it tried to understand the causes of real problems resulting from capitalism, and instead blamed them on Jews. Throughout the 20th century, many right wingers began to see the dominance of banks and financial capital as evidence of a Jewish conspiracy. for them, this was evidence of the traditional prejudice that Jews were evil, manipulative money lenders bent on power and control.

The real reason that finance has become more and more dominant is that it’s increasingly difficult for capitalists to invest their money in something that produces stuff (like a factory) and make their money back, because after 200 odd years of capitalism the world is full of factories and stuff -- so it’s harder and harder to make new products, like cars or furniture or tools say, and make a profit from it. So instead capitalists put more of their money into banks, financial investments etc. There’s no secret to it -- it’s just about making money, and what’s the best way to go about it.

http://ssy.org.uk/2010/06/shitegeist/

Even More points that some here continue to rigorously ignore:

http://www.labournet.net/antiracism/0507/ongilad1.html

On Gilad Atzmon

[Report by Greg Dropkin
Published: 28/07/05

I speak as an anti-racist and Palestine solidarity activist in Liverpool, and an opponent of Zionism - a racist ideology in charge of an apartheid state.

In June, Gilad distributed an article by his friend Paul Eisen, entitled “The Holocaust Wars”. It is a long defence of the neo-Nazi, Hitler lover, and Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel, now deported from Canada to Germany where he faces criminal charges. Eisen speaks warmly of Zundel and sets out the historical revisionist case - that there was no Nazi plan to exterminate European Jewry and no gas chambers - a case which he supports. He concludes that the Palestinian resistance and their supporters should make common cause with the historical revisionists - supposedly the only people the Zionists fear aside from Palestinians themselves.

In fact, the real radical statement on relations between Zionism and the Holocaust is made by Lenni Brenner in a book which I’m sure Gilad has read: Zionism in the Age of the Dictators. Zionism and Nazism both sought the removal of Jews from Europe. They developed a special relationship in the 1930’s and even at the height of the Holocaust in 1944, some of the Zionist leadership in Hungary collaborated with Eichmann and his subordinates to evacuate a relatively small number of selected middle class Jews whilst many thousands more went to Auschwitz, not knowing the fate which awaited them and which they might have escaped by crossing the Romanian border.

In place of Brenner’s exposé of the collaboration which was subsequently covered up by the official Holocaust Industry, Eisen offers a potted claim that the Holocaust never happened!

Gilad described “Holocaust Wars” as a very important text, and defended Eisen when the controversy erupted. The document was originally published in December on the website of Israel Shamir, whom Gilad described as a “unique and advanced thinker”.

Shamir also writes of neo-fascists as potential allies:

“For as long as Richard Perle sits in the Pentagon, Elie Wiesel brandishes his Nobel Prize, Mort Zuckerman owns the USA Today, Gusinsky bosses over Russian TV, Soros commands multi-billions of funds and Dershowitz teaches at Harvard, we need the voices of Duke, Sobran, Raimondo, Buchanan, Mahler, Griffin and of other anti-bourgeois nationalists.”

Who are these “anti-bourgeois nationalists”? Duke refers to David Duke, a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan. Last week Duke wrote an obituary for the British fascist John Tyndall, who twice led the National Front in the 1970’s and then the BNP and its forerunner from 1980 to 1999. Here it is:

John Tyndall, White Patriot, Passes On

It saddens my heart to learn of the death of a long time friend, John Tyndall. But, he was far more than a friend, he was a leader from whom I learned much when I was younger. He stood as an example of both intellect and courage and he influenced my life greatly.

... He lived and breathed our Movement, and in death his spirit will remain with us, animating our own hearts and will.

And when our day comes, when our people will regain our freedom and secure our heritage, his name will adorn many streets and parks and his image in stone will be found in more than a few places in every nation of European mankind.

Thanks John, for all you have done. You have lived an exemplary life and we salute you and wish your loved ones our deepest condolences.

Griffin refers to Nick Griffin, the current leader of the BNP. Griffin was convicted of incitement to racial hatred in 1998 for his holocaust denial publication. His star witness was Robert Faurisson, the French Holocaust denier who is quoted extensively in Paul Eisen’s document.

The BNP’s 1997 manifesto declared

“The horrifying future that awaits Britain as a result of the follies of Third World immigration can only be averted if we adopt two very firm policies:

1) Future immigration of non-whites must be stopped;

2) Non-whites already here must be repatriated or otherwise resettled overseas and Britain made once again a white country”.


They later dropped the call for compulsory repatriation, but still want to stop all non-white immigration.

Paul Eisen and Israel Shamir would like Palestians and their supporters to form an alliance with Zundel, Duke, and Griffin. People in this room have been on the streets against Griffin, Tyndall, and Martin Webster, another mate of Israel Shamir. Our counterparts in the States have done the same with David Duke et al. In the 1970’s the left were confronting the NF and National Party throughout the North West and elsewhere on a weekly basis. They were our physical and ideological enemy. We focused on the Nazi past of their leadership, their racism, and just as important their anti-semitism, an integral part of their politics.

Our problem now is how to develop an effective counter to British complicity with the Israeli State. In my opinion, that requires direct solidarity with Palestinian organisations in struggle against the Apartheid Wall and in occupied Gaza; a massive campaign of boycott, sanctions, disinvestment, and a political challenge to the Government’s foreign policy. But there’s no way we can appeal to trade unionists, anti-racists, or the general public who might join such a campain, with Nick Griffin and David Duke on board. Why hand the Zionists proof of their own claim, that those who oppose them actually hate Jews?

The Palestinian academic Joseph Massad has written: “all those in the Arab world who deny the Jewish holocaust are in my opinion Zionists.” He points out that Arab denial is based on the justified wish to deny the legitimacy of the existing Israeli state. But there is no reason to accept the Zionist claim that the Holocaust itself justified the creation of Israel through ethnic cleansing and everything which followed in the way of racist laws and illegal occupation. Denying the Holocaust is therefore to concede the Zionist premise, and in that sense those who deny it become Zionists.

I appeal to the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and other Palestinian supporters, and Palestinians themselves, to make anti-racism and anti-fascism the basis of our solidarity. Likewise I appeal to anti-racists to take up solidarity with Palestine as central to the conflict in the Middle East.
**

Racism, Bigotry and Prejudice are Antithetical to Human Rights Struggles

BY JINJIRRIE, ON MARCH 3RD, 2012

Gilad Atzmon boasts in this recent interview:

‘And this really means that my detractors are pretty much left in a hopeless situation — they do not posses the intellectual means to silence me or my criticism, so instead, they revert to smear campaigns: they label me an ‘anti Semite’, a ‘Neo Nazi’, a ‘racist’, and so on. Tragically enough for them, no one out side of the Jewish political circuit takes any of these empty accusations at all seriously anymore.’

The signatories, including my (non-Jewish) own, on this article ‘“Not Quite “Ordinary Human Beings” – Anti-Imperialism and the Anti-Humanist Rhetoric of Gilad Atzmon‘ which exposes how Atzmon’s views serve zionism and imperialism may not convince him they do not aim to silence him, as he claims, but to advance legitimate criticism of his faulty positions, or that at the least a substantial number of them come from ‘outside the Jewish political circuit’. Yet racist views have no place in solidarity struggles grounded in human rights and international law.

Apparently, Atzmon does fail to recognise the depth of his non-Jewish critics – and he throws a pathetic character assassination and woeful strawmen at As’ad AbuKhalil, who is one of the signatories, to conflate As’ad into his manufactured framework, despicably calling Professor AbuKhalil a collaborator – a term with dangerous connotations.

As’ad is clear on his stance:

‘this is somebody that we should reject from the pro-Palestinian advocacy movement. He is anti-Jewish and his offensive language against Jews and Judaism should be categorically rejected. I would put the name of Israel Shamir in the same category. Anti-Semites belong to the Zionist side, and not to our side.’

Below, Palestinian Ali Abunimah critiques Atzmon’s “theories” presented at Stuttgart in 2010.

