Archive | October 7th, 2011



I feel obliged to correct myself and to apologize to ‘Richard Lenin Seymour Tomb’ and his allies within the Islamophobic Award Winning Harry’s Place Blog.

Yesterday morning I exposed Richard Seymour as a Zionist collaborator and I even published this comic image.

Apparently Gene, Harry’s Place’s Zionist cheerleader, wasn’t impressed. He  was offended by the exposure of his little Lenin  on Rosh Hashana eve. He wrote to me:

 “Well, Mr. Atzmon, let me vouch for Richard Seymour’s anti-Zionist credentials: I’ve been following his blog for years, and I can assure you that he hates Israel as much as anyone I’ve come across on the web.”

I indeed regret my obvious mistake. How could i miss it myself? I hope that the following images of Richard Seymour depict the true meaning and scope of Lenin’s dedication to the ‘anti Zionist cause’.

I hope that this would keep Gene, Lenin & ‘comrades’ happy at least till Yom Kipur.

Shana Tova from  Gilad Atzmon

You can now order Gilad Atzmon’s New Book  or


The Dangerous Cult of the Guardian


There could be no better proof of the revolution – care of the internet – occurring in the accessibility of information and informed commentary than the reaction of our mainstream, corporate media.

For the first time, Western publics – or at least those who can afford a computer – have a way to bypass the gatekeepers of our democracies. Data our leaders once kept tightly under wraps can now be easily searched for, as can the analyses of those not paid to turn a blind eye to the constant and compelling evidence of Western hypocrisy. Wikileaks, in particular, has rapidly eroded the traditional hierarchical systems of information dissemination.

The media – at least the supposedly leftwