A radical thinker
Gilad Atzmon : a radical thinker
(Dieudonne, Anti Semitism, Jewishness, David Duke, Israel Shahak and more')
N : One of my first questions has already found an answer during the conference actually!
GA : Don't worry about that, try again, I may have changed my mind (laughs).
N : Regarding the Jewish intelligentsia’s campaign against Dieudonné in France, it is not clear what they try to achieve. Their behavior is not exactly reasonable.
GA : You have read my book so you understand that what you may consider as ‘reason’ has very little to do with Jewish reasoning.
While stressful reaction to trauma is generally called post-traumatic stress disorder, in the case of the Jews, we are dealing with PRE-traumatic stress. Jews are in many cases tormented by a fantasy of terror. And it is the fantasy of terror that shapes their actions. So they invent a fantasy of an Iranian nuclear threat, and this fantasy of terror would shape their actions and eventually may lead towards a disaster for themselves and the rest of us. For instance, considering the Iranians are in a state of security alert, and for a good reason, they may even misinterpret a move in Israeli airspace that would lead to a reaction !
Interestingly enough, and it is the first time I say it publicly, when you watch “Schindler’s list’, the Jewish crowd on the screen discusses issues to do with gas chambers. They say, «Yes, we've heard that there are gas chambers» and, as viewers, we are also terrified by the concept. Then, when the Jews are marched into the showers, we are fully anticipating a mass slaughter and this is obviously the dramatic peak of the movie. But this is in fact the product of a pre-traumatic stress. It's a fantasy! Because as we are about to learn very soon, there is no gas, we are dealing with showers, simply water pouring out of them.
N: You mean, in the movie? (Laughs)
GA : Yes, I'm talking about the movie. But this is a classical case, and it's incredible that Spielberg decided to bring this aspect of Jewish psyche into cinematic life. Spieberg is a very interesting character, do you remember the movie E.T., it is basically the story of a Jew who went out of the ghetto and got into trouble, but eventually made friends with the Goyim. Nevertheless, he still wants to go home, back to the ghetto ! But for the time being he's with all these goyim, and they love him, which is something that never happened to Spielberg himself (laughs).
N : Usually, not in Israel, of course, but in Europe, they are trying to manipulate us, as you say, «by way of deception » (Mossad’s motto): they act as French people, just like any other citizen. However, in the case of Dieudonné, they actually reveal their strategy and political power.
GA : I have great respect for Dieudonné, and I think this is mutual.
In fact, his story was the emblem of Jewish identity politics. They tell you again and again, «the personal is political», so you say « oh fine, I'm black so my politics will be black then, that's fine, so I'm going to be concerned with black issues, slavery and discrimination, and I'm going to care little about your thing, i.e, the Shoa, this is your thing.».
But, apparently, the personal is political only as long as you don't undermine or eclipse Jewish suffering. Because Jewish suffering is the primary topic and the Holocaust is the new religion -- an awful religion indeed.
Because Christianity, for instance, is about spreading goodness, Islam is about peace («Salaam») and about finding yourself. The holocaust religion, however, is about vengeance. There is a very important Israeli philosopher – the late Yeshayahu Leibowitz -- who said that Jews believe in many things. They believe in Buddha, in Judaism, you have got Jews for this, Jews for that, Jews for Palestinians, but all of them believe in the Holocaust. Holocaust is the new Jewish religion, and this is their problem. But when they ask you, French people, to make the Holocaust your new religion, this is interfering with your Western values system.
N : Did you happen to read some of the many French critical voices who oppose Judaism such as Proudhon, Toussenel, Drumont, Sorel?
GA : I read Georges Sorel, yes. He is very interesting.
N : Did you know that he was initially a judepophile and opposed Christianity but then ended up being labeled as an anti-semite?
