I am shocked that Zero books are apparently publishing a book by Gilad Atzmon, who is a pretty solid example of anti-semite, as I noted here.
I often disagree with Harry's Place and I am sometimes known to have my disagreements with Socialist Unity but this seems a straightforward example of a racist being helped to promote his views.
Atzmon claims that Jews were responsible for their persecution by Nazis, and argues that Hitler’s persecution was a “direct response to the declaration of war on Germany by the worldwide Jewish leadership. “
Atzmon has argued that American Jews do “try to control the world by proxy”, which “makes any debate on whether the ‘Protocols of the elder of Zion’ are an authentic document or rather a forgery irrelevant”
Atzmon claims that “Jewish bankers bought for themselves some real reputations of backers and financers of wars and even one communist revolution”
Atzmon has written that the credit crunch was caused by “Zionists”
Atzmon promotes the views of Holocaust deniers, and praises “three outlaws: [David] Irving, [Ernest] Zundel and [Germar] Rudolf”
Atzmon believes that burning down a synagogue is a “rational act”.
MORE HERE
7 comments:
I dunno, Derek. When white Christian nationalists bend over backwards with pro-Zionist gesticulations to assert their "non-neo-Nazihood" credentials... and the Jerusalem Post salutes them, maybe a little counter-provocation isn't such a bad thing, eh? But, as I said, I don't know.
I've only read a few opinion pieces at CounterPunch by Atzmon -- and those only this morning inspired by your post. His analysis brings to mind a scientist examining a microscope microscopically and proclaiming the object of his investigation to be simply a device for projecting optical illusions. Fine. But what of the microscope with which Atzmon has investigated the microscope? The contradictions he exposes are irrevocably HIS contradictions, too. And so on, into the abyss.
For the past couple of weeks I have been immersed in "cultural conservative" agit-prop and analysis of the techniques of deception employed by the likes of Patrick Buchanan and William Lind. Rather than distinguish between "right" and "wrong" ideas (or right and left), it seems to me useful to evaluate whether a text diminishes or expands the space for dialogue. The intention of a Buchanan is to eliminate expressions of otherness, even if that means 'eliminating' the other. Atzmon's ideas strike me as reckless and possibly even mischievous in their potential for misuse, yet still questioning and expansive.
"questioning and expansive"?
the guy's a fucking insane jew-hater
what is it with you fucknuts?
"what is it with you fucknuts?"
Another thought I had but didn't articulate because it's tedious to say too much at one time is about the futility of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thinking. Even in a traditional, tribal context, the notion becomes obsolete the moment it is explicitly acknowledged. Atzmon appears to drink deeply of that potion, even as he diagnoses it's pernicious effect on liberal and left-wing Jews.
But "what is it with you fucknuts?" is such a candidly crude reversion to "if you're not with us your against us" bluster. Good for you, Anonymous, for having the courage of your convictions to stand by your words!
There's one thing worse than an idiot like Atzmon: those people who try to intellectualise his anti-semitism.
HS Thompson had Buchanan down to a tee. You come over as a bit of a clown trying waaay too hard to appear clever..
"HS Thompson had Buchanan down to a tee."
Oh, I see.
You just give this Idiot free publicity, if NO reaction maybe 20 would buy this scum.
Why give him free publicity.
If this guy was ignored for a long time I guess he would fade away playing in some corner in the tube
Think about it
Over the years I have enjoyed and learned much from Alex Cockburn and Counterpunch. What the hell is Cockburn doing fostering this fascist? Cockburn has always been a bit eccentric...but this is insane.
Post a Comment