People like you, Mr. Greenstein, should be put in preventive custody!’
Dr: Gabi Weber
This is an long exchange e-mail between Gilad Atzmon and Tony Greenstein before you read it I copied an e-mail sent by Dr Gabi Weber her e-mail shed the light on the Greenstein true nature it is for you to judge not for us.
Subject: Re: Stop bothering!!!!
Hello Mr. Greenstein,
as physician, working with all kinds of patients for years now, I am used to many different symptoms, diseases, psychological disorders and so on. Fortunately until now I never before was involved in dirty games and tricks as I am experiencing in the emails you are sending for days now. Even the mentally sickest of my patients I ever had, was not as sick as you are!
And to say it clear – KEEP ME OUT OF YOUR MAD INTRIGUES!
My time is too precious to deal with people who are obviously full of hatred, only aiming at destroying other people´s lifes.
Really, I have pity for you. What kind of life must this be, to spend years over years by trying to demolish the career of a person and to see that all the efforts are leading to nothing? On the contrary, the person you try to destroy is getting more and more popular and successful. What a shame for you!
Your behaviour proves exactly, what is happening in the so-called Palestinian Solidarity Movement. We are infiltrated with dirty Hasbara, this is very clear.
Perhaps you should try to find something beautiful for your life? You could try to use your talents, which you certainly have but that you bury under tons of hate and negative energy. Imagine if you simply tried to take all this energy you need for the attempts to destroy Gilad Atzmon and did something positive with it. Perhaps we already would have a Palestinian State?????
As I told you in my last email, I am very attentive in what is happening around my Freiburg conference. In case I get any information of your ongoing attempt to bother my speakers I will start publicizing everything.
Dr. Gabi Weber
Atzmon vs Greenstein
From: Gilad Atzmon
To: tony greenstein
Sent: Wed, 3 August, 2011 10:06:08
Subject: Re: Conference on Historical Revisionism
TG: Yes of course you can have competing narratives. One which says there was a holocaust but there are many things we will never fully understand about it or one which says there was no such thing or ‘only’ a few hundred thousand Jews died of typhus. I suspect I know which one you subscribe to.
GA: I actually do not have any interest in issues to do with numbers , pornography of death or Holocaust necrophilia, I am after the meaning of the shoa, and as you may know, meanings are in flux.
TG: Yes I know that issues of truthfulness are more complicated than the 3 bears but the principle remains the same. Is the holocaust, the decimation of 10m Africans in the Congo, the slave trade etc. just a narrative or is it firmly grounded factually? Otherwise we just get into word games.
GA: You obviously do not understand what the word narrative stands for. There is no contradiction between the notion of the narrative and factuality. The narrative is manner in which facts are picked and set into a tale.
TG: I am fully aware of what the conditional ‘if’ means. To be precise it means you cast doubt on something,
GA: Nonsense, you are simply not familiar with hypothetical manner of speech. You are under developed for you age. It is not a crime but nothing to be proud of.
TG: So when you say ‘if Auschwitz was a death camp’ or some such you are casting doubt on that fact.
GA: Try to concentrate-there is a contradiction between the H narrative and the ‘death march’ one . If the Nazis wanted the Jews out, why did they schlepped them back?
Please come with an answer? Also, please enlighten me and suggest how to pronounce the paradox above without using the word ‘if’.
TG: When you say ‘ if 2+2=4 then 2+1+1=4’ then that certainly casts doubt on whether 2+2=4 otherwise you would just come out and say 2+2=4 therefore 2+1+1 also = 4
GA: No Tony, this is called implication. A conditional manner of speech. the 2 statments have different meanings. I guess that you have to learn deductive logic so you realise that ‘if -then’ is a pretty basic formula of argumetation known as P->Q
TG: I am aware of the purpose of the IF statement, having done Mathematics at degree level.
GA: Tony, don’t bulshit me with your phantasmic degrees. Along the many press clips about your vast criminal record (shoplifting, credit card theft, vandalism and so on) I came across one clip that says that you were kicked out from university for being a vandal. Knowing you as a compulsive liar, I suggest that we stay at argument level. Please don’t wave the qualifications you do not have. Also if you would have a degree in math, you would know what the world ‘if’ stand for and how is it used.
TG: So when, to use your example, one says ‘If X then Y’ then of course there is a question mark over whether X exists in the form posited.
You give the example of ‘If the sun is larger than earth and the earth is larger than the moon then the sun is larger than the moon.’
No of course you are not doubting the existence of the sun but you are questioning whether it is larger than the earth. That is the logical statement in question and that is the context.
GA: Again you are not familiar with hypothetical manner of speech. We call it a logical deductive move, it doesn’t involve doubt.
Let us look at the following obvious example
If X=Y and Z=Y then X=Z
The above suggest an implication rather than a doubt. Also do you really think that when I say 2+2=4 I cast a doubt?
I must admit that this is the first time I run a philosophical debate with a moron. It is an amazing experience. I sometime under estimate your stupidity.
TG: So when you say. 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?’
You are doubting the Nazis wanted the Jews out of the Reich, because after all, according to your logic, if they wanted them out why did they march them back in?
GA: I suggest that the two narrative cannot live together within the same historical setting unless an explanation is provided. I ve the explanation… but what is your explanation tony?