GA : First, it's not very difficult to get yourself labeled as an anti-semite. You just have to tell the truth! You know, basically anti-semites are brutally honest people, in most case of Jewish origin! (laughs)
N : Many French people share your opinion. For example, there is a French thinker, Hervé Ryssen, who uses the same metaphor as you when you talk about the mirror, saying that when a Jew accuses you of being an anti-semite, you just have to read the mirror image of the argument to reveal his racism towards goyim.
GA : I actually use the word projection, but the mirror image is no doubt similar. And projection, by the way, is something that Freud taught us about. You know, we have to admit that some of the most interesting humanists in the history of the West are Jews. Christ, Spinoza, Marx were Jews. Why is that?
You see, even if you are not religious and you think all people are equal and everything is pretty much ok, what kind of a new humanist insight can you find in your system?
But if you are full of hatred, and then you turn against your system, there is a lot to look at. I look at my Israeliness or Jewishness, and I come up with a lot of ideas that are slightly more interesting than those of people who were brought up in a very liberal and tolerant environment.
Now there is something very interesting and it's again the first time I'm saying it. The left is devastated by David Duke for instance. He was in the KKK when he was young. But here is something quite amazing: I read him and I was shocked to find out that this guy knows more about Jewish identity than I do! How could a supposedly ‘racist’ Gentile who probably never entered a synagogue knows more than I do about Judaism? The reason is in fact very simple : he is a proud white man. He's interested in nationalism, in the culture of his own people, so he understands things that I am not even allowed to think about. Believe it or not, even as a Jew, I wasn't allowed to think of myself as a racist. I was a racist, maybe I am still one, but I was not allowed to acknowledge it. Once he acknowledges the he's talking about white people’s rights, in a way he thinks like Avigdor Lieberma ! But in fact, he is way better than Liberman. David Duke is a humanist because he says, «I want to celebrate my right and you should celebrate your rights» whether you are Muslim or black or whatever. He believes that all people should celebrate their rights, this is his current philosophy. Avidgor Liberman is not a humanist, because he wants to celebrate his rights at the expense of other people.
N : It is very American to see things this way: each community working for its own rights. In France, we are taught that universalism is the solution and we shouldn't work for a specific community, yet we actually have an extremely powerful community, like the CRIF for example, as you were stating during the conference. Except for this specific community, you should be universalist and anti-communitarian, so you can't really organize a community like in the US. Even nationalism and patriotism are regarded as something bad.
GA : For sure, and that is exactly the problem. If you are entitled to celebrate your Jewish racism in France, every other group should be entitled to celebrate its own as well, and this is indeed a challenge for the French society, but so far, under the dictatorship of CRIF, you can't.
N : You talked about political correctness. Do you think that all the ideas forbidden by this political correctness, like studying fascism or World War II in all its aspects, might lead to the solution?
GA : I think that eliminating political correctness, and dismantling the power of the people who impose this dictatorship and formal frustration is the solution. What is the outcome ? I'm not a prophet. I believe in humanity. I believe in the beauty of humanity. I believe that in the world I was born into, before the Jewish domination and lefty political correctness – which is basically the same thing (the left are Jewish by proxy) – we had great music, great poetry, great thought, great challenges. It was a world where we believed that the political system was a mirror image of our human condition. But now we are being reduced to being consumers and the political system is there just to facilitate consumption. Political correctness is the vehicle that has facilitated this disaster. So I don't care if the outcome of it is that we start looking in the history of World War II, I'm fine with it 100%. And, who knows, maybe we'll find out that the Jews were telling the truth. This would be wonderful! And then I would say, «You know what, I am a Jew. » (laughs)
N : Are you enthusiastic about revisionism ?
GA : Not only am I enthusiastic about revisionism, I argue that the only historians on this planet are revisionists. History is the art, the capacity to look at the past as we move along and to revise what we think about the past as we proceed. This is the true meaning of history.
N : Have you ever read some of Christopher Lasch's books ? He's an American thinker who wrote about the elite's rebellion against the people and said that the Western elite was Pharisaic, dreaming about the Promised Land. In France, It is enough to say that to be considered an anti-semite.
GA : Interesting. I have not read him. I try to read a lot but unfortunately I can't read everything. I love being in France, I meet a lot of people who are very intelligent and challenging.
N : You are obviously not a leftist, I think we all got it, but you are not a rightist either. Are you an anarchist ?
GA : No, it's very simple : I believe that the left/right dichotomy is dated. I'm a post-political thinker and I'm interested in the emergence of the ethical conscience. And I believe that the West experienced a great inspiring moment when it was enlightened by Athens, but now it is under the invasion of Jerusalem and we have to bring Athens back.
N: You mean Athens’ original democracy with drawing of lots ?
GA : No, I'm not even talking about democracy there. I'm talking about the birth of the polytheistic culture, with many different reflections of us that reminded us of what we are, and I am talking about ethics. Jerusalem is one god : yes/no, good/evil, Jew/Goy, it's all about the opposition. And more important, in Jerusalem you have no ethical conscience. You have ten commandments: don't kill, don't drink, don't do, don't, don't, don't. Ethical people don't need ten commandments. That's Athens.
N: Do you still vote ?
GA : I'm not participating in the democratic game.
N: You had a conversation with Jacob Cohen in a French café, which was recorded. I watched it and found it very interesting, because Jacob Cohen regards himself as a proper anti-zionist Jew, but in front of you he seemed quite awkward dealing with contradictions.
GA : A lot of people saw it actually. Jacob Cohen is a nice guy. When they talk with me they are pushed back to the tribe, but it is not a bad thing. He is a good guy and a beautiful soul, and talking with me was thought provoking for him. He has contradictions that's true, but contradiction is a good thing, and we have to learn from our contradictions and to deal with them. I also have contradictions, you know. I call myself a proud self-hater, and sometimes I call myself an ex-Jew. You see, I have to decide, but I don't, I'm bouncing back and forth.
N: In the same video, you said that you were kind of «out of ‘jewishhood’» but not really, when you thought of it, as you were always talking about it and so your family and probably your children may be «in» it. How do you think your children will regard themselves ?
GA : It's a great question. It’s not easy to grow up with a thinker and a musician and I hope that they will be happy and it's completely up to them. I mean, if my son decides to become a rabbi, I will let him be. But I don't think that is going to happen. (laughs)
N: Sometimes when we are really radical, our children can turn out to become as radical, but in the opposite direction, so it could happen, don't you think?
GA : I'm not sure I am that radical. And by the way, you know today during the conference, I talked for the first time about the Jewish genius. We always say they rule the world, but if we have a problem, it's not because they are stupid, it's because they are clever. So let's face it and try to analyze this phenomenon. And the best way to analyze it is to start learning evolutionary psychology, which the left and the Jews don't allow us to do. Heidegger and many others said that what the Jews hated so much in Hitler was the reflection of what they had in themselves. Otto Weininger grasped it 20 years before Heidegger. When you hate something in others, it is usually because you find the same thing in yourself. Weininger suggested that this is why so many anti-semites are Jews, because they see in Jews what they don't like in themselves.
N: On a French website, Scriptoblog (whose founder is Michel Drac, also one of founders of Egalité et Réconciliation), a critic said that Bernard-Henri Levy is the product of the Jewish thinking imploding into the higher strata of the French bourgeoisie. Do you think that this statement is correct ?
G: I think that this is a fair comment. The more interesting question is to ask is what is it about Jewish intelligentsia that attracts the French bourgeoisie?
N: I think it's quite accurate, because it's related to your view of Jewish secularism on the eve of modern Capitalism (back in the industrial revolution). Is Jewish thinking and Jewishness a better software for the capitalist engine (burning/running faster)?