“I do not agree at all with how he characterised the situation and the problem. And I think to use the language which blames a particular culture – he was talking about Jewish culture – is wrong, because such arguments could be made about anyone – we could blame German culture for the history of Germany, we could blame British culture for the history of British imperialism, we could blame Afrikaaner culture for apartheid in South Africa and this really doesn’t explain anything at all. So I think we should not go in that direction, and should be very clear in condemning explanations which blame a culture or a religion for a political situation. So I wanted to make that very clear.”






viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34135&start=465

Gathered all together here, the implications of these critiques should be pretty hard to miss...

Ibishblog
The weblog of Hussein Ibish

Gilad Atzmon and John Mearsheimer: self-criticism, self-hate and hate

October 1, 2011

I've long been an advocate that self-criticism, both as an individual and as a group, is an essential element of healthy political engagement. Group-think, political orthodoxy and correctness, and chauvinistic received wisdom are the worst kinds of political poison. Triumphalism and/or paranoia are the inevitable consequences, and they lead to grotesque distortions of perception and judgment. Self-criticism, especially of a group one identifies with and participates in, is not only healthy, it is indispensable. Without it, political thought is reduced to mere cheerleading, defensiveness and quickly degenerates into irrational hatred of the other while indefensibly championing the self.

So healthy self-criticism is to be applauded and supported whenever it emerges. It is also an essential element of dialogue between groups, because without it an understanding of other parties' grievances and the failings and even crimes done in one's own name are simply not acknowledged. While continuously defending Arabs, Arab Americans and Muslims from anti-Arab racism and Islamophobia, I've tried to engage in as much self-criticism of the failings of these identity groups as possible in my writings, and this has inevitably garnered me a great deal of criticism from those who disapprove of it. Some have argued that at a time when the Arab and Muslim communities in the United States are under heavy attack from bigots and racists, now is the time to circle the wagons and not to look inward, openly, honestly and self critically. Anyone who reads my work will know that I reject this categorically.

Self-criticism, though, is very different from its more extreme relative: self-hatred. When constructive self-criticism gives way to embracing bigoted narratives that demonize and stigmatize identity groups with which one either does or did identify with, this is no longer self-criticism but self-hatred. There is a small coterie of professional former Muslim Islamophobes, such as the man who sometimes calls himself “Walid Shoebat,” and anti-Arab racists of Arab origin most notably Brigitte Gabriel, who make a tidy living off of peddling this garbage to credulous American audiences, particularly from the evangelical Christian and Jewish ultra-right lecture circuit and book-buying public. It is one of the great tragedies of contemporary American public discourse that there is a real, and indeed growing, market for this kind of bile, no matter how over the top. These individuals, in fact, compete with and outbid each other in how extreme they can be in their anti-Arab and anti-Muslim rhetoric, and often have acrimonious relationships based on market share jealousy.

The dichotomy between self-criticism versus self-hatred has recently reemerged in a controversy regarding the endorsement by University of Chicago Professor John Mearsheimer of a new book by the Israeli (or former Israeli) jazz saxophonist and political agitator Gilad Atzmon. Mearsheimer has been heavily criticized in some quarters for this endorsement, and has defended himself on the Foreign Policy blog of his some-time co-author Harvard professor Stephen Walt. Mearsheimer's main defense is that he found nothing objectionable in the book (which I have not read and will not bother to read either, for reasons which will become abundantly clear), and was not familiar with Atzmon or his other writings. The first thing that needs to be pointed out is that it was incumbent on Mearsheimer not simply to pick up the text he was sent but do a little bit of homework on the author he was being asked to embrace. Had he done so, he would have realized that Atzmon long since crossed the line from Jewish self-criticism to self-hatred in a repulsive and indefensible manner.

In his defense, Mearsheimer acknowledges that Atzmon is, indeed, self-hating, but he seems to confuse unhealthy self-hatred with healthy self-criticism: "The more important and interesting issue is whether Atzmon is a self-hating Jew. Here the answer is unequivocally yes. He openly describes himself in this way and he sees himself as part of a long dissident tradition that includes famous figures such as Marx and Spinoza." But Aztmon is not a dissident, in any meaningful sense of the word, leveling constructive criticism against his fellow Jews and Israelis. Instead, as Mearsheimer would have discovered if he had done his homework, Atzmon frequently traffics in the worst kind of anti-Semitism. Comparing him to Spinoza is simply absurd, and he goes far beyond Marx in his condemnations of his fellow Jews. Moreover, I don't know any self-respecting Marxists who aren't embarrassed by some of the harsher passages in Marx's writings about other Jewish Europeans.

I'm not going to subject my readers to any lengthy catalog of the worst of Atzmon. It's well-documented, and the fact that Mearsheimer is, or at least claims to be, unaware of any of this is, in itself, an embarrassment to any self-respecting academic who wants to comment on such issues. Atzmon calls himself a leftist, but in a straightforwardly racist manner distinguishes between genuine Marxism and a pathological Jewish version: "Jewish Marxism is very different from Marxism or socialism in general. While Marxism is a universal paradigm, its Jewish version is very different. It is there to mould Marxist dialectic into a Jewish subservient precept. Jewish Marxism is basically a crude utilisation of ‘Marxist-like’ terminology for the sole purpose of the Jewish tribal cause. It is a Judeo-centric pseudo intellectual setting which aims at political power." According to Atzmon, "Jewish Marxism is there to suppress any form of engagement with the Jewish question by means of spin. It is there to stop scrutiny of Jewish power and Jewish lobbying." As Andy Newman correctly noted in The Guardian, "This is a wild conspiracy argument, dripping with contempt for Jews."

Atzmon has also disturbingly argued that, "American Jewry makes any debate on whether the "Protocols of the elder of Zion" [sic] are an authentic document or rather a forgery irrelevant. American Jews (in fact Zionists) do control the world." Atzmon argues that he is only referring to Zionists and not Jews, so these comments cannot be considered anti-Semitic. Yet the first sentence in the passage clearly refers to “American Jewry” in general and the second to “American Jews” which he describes in general as being “in fact Zionists.” His disclaimers are completely unconvincing and are absolutely belied by the language and structure of his text, which are not equivocal. It's also noteworthy that this article appears to have been permanently removed from his website, but it can still be accessed here. As Atzmon himself notes, the bracketed comment “in fact Zionists” does not appear in his original text, and he added it later to try to establish that his essay “contains no anti-Semitic or anti Jewish sentiment." I'd challenge any reader of the full original text linked above to agree with that assessment.

One could go on much further, but there's no need. The above quotations demonstrate unequivocally that, for whatever reason, Atzmon does not traffic in healthy self-criticism, but in fact indulges in fairly extreme forms of anti-Semitism, and therefore in self-hatred of an extremely unhealthy variety. A lot of this is very reminiscent of the anti-Semitic ravings of another self-described former-Israeli, "Israel Shamir," who my former co-author, Ali Abunimah, and I warned pro-Palestinian activistsabout back in April 2001. Not surprisingly, Atzmon is a big fan of Shamir, claiming that, “As an ex-Jew, Shamir is a very civil and peaceful man and probably is the sharpest critical voice of ‘Jewish power’ and Zionist ideology.”

Regarding Shamir, Abunimah and I wrote, “Perhaps some are ready to overlook statements that appeal to anti-Semitic sentiments because the person making them identifies himself as a Jew. But the identity of the speaker makes such statements no less odious and harmful. We do not have any need for some of what Israel Shamir is introducing into the discourse on behalf of Palestinian rights, which increasingly includes elements of traditional European anti-Semitic rhetoric. Such sentiments will harm, not help, the cause.” Based on his comments cited above, and so many others, obviously exactly the same calculation applies to Atzmon. He may see himself as a champion of Palestine and the Palestinians, but through his self-hatred, which has degenerated, at least in those statements, into hatred pure and simple, he can only harm it, and indeed badly.