TG: Likewise if you say. ‘If the Nazis ran a death factory in Auschwitz-Birkenau, why would the Jewish prisoners join them at the end of the war?’
The clear implication is that Auschwitz-Birkenau is not a death factory, otherwise why would Jewish prisoners join them at the end of the war? The Stockholm Syndrome?
GA: No this suggests a discrepancy at the heart of the discourse. If Jews were aware of Nazi homicidal inclinations, how come they joined them at the end of the war as Holocaust scholar Israel Gutman suggests? Again please explain it to me , you may also argue that Gutman is a liar or idiot. I don’t really care… but just try to come up with something..
TG: And you confirm this interpretation by asking for ‘some conclusive historical evidence.’ Nothing metaphysical mind you!
GA: You still do not understand what metaphysics stands for. There is no contradiction between evidence and metaphysics.
TG: ‘We should ask for some conclusive historical evidence and arguments rather than follow a religious narrative…’
I am not a member of any synagogue, left or right. You really can’t help the anti-Semitic stuff. It’s second nature I’m afraid.
GA: You are not just a member, you are a failure Rabbi, with an extremely small congregation of people who must be just slightly more limited than yourself..
TG: Likewise the fact of the holocaust is neither a narrative nor religion. A religion means it is unquestioning.
GA: As far as I can see, you invest a lot of energy trying to stop others and myself, in particular, from questioning H and other Jewish narratives. So it is a religion and you are a leading cantor (as well as a Rabbi). You cry for heaven day and night, praying for Gilad to be stopped.
TG: There are many questions concerning the holocaust in the widest sense but you ask none of them and instead stick to the agenda of neo-Nazis and revisionists of doubting whether it happened.
GA: Tony, trying to label me won’t solve your problem. And why do you stop with neo Nazi? What about pedophilia? For the record, I am not associated with any group or school of thought. I advocate freedom of speech. And I indeed support any form of revisionism. I am not afraid of thoughts or ideas, I am far more concerned with tribal morbidity as performed by you and your ilk. And as you know, I am very good in exposing it. You will find out very soon soon that my take on the subject is endorsed by the biggest scholars in the Pls discourse.
TG: This is dump stupidity or malevolence or both. There are all sorts of questions. I mentioned Daniel Goldhagen. He raises many issues, all of them reactionary, about the knowledge of ordinary Germans, their indifference etc. There is considerable research in this area. Comparative history is helpful, but you are stuck with the basics because you can’t get it into your head that there is no doubt about the mass exterminations of the Nazis.
GA: So if I understand you correctly, you now plan to tell us what we are allowed to ask… how progressive of you.
TG: There is too much evidence. Did Rauf ever deny he was involved in the development of the gas trucks? Was the ‘euthenasia’ denied? Grow up and start dealing with the things that researchers, some of whom are not Zionists, are doing.
GA: Tony, all of that, has nothing to do with my body of work or research. I argue that history is the art of revising the past. You are against it, Judaism is against it. You operate politically as a Jew, is it a coincidence? I don’t think so! You are simply a Zionist amd a rabid one.
TG: In the conflict between anti-Zionists like Vrba and the collaborationist Zionists you not only have nothing to say but you appear to justify the role of the Zionists.
GA: I am familiar with Vrba report, but the reaction to the report is also very interesting. However, I m not interested in the imaginary debate between Zionists and the so called ‘anti’ Zionists. I am much more interested in the exposure of this debate as a spin of fake pluralism.
TG: Your whole framework, Jew=Zionist, left Jew = more Zionist is crude and counterproductive.
GA: Please be precise. I do not talk about Jews. I say that everyone who identify politically as a Jew is a Zionist. You, for instance operate politically as a Jew and you are indeed a rabid Zionist. Interestingly enough you act like ADL and Hasbara. Only one difference is noticeable, unlike ADL, you are pretty clumsy and astonishingly lame. I guess your operators will have to send someone slightly more sophisticated and soon. It is a shame, because by now, it is almost fun dealing with you.
GILAD ATZMON NEW BOOK
It is a scholarly and truly monumental work, deeply profound and, of course, controversial. (Alan Hart, British Journalist and covert diplomat in Middle East, ITN’s News at 10, BBC’s Panorama) A seriously funny writer and the wittiest musician since Ronnie Scott. We’re lucky Gilad Atzmon is around. (Robert Wyatt, musician and founding member of Soft Machine)
An investigation of Jewish identity politics and Jewish contemporary ideology using both popular culture and scholarly texts. Jewish identity is tied up with some of the most difficult and contentious issues of today. The purpose in this book is to open many of these issues up for discussion.
Since Israel defines itself openly as the ‘Jewish State’, we should ask what the notions of ’Judaism’, ‘Jewishness’, ‘Jewish culture’ and ‘Jewish ideology’ stand for. Gilad examines the tribal aspects embedded in Jewish secular discourse, both Zionist and anti Zionist; the ‘holocaust religion’; the meaning of ‘history’ and ‘time’ within the Jewish political discourse; the anti-Gentile ideologies entangled within different forms of secular Jewish political discourse and even within the Jewish left.
He questions what it is that leads Diaspora Jews to identify themselves with Israel and affiliate with its politics. The devastating state of our world affairs raises an immediate demand for a conceptual shift in our intellectual and philosophical attitude towards politics, identity politics and history.
* See: www.Amazon.com