Guardian

Gilad Atzmon slams the Guardian as a ‘Lame Zionist Mouthpiece’.


Before we realized the identity of the author of the an essay published a various fringe websites on March 17th, it almost seemed to us like a Purim Spiel.  

Here’s the classic opening passage:

The once well-respected Guardian has been reduced in recent years into a lame Zionist mouthpiecea light Jewish Chronicle for Gentiles consumption.

 So, what did the Guardian do to run afoul of the sensibilities of the following prolific critic of international Jewry?

atzmon

Atzmon explains:

Last week, the paper launched an attack on Martin Heidegger, the 20th century’s most influential philosopher.

Heidegger’s ‘Black notebooks’ reveal antisemitism at core of his philosophy” the paper’s headline read.  But what does that mean? Was Heidegger really a Jew hater? Did he oppose people for being ethnically or ‘racially’ Jewish or was he, instead, critical of Jewish politics, culture, ideology and spirit?

According to the ‘progressive’ British Guardian, the newly published Black Notebooks reveals that Heidegger saw ‘world Judaism’ as the driver of “dehumanising modernity”.

Heidegger was a German patriot. As such he knew very well that it was Zionist leadership and German Jewish bankers in America that facilitated the entry of the USA into the first world war (in return in part for the 1917’s Belfour Declaration that promised a national home for Jews in Palestine). In that regard, Heidegger, like his contemporaries, had good reason to believe that Germany was betrayed by its Jewish elite.

Indeed, Philip Oltermann, the author of the Guardian review, explained that the notion of the dehumanizing influence of world Judaism was propagated in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the forgery purporting to reveal a Jewish plan for world domination, which would explain why Atzmon – a blogger and Jazz Saxophonist who dabbles in neo-Nazi style politics – was so appalled by the attack on Heidegger.  

Though the Guardian – or the ‘Guardian of Judea’ as Atzmon risibly calls it – is no slouch when it comes to legitimizing the toxic narrative warning of the ‘injurious influence’ of Zionist power in the US, they’re clearly not at the level of Atzmon, a staunch defender of Jewish conspiracy theories who’s written the following:

Interestingly enough, the political morbid conditions in which we live was actually described by an unusual fictional text that was published in 1903 namely, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

The Protocols is widely considered a forgery. It is a manual for a prospective new member of the “Elders”, describing how they will run the world through control of the media and finance, replacing the traditional social order with one based on mass manipulation. Though the book is considered a hoax by most experts and regarded as a vile anti-Semitic text, it is impossible to ignore its prophetic qualities and its capacity to describe both the century unfolding and the political reality in which we live I am referring here to: AIPAC, the Credit Crunch, Lehman Brothers, Neocon wars, interventionist ideology, a British Foreign Secretary listed as an Israeli Propaganda (Hasbara) author trying to amend Britain’s ethical stand, a Zionist by admission put on an inquiry panel to investigate why Britain launched a Zionist war and so on.

As it happens staunch Zionists such as David Aaronovitch, Nick Cohen, and Alan Dershowitz use a very banal spin to divert the attention from the devastating prophetic reality depicted by The Protocols. A reality in which they themselves promote interventionist wars in our midst. Again and again they stress the fact that The Protocols was a forgery. They insist that we look at its anti-Semitic origin while evading its content and meaning. However whether or not The Protocols is a fictional text or a forgery doesn’t change the fact that it explores our disastrous contemporary reality. A reality in which we are killing en masse the enemies of Israel in the ‘name of democracy’, a reality in which Dershowitz himself puts enormous effort into cleansing academia of any critical voices of Israel, Zionism, and Jewish power in America and the West.

The Guardian’s biggest sin, in Atzmon’s eyes, it seems, was talking about the ideas laid out in The Protocols as if they were a bad thing!

Enhanced by Zemanta

64 replies »

  1. Gilad is such a vile racist even other racists shun him. More-Jew-hating-than-thou seems to be his raison d’etre.

    • Their is no way that Gilad Atzmon is a racist,or a hater his whole demeanour suggests the opposite .I would define him as a brave man standing up to racialism.

      • Based on what? Specious arguments that have been proven false?

        Israel exists. Learn to cope or get some purpose to your pathetic life.

          • That is quite possibly the most vile, sick, disgusting, horrific video I have ever had the misfortune to see. I shall not sleep a wink tonight – there really are people who think this way and are so motivated to spend time and money putting this hate-filled cesspit of a Nazi screed together? I only managed to sit through 1/3 of it. I fear I may be physically sick on my computer if I had to watch the whole 16 minutes.

          • Yeah, like the Arab Spring would not have happened if Israel didn’t exist. The ignorance of people like you is exceeded only by your stupidity.

      • Their is no way that Gilad Atzmon is a racist,or a hater his whole demeanour suggests the opposite.

        Exactly. Well, except for blaming Jews for wars, defending Holocaust deniers, giving credence to the Protocols and countless other bizarre claims – claims that have also seen pro-Palestinian groups rightly dismissing him as an anti-Semite.

      • ‘I would define him as a brave man standing up to racialism’.

        Some people have crosses to bear. You evidently have a couple to burn.

  2. Maybe an an internet play would help. A suggestion for the title Featuring Atzmon The Goliath, the old antisemitic version versus The Titanic Guardian, the new antisemitic version. In minor supporting, but still important parts the cohorts of ASAJews from the left to the right extreme. Who will gain their favour? Who will prevail?

  3. “When I use a word it means just what I want it to mean- nothing more and nothing less”. From ‘Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland’ by Lewis Carroll.

    • Means end of communication, nothing more and nothing less. A dictatorship just needs audience and obedience.

      • It takes a truly pathetic poster, i.e. Alex, for a comment by Michael to have me in stitches.

          • You recently revealed your utter lack of humour, while also calling me an “enemy”. What makes me your enemy?
            It must be be because I – unlike anybody else here – challenge your Arab-hating bigotry.

            • You took advantage of some careless writing on my part to satisfy your own need to be sanctimonious. You then take every opportunity to use me to satisfy that need.

              Prejudice? I would sooner marry an non-Jewish Arab than even shake your hand.

                • I was so young when my father passed away that I don’t even remember him. One’s mother is not usually the parent that instill confidence in a boy and teaches him to defend himself. That’s usually the role of the father.

                  I grew up being bullied and picked on. I won’t let that happen now and I won’t take sh!t from anyone.

              • Michael:

                “I would sooner marry an non-Jewish Arab than even shake your hand.”

                What is wrong with a non Jewish Arab?

                • I don’t want to marry out of faith Itsik. Keep in mind, I would be very happy to marry a Jewish Arab.

                  However, I made that statement in response to Pretzelberg’s comment. It SHOULD NOT be taken in the context of antipathy towards Arabs.

              • I do not see you as an enemy, Michael, and I would urge you to at least consider the possibility that I am not one of yours.

                • That’s well and good, but I doubt Michael cares enough about others to avoid seeing them in as a simplistic a light as his brain will allow. I say this, of course, as another Liberal Zionist who has made the “mistake” of commenting on a comment by Michael. C’est la vie.

                  • Maybe you should ask yourself why I have that kind of relations with only two people on this blog, if it isn’t too complicated for you.

    • Love the obvious trolling (you’re like a baseball pitcher who throws a 40 MPH fastball, and everyone here is a home run hitter), but seriously: aren’t there many, many, MANY war crimes around the world you need to try to explain away? That would be more in line with your abilities than any of your posts here thus far.

    • Please Alex, won’t you tell us how you came up with such an asinine remark?
      Better yet, tell a mental health professional.

          • New commenter with a different view to yourself, does that make me a troll? The banthebom was deliberate,and yes I still think you are stupid.

            • A VERY brief review of Jeff’s comments shows that he is anything but stupid, while you have yet to prove that you are anything but. And yes, you are a troll. You offer nothing except “Israel is bad,” most likely due to your inability to wrap your puny mind around anything except that simple equation.

            • “New commenter with a different view to yourself, does that make me a troll? ”

              I see. I’m “stupid” whereas you’re exercising your right to a “different view.” And your first effort at a different point of view backed by your immense intelligence was some name calling.
              What a genius you are.

    • Alex, yes, like your cuddly racist grandparents and your own progressive world view. Both you and your ancestors sharing the same fashionable bigotry and malice. Chip off the old block me old son. Integral to your identity – which is why you are here, but so visceral you don’t even know it.

      • Flaws? Alex searches for any propaganda that demonizes Israel. The fact that you support that kind of garbage shows that you are both flawed.

    • Reminds me of the scene from “Porky’s” when Brian Schwartz is discussing what name he should use, given the rednecks’ antisemitic tendencies. “What about Paddy Aloysius O’Brien?” Brian suggests.

      “Nah, too Jewish. Let’s not take any chances.”

  4. It’s hard to believe what a sick individual this guy is. He lives in a conspiratorial phantasy. There are all sorts of sick people walking the streets with nutty conspiracy theories. So the question is how does this particular one wind up with a platform. Why has anyone ever heard of him? What’s special?

    • Yes. Very. And deluded. here he is pretending to defend his position, but using the camera to attack his critics without really letting a debate get the better of him.

  5. Heidegger was a German patriot. As such he knew very well that it was Zionist leadership and German Jewish bankers in America that facilitated the entry of the USA into the first world war

    Aside from the question of whether Heidegger was a Jew hater (and he was), Atzmon – who cites “Jewish politics, culture, ideology and spirit” in reference to the above allegation – clearly is.

    And as for the “Zionist mouthpiece” lunacy …

  6. You are really only helping Gilad prove his point. Zionism is racism, intolerance, and mass murder, pure and simple, and the Guardian is nothing more than exactly what Gilad says it is. Heidegger is one of the greatest philosophers of all time, and nobody cares that a few jews called him an “anti-Semite.” That word is just a meaningless smear. The public is waking up quickly to your games.

    • Just another sock puppet to spout ignorance. If Zionism were equated to mass murder and racism, how has the Palestinian population increased. How is it possible for any Arab to sit on Israel’s Supreme Court and an Arab to Miss Israel?

      Your ignorance is exceeded only by your stupidity. As for the “public” show proof or STFU.

    • Actually, you proved our point, Gilad Atzmon and morons who buy his bullshit hook, line, and sinker are pathetic so-called “pundits” whose only impression of Israel, Jews, and Zionism is based on a pro-Palestinian front that can’t allow themselves to provide a counter-proposal to a state solution devised 13 years ago. Your arguments, not coincidentally, happen to sound as brain dead and backasswards as any tidbit from the Protocols. THE FACT you consider 19th century anti-Semitism to hold a harbinger of truth just shows that a) you’re a gullible jackhole, and; b) you’re a blithering idiot. NOT MUCH OF A LOSS FOR THE ZIONISTS, obviously, as Israel continues to exist despite the existence of your commentary all over the web. Now, you can continue to believe that posting idiotic comments charging Jews of crimes against humanity will eventually bring a state to the Palestinian people OR you can see what Israel has offered (and repeated the offer 2 other times) and encourage acceptance of it. But, yeah, I know what you’re saying. A peaceful world can only begin the moment you convince others to destroy the Jewish state because a) you’re too much of a coward to do anything yourself; and, b) you’re a hate mongering asshat whose only response is to publicly bash Israel and Jews.

      Yet you wonder why the Palestinians don’t have their state yet while, simultaneously, bemoan the existence of Israel? And you’re not some brain dead chump who feels smart because he can post on the Interwebz? Really?

  7. And now you are trying to associate him with “neo-Nazism” as well. How pathetic, you have to lie about him to convince your readers that he’s bad.

    • Sweetheart, you really need to brush up on the first law of public relations: make sure that your client/pet/object of lust actually DOES NOT WANT to be what their enemies claim they are. When you say “he doesn’t mean it” and HE says “I mean this”, you come across as kind of lacking in mental capacity.

  8. I suspect that Gilad Atzmon is mentally disturbed. He is exhibiting clear signs of paranoia, and his ranting is becoming ever more bizarre and extreme.. I predict a meltdown in the next few years.

    I’ll raise a glass when the men in white coats come to take the little sh*t away, and end his misery with a heavy dose of sedation.

  9. Adam – I am all for free speech, and have no problem debating with people I disagree with. But the statements made on this thread by people like trevorlabonte, LJ Roll and Banthebom surely cross the line between legitimate debate and outright, vicious, offensive anti-semitism.

    As such, I think their posts should be deleted and ip addresses blocked.

    Thanks.

    • Labenal while I am in complete agreement with your post from the second sentence onwards, I find the phrase “Free Speech” is woolly and frequently open to misinterpretation and abuse, as we can see on this and other threads.
      The phrase “Free Speech’” is no more than a convenient term to focus our ideas on a particular form of human interaction, and the phrase does not express the idea of a form of expression that can never be interfered with, or that is without the bounds of normal human discourse. No society has ever existed where the right to free expression is absolute. Total freedom of speech is not an absolute, inalienable right.

      • Gerald – I agree that free speech is a qualified right. Which is why I asked for trevor and his pals to be blocked and deleted!

        • My two or three cents on this:

          I see what Labenal and Gerald are saying. Some of the commentary here is beyond ridiculous. Nevertheless, I would like to offer 3 reasons why the comments should not be restricted.

          1. One of the accusations that is often leveled against Jews and Zionists is that we control the media and stifle debate. It’s blatant hypocrisy, with that incidnent at the Irish university one example among many. However, restricting comment, even when egregiously false, reinforces the image that we are guilty of that and potentially influences those who may not have strong opinions or haven’t formed them.
          2. The kind of propaganda that those individuals spread is easily refuted by evidence. Having them spout lies and then embarrassing them with the truth exposes them for being liars. When they set themselves up like that, it just makes them look bad and proves that we’re right. Our best weapon against lies is truth, not censorship.
          3. By having these people post on sites like this, the sites gain search ranking and empower them to refute the lies, particularly on sites that have high search ranking or are understood as sources of information, like The Guardian.