Gilad Atzmon is no Israel Shahak, a real leftist critic and a genuine heir of Spinoza, who was at the same time a devoted citizen of Israel who served all his required military and other civic duties while railing against its policies and attacking what he saw as the idiocies of Jewish religious fundamentalism. Shahak is often falsely cited as self-hating or anti-Semitic, but he was neither. His was a genuine, healthy form of self-criticism, and although he occasionally took self-criticism to its extremes, he knew where the line between self-criticism and self-hatred was, and he never crossed it. Atzmon, as the above citations demonstrate, does what Shahak never for a moment did, and engages in a fairly advanced version of self-hatred. And with self-hatred of this degree, there is really no distinction with simple hatred itself. As many of the anti-Arab racists and Islamophobes of Arab and Muslim origin demonstrate, being a part or formerly a part of an identity group doesn't in and of itself stop someone from becoming a purveyor of the worst forms of hate against it.

Continues at: http://www.ibishblog.com/blog/hibish/20 ... _and_hate/

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34135&start=495

[Sounder]

Well this sucks. I recently got work so I was writing and reading in a rush this morning. It now seems to me that Alice was talking about AD as I consider the timing and other context. Yes it is clear, to me at least, that AD is passive aggressive, but I had made a comment that might be construed as me making a milder form of the accusation toward C2W? with the following;

If this continues I may be forced to consider that this is your way to cast aspersions toward a person without being too direct.

I thought it to be a hair bit odd for Alice to pick up on this, but I was in a hurry and didn't think anything more of it till now.

Anyway, we all fall somewhere on the continuum.

Oh yeah, and AD is also a wimp who is afraid of his own shadow. So there.

[AlicetheKurious]

This says it all, about your standards, doesn't it?

Gilad Atzmon is no Israel Shahak, a real leftist critic and a genuine heir of Spinoza, who was at the same time a devoted citizen of Israel who served all his required military and other civic duties while railing against its policies and attacking what he saw as the idiocies of Jewish religious fundamentalism.

Besides showing that he's a zionist, Ibish is here displaying his ignorance. In fact, it is Gilad Atzmon who is a 'genuine heir of Spinoza', whose universalism greatly contributed to the subsequent Enlightenment, not least because Spinoza was cursed and excommunicated by the leading rabbis of Amsterdam, with these words:

"By decree of the angels and by the command of the holy men, we excommunicate, expel, curse and damn Baruch de Espinoza, with the consent of God, Blessed be He, and with the consent of the entire holy congregation, and in front of these holy scrolls with the 613 precepts which are written therein; cursing him with the excommunication with which Joshua banned Jericho and with the curse which Elisha cursed the boys and with all the castigations which are written in the Book of the Law. Cursed be he by day and cursed be he by night; cursed be he when he lies down and cursed be he when he rises up. Cursed be he when he goes out and cursed be he when he comes in. The Lord will not spare him, but then the anger of the Lord and his jealousy shall smoke against that man, and all the curses that are written in this book shall lie upon him, and the Lord shall blot out his name from under heaven. And the Lord shall separate him unto evil out of all the tribes of Israel, according to all the curses of the covenant that are written in this book of the law. But you that cleave unto the Lord your God are alive every one of you this day."

"That no one should communicate with him neither in writing nor accord him any favor nor stay with him under the same roof nor within four cubits in his vicinity; nor shall he read any treatise composed or written by him." Link

It reads remarkably like a medieval version of the "disavowal" of Gilad Atzmon...

American Dream, I believe that your huge, repetitive copy-pastes constitute trolling behaviour and represent a deliberate and malicious effort to sabotage this thread. I am reporting this one, and will be very interested in whether the mods consider this to be acceptable behaviour.

[American Dream]

I do think there is much to discuss regarding this thread and what it suggests about what we might do to make a more healthy and positive community around here, so I welcome that sort of discussion with the mods.

I also understand that the mods have lives of their own and may only have limited time and energy for such a discussion...

[Searcher08]

Jam.fuse, THANK YOU.
I wanted to frickken cheer when I read your post.
Because I am reading Atzmon as saying "I am going into those places of locked doors and basements with DO NOT ENTER in my own culture AND literally sticking the boot in AND communicate about the process".

I am also reading that much of what he describes is cultural-agnostic - and that the same enquiry can be done into one's own cultural system. NOT from a frame of a "Marxist critique of class struggle" or some such imposed shite, but from looking in the mirror. At oneself. And there is a lot of ugly stuff. It's like getting glasses for the first time, when everything goes from being slightly blurry and comforting to sharp focus and one wants to Photoshop one's face.

Chris Rock is so caustic. I love him to bits I am sure that certain people here would find him 'racist' and 'problematic' and want to ensure 'no-platform'. But you know what - this thing that says "we cant look at culture X and say it is Y"

WHO THE FUCK SAYS SO?

Maybe this comes down to Johari Window considerations - we are not aware of what our blindspots are, often until pointed out or we can see what others see.

After reading Atzmon, I wondered why it was that Icelanders told European bankers to go to hell, while the Irish prepared their shamrock green knee pads.

In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination.

As an American, or U.S. American, or whatever the proper term is, it pains me to write that I am the product of a largely sick, evil and depraved culture, one that visited hundreds of years of brutal slavery on fellow humans -- not to mention various Satanic (I think that word apropos) bloodbaths in Mexico, North America, the Phillipines, Viet Nam, Iraq, Korea, Japan, etc. My aunt's farm house had it's own torture chamber used, up until sometime in the 1800's at least, for 'punishing the slaves', for fuck's sake. If that's not sick I don't know what is. Although I love (L - U - V ) me some American rock'n'roll, house music, rap, blues, jazz, drama, (especially) dance, literature, cinema, cultural diversity in general, American lingo, etc., to deny the dark side seems, in a word, stupid. Although I have not read his book, it seems Atzmon is merely observing and exploring the dark side of his own culture, as is his, or anyone's right, to reflect on their own background, however taboo their conclusions. Everything and everybody has a dark side. As well as a wonderful and magical side.

“Enlightenment is not imagining figures of light but making the darkness conscious” -- Jung

Here's Chris Rock, on African-Americans, a nomenclature I cannot recall ever hearing an actual Black person use in everyday conversation, to describe themselves. Chris Rock is a Black American comedian, writer and actor.

Chris Rock said in 1996:

There's a lot of racism going on in the world today. Who's more racist, black people or white people? Black people, because we hate black people too. Everything that white people don't like about black people, black people really don't like about black people. There's some shit going on with black people right now. It's like a civil war going on with black people and there's two sides... There's black people, and there's niggers. The niggers have got to go. Every time black people want to have a good time, ignorant ass niggers fuck it up. Can't do nothing without niggers fucking it up. Can't keep a disco open more than three weeks. Grand opening, grand closing. Can't go to a movie the first week it comes out. Why? Cause niggers are going to shoot holes in the screen. What kind of ignorant shit is that? 'Hey this is a good movie, it's so good I gotta bust a cap in it' Hey, I love black people, but I hate niggers. Boy I hate niggers, I wish they'd let me join the Klu Klux Klan. I'm tired of niggers man, you can't have shit when you're around niggers. You can't have no big screen tv. You can have it, but you better move it in at three in the morning. You can't have shit in your house around niggers, because niggers will break into your house and steal it. Niggers that live right next door to you, will break into your house, and come over the next morning and say 'I heard you got robbed'. You know what's the worst thing about niggers? Niggers always want credit for some shit they're supposed to do. A nigger will say some shit like, 'I take care of my kids'. You're supposed to you dumb mother fucker! 'I ain't never been to jail." What you want, a cookie? You're not supposed to go to jail, you low expectation ignorant ass mother fucker! You know the worst thing about niggers, the WORST thing about niggers? Niggers love to not know. Nothing makes a nigger happier than not knowing the answer to your question. 'Hey man, what's the capital of Zaire?' 'Shoot, I don't know that shit! I'm just keeping it real, just keeping it real.' Yeah, you're keeping it real, real dumb. Niggers hate knowledge. Shit, if you're afraid a nigger will break into your house, and you wanna save your money, you know what you do? You put the money in a book. Cause niggers don't read. Books are like kryptonite to a nigger. 'Here's a book.' 'NOOOOOOOOO! NOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Not a book!'

Does Chris Rock really support the KKK? I kind of doubt it.

http://uncle_tom_rants.blogspot.de/2006 ... right.html

Remember that song by Tears for Fears, Everybody Wants to Rule the World? Funny, 'cause it's true, possibly. I know I wouldn't mind.