G: Almost. Capitalism at least traditionally, is associated with manufacturing and industry. As we know, Jews do not gravitate towards industry. In the last two centuries the Jewish elite settled comfortably in money, in finance centres, as well as in media and culture. To a certain extent, the emergence of the global and service economy, together with the collapse of manufacturing in the West, is not surprising at all. The rising elite is a global community that is not connected with rural life or any form of production. It is driven by principles of market economy and greed and, as Milton Friedmann suggested, the market economy is very good for the Jews.
N: I read about a leftist French economist, Francis Delaisi, who wrote a book in 1942 about Nazi economy and politics, which was unavailable until Soral relaunched it. I find very interesting his theory that Hitler adamantly refused to put his country again under the dominion of the Wall Street banks (which, in his opinion, were tied to Jewry) and that for doing this he and his fellow countrymen were burnt to the ground. Some French people think that the Holocaust religion is a hysterical topic dropped in every time somebody is approaching these studies.
G: There you go. The Shoa is a successful political instrument. In the name of the Jewish past we eliminate the future of France and even the West.
N: Many socialists, I mean real socialists like Leroux, Considerant and others, used the word "Jew" in their writings to embody a super-capitalist metaphor. Nowadays, leftists tend to claim this was the result of an anti-semitic era, but to them the entire history tends to be so. What's your opinion about that ?
G: I believe that the fear of anti-semitism is going to get the Jews into major trouble on a global scale. The level of resentment keeps growing and the lack of criticism leads to impunity for the Jewish elite. This is very dangerous.
N: Abraham Leon published around 1943 a book called "The Jewish Question: A Marxist Interpretation" in which he stated that Jews tends to act as a class, rushing for high-profile bourgeoisie positions and that zionism was the last step of a capitalism starting to rot. Is that a shared opinion?
G: Abraham Leon makes just another cute Jewish intellectual attempt to explain the Jewish cultural and social abnormality. Here is the trick. The Jews are not a class, or people, or race, or a cult, or an ethnicity, or nationality, or the most clever people on the planet, but at the same time they can be any and all of the above simultaneously. Jewishness is an exilic culture, highly adaptable. And this fact alone explains every aspect of Jewish politics, culture and even Jewish talent.
N: Is it correct to say that Eastern European judaism was an attempt for some Jews to escape from community habits and have new rights in relation to other people, an attempt to be carried out by their wits only instead of using their full potential (physical, social, etc.) ? It seems as if Eastern European judaism has long been a way for a few people to (1) to deal with powerful elites; and (2) dominate other people (according to Israel Shahak). My question is this, was their conversion to this particular religion a perfect way to satisfy their appetite for depredation ?
G: It seems as if you confused two issues here. To start with, the conversion of the Khazars to Judaism has little to do with Shahak’s reference to the Jews’ later becoming an instrument of oppression serving the East European elite.
The Khazars converted to Judaism because of geopolitical conditions unique to the 9th century. Jews became an oppressive class in the East due to the fact that they were freed and could serve the local landowners and aristocracy. Shahak argues that this unique role and affinity to power is inherent in Jewish culture and consistent with the Talmud. I do not have any doubt that Shahak is correct here and Jewish history reveals such affinity to power in different places and at different times.
N: What's your opinion about the Hezbollah as a resistance movement against Zionism? In France it is forbidden to pronounce this word without condemning it.
G: It is a beautiful thing. A true liberating force. It would be very interesting to study its cultural foundation and to find out why Hezbollah succeeded where Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood failed.
N: You want Europe to bring Athens back and forget about Jerusalem. But the two of them bring with them slavery in one form (physically) or another (debt). Isn't it time for us to think less about ethical conscience and give back to people their common sense (as Orwell called it, common decency, i.e., a spontaneous perception ordinary people have of what is right and what is wrong)?
G: Isn’t that exactly what correctness is all about? Who decides what is good for the people, The Guardian of Zion? The Observer of Judea, or shall we just call it Big Brother? I believe that Athens , as a principle, is there to make people think independently and ethically. It moves beyond the Torah and the commandments.
