Introduction by Chris Moore:
Let me get something straight off of the bat: left-wingers are in no way morally superior to right wingers, and the only difference between Marxists/communists/Bolsheviks and traditional fascists is that the fascists have been held accountable for their mass murder and crimes against humanity, whereas the leftists have essentially been given a "pass."
That said, it's always been clear to me that even though organized Jewry in many ways invented and instigated modern leftism through Marxism and Bolshevism, as an essentially self-serving, insatiably greedy, crypto-racist subset, it never really belonged on the more egalitarian and slightly less racist left, but rather was a creature with a fascist essence (mirrored by Hitler and Nazism) that merely sought to use "social justice" and "humanism" and "human rights" rhetoric, along with millions of attendant left-wing Gentile useful idiots, as camouflage to pursue its particularistic Judeofascist interests (as opposed to the theoretical universalism of leftism).
This is one reason why the Soviet left ended up turning against "Zionist" Jewry and driving much of it out of the Soviet block (or allowed it to freely emigrate to Israel or the West at the behest of Western liberals like long-time Democratic Senator Scoop Jackson).
And of course, once safely ensconced within Western left-liberalism, it didn't take highly cohesive, highly networked organized Jewry long to ratchet its way to the top of the Democratic Party, which today it dominates.
But as the Soviets discovered, the Judeofascists can only conceal their self-serving, fascist character and essence for so long, and with the Jewish neocons (who started out, appropriately enough, under Scoop Jackson's wing), they again began to show their true colors (most notably by way of endless warmongering on behalf of Israeli and fascist Zionist interests) to the point that today, even corrupt, gullible, delusional liberals are figuring out that they're fascists, and that Zionism is the Jewish-led Trojan horse for neo-fascism.
Read the following article on the reaction to Gilad Atzmon's new book from the Jerusalem Post with an eye on this reality, and you will understand why organized Jewry is in an absolute panic over the increasingly mainstream embrace of Atzmon's work; it all has to do with Jewry being "outed" as pseudo-liberal and fraudulently universal in its character, and worse...being outed as quite fascist in its self-serving, Zionist essence.
This is causing an earthquake in the liberal camp, and is what all of this angry talk of renewed, Soviet style anti-Semitism from Atzmon and others on the left in the article below, and accusations of anti-Semitism within the Occupy movement, are really (at least in part) about: Judeofascists deeply angry, upset and flustered that their decades-long dupes -- Western Gentile liberals -- are finally figuring out that the murderous Zionist swindle has taken the left for a ride...yet again.
US academics challenged over praise of 'anti-Semitic' book
‘The Wandering Who’ by 'anti-Semitic' London-based musician hailed by US academics John Mearsheimer and Richard Falk.
(Jerusalem Post) -- by Jonny Paul, correspondent --
LONDON – Uproar has broken out since American academics John Mearsheimer and Richard Falk have endorsed a new book by a London-based Israeli musician accused of being an anti-Semite and Holocaust denier.
Chicago University professor John Mearsheimer, author of the 2007 book The Israel Lobby, and Princeton professor Richard Falk, the UN rapporteur for the Palestinian territories, gave promotional words for a book written by Gilad Atzmon.
His book, titled The Wandering Who, has been described as contemporary cultural racism and as an attack on Jewish identity inspired by Soviet anti- Semitism, by analysts and experts.
Renowned American law professor Alan Dershowitz said the book has crossed the line from anti-Zionism to anti-Semitism and said their endorsement was something he has not seen in his lifetime.
“I challenge Mearsheimer and Falk to a debate on whether they have endorsed an anti-Semitic book,” he told The Jerusalem Post on Friday. He said he plans to expose their action widely, both in the academy and elsewhere.
“Atzmon has adopted all the classical definitions of anti- Semitism, he uses the same tropes borrowed from Protocols of the Elders of Zion and other Nazi publications – that Jews control the world, are responsible for the credit crunch, believe Hitler was right,” he told the Post.
“[Mearsheimer and Falk] have crossed a red line that has never been crossed in my lifetime," Dershowitz said.
Abraham H. Foxman, National Director of the Anti- Defamation League, said the endorsement reveals what he knew, that Mearsheimer is an anti-Semite.
“With his glowing endorsement of a book by a known Hitler apologist and Holocaust denier, John Mearsheimer has revealed himself to be an anti- Semite,” he said. “For years, Mearsheimer paraded as an objective analyst, professor and critic, and for years we were very careful not to label him as an anti-Semite. Now he has clearly aligned himself with the worst kind of anti-Semitism.
“Gilad Atzmon is a well-known anti-Semite and a promoter of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and perverse historical distortions of the Holocaust.
He is a fringe character who has suddenly gained greater attention because of the Mearsheimer endorsement of his book,” Foxman added.
Mark Gardner, director of communications for the Community Security Trust, a charity that monitors and records anti- Semitic incidents in the UK, said the book represents utterly contemporary cultural racism.
“Practically every page is adorned with disgusting quotes, as reflected in a chapter titled ‘Swindler’s List,’” he said.
Gardner said the promotional words from Falk and Mearsheimer “elevates a fanatical crank to literary status.”
“Mearshemier’s quote is an especially repulsive, as it accuses ‘Jewish leaders’ of Zionism, described as “blind loyalty to Israel,” and scaremongering, described as “the threat of another Holocaust,” he said.
“Atzmon’s hatred is one thing, but for a Chicago University professor to echo it with such grotesque misrepresentations of Jewish behavior, is something else entirely,” Gardner said. “The book advertiser wants all of the profit and none of the moral responsibility.”
British but New York-based journalist and blogger Ben Cohen said the book was clearly inspired by Soviet anti-Semitism.
“When Atzmon traffics in anti-Semitic tropes – for example describing the ‘credit crunch’ as a ‘Ziopunch,’ or declaring that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is an accurate reflection of the global power of American Jews – he radiates the delight of someone liberated from a huge emotional burden,” he said in an article in this week’s New YorkJewish Week.
Responding to Mearsheimer, Cohen said it cannot be left for others to determine what constitutes hatred of the Jews.
“The term ‘anti-Semitism’ was coined by anti-Semites in 19th century Germany. It’s a word that’s never been owned by the Jewish community. That has to change – we cannot allow Mearsheimer and those like him to determine what does and what does not constitute hatred of Jews,” Cohen said.
Described by its publishers, Zero Books, as “An investigation of Jewish identity politics and contemporary Jewish ideology,” a note was placed on its website defending the backlash against the book.
“[The book is] more articulate and far more authoritative than anything I could say. I haven’t seen anything since to persuade me that we are deluded or anti-Semitic in publishing this book. In the light of this, I think it would be reprehensible to cancel publication because authors were threatening to leave us. That would really make us guilty of what we’re already being accused of by some; ‘you’re only publishing for the money,’” the statement read.
“So we’ll take the heat, whether it’s [oddly enough] from the far left or neo-con right.”...LINK
This is an interesting topic. I generally view Zionist Jews as being less dangerous, and more honest, than their so-called universalist Jewish counterparts. The Zionists seem content living in Israel and fighting with the local enemies that they have made. They even often admit their crimes and say that war is tough and losers deserve their fate. In an imperfect world, worse things happen, and, as long as I'm not dragged in, it's not my business.
The universalists, on the other hand, seem to believe that they have a right to worm their way into influence around the globe. Many may even claim to be anti-Zionists, but that seems to be because they believe that Zion is anywhere that they are present, which is probably a much more lucrative position than holing oneself up in Palestine.
However, when push comes to shove, I would bet that most would not want their co-ethnics in Palestine come to harm, and actually like the idea of an ethno-state for Jews. Whatever the the truth is, cut-throat ambition wrapped in a shell of saintly victimhood, and shot through with treachery and a sense of superiority that often shows as callous and corrosive attitudes and actions towards non-Jews, is not how the typical leftist/universalist Jew would describe himself to others. Most seem to be conscious ethnocentrics and hypocrites.
The Neocons seem to be the middlemen who support both universal Jewish control/values and Zionism in Palestine, which makes them more dangerous than either of the other groups, and allows the other groups to claim to oppose one another. They mostly work together, no matter how much they talk of a family feud.
Post a Comment