N: And last but not least, a question for which I've been trying to find the answer for a long time. Jewish history tells us that Jews have been persecuted since the dawn of mankind because nobody liked them. But after the fall of the Roman Empire, the so-called Middle Ages was quite a deeply rooted era in which people were interconnected through organic communities, respect, maybe sometimes war but still, real links. In this era, it is well known that Jews were regarded as vicious people, and our History teachers tell us that it was all made up by the Church. Through all my research, I've found trials, arguments, but all were filled with specific accusations, not only insulting words. How come we can tell today without a doubt that they were all false when, surprisingly, the Romans, Eastern Europeans, Goths and others have said exactly the same things about Jews throughout history?
G: History, presents itself as an attempt to narrate the past but in practice it is a chronicle of concealment of our shame. Through this chronicle of shame we learn what people were embarrassed about in different eras. Jews have a serious dilemma in that respect. On the one hand they would love to be treated as the ultimate victims, but then, if everyone hates them equally this may as well suggest that something isn’t quite right. Being a revisionist I am here to suggest that through the present we grasp the past. Through our encounter with BHL, Israel, CRIF we grasp the past. If Jews want to change their past they better take away their war-mongering lobbies.
N : Being that radical may lead to trouble. Have you received threats ?
GA : I'm not radical.
N : Yes, you are. We have watched Norman Finkelstein’s «American Radical» and I have much respect for him but you are the radical one.
GA : The people who are scared of me the most are not the Zionists or the Jews. The people who are scared of me the most are the Jewish left. Because I argue that Jewish left is a spin. It's an oxymoron. If you are a leftist, you're supposed to be a universalist. If you maintain your Jewish tribal identity, you are racially oriented. So the Jewish left are in fact national socialists. But national socialism is a beautiful thing. If you're national socialist you believe in the soil, you're patriotic, you're running naked in the forest (I've never seen a Jew running naked in a forest, by the way), but you also believe in equality, in universal social justice. The Jews have a very interesting political trick: they always capture both poles of the discourse. So they are the capitalists on Wall Street but simultaneously they also run the opposition, the revolution, and by the time the goyim understand what is going on, the Jews are already years ahead. So they go to Palestine, and they turn it into Israel, and then you find out that all the anti-zionists are also dominated by the Jews. And again, by the time you find that out, they have already skipped to the next place and we don't even know where that is. And this is why -- and it is not surprising -- Marx, who was a Jew after all, introduced us to dialectical thinking, because they have the dialectic embedded deeply in their culture
N : You mean pilpoul! [Note: Talmudic form of dialog seeking to reconcile contradictions in the Talmud]
GA : Yes ! Pilpoul (laugh) It's about time they use pilpoul in order to facilitate ethical and universal thinking rather than advancing tribal nonsense.
N : Alain Soral said that when you talk with a leftist, you have an hour-long debate before coming to the point, whereas with a rightist, you go straight to the arguments.
GA : Let me tell you something I have never said to the French press...
N : We are not press but okay (laughs).
GA : For me you are the most important press because you're the only one who speaks with me! (laugh). Egalité et Reconciliation for example is more popular than most of the outlets in France. Now, this is very important : on the right, you have a clear dichotomy between activism and scholarship. Activism is the idea of changing the social reality and introducing justice. Scholarship is about the truth. Heidegger was a scholar. Some other Nazis were social activists and then they became the regime. On the left, we don’t have a dichotomy and this is why they are always compromising the truth in the name of social discourse. It doesn’t take long before they end up with a discourse that is detached from humanity, from reality, and from the truth. And this is why we are going to win and are already wining actually. You know, it is nice talking to you. Yesterday we saw Richard Falk. It was very interesting but the room was filled with a geriatric audience who won't be here in 10 years. Is this the Palestinian resistance? Today on the other hand we saw young people. I am very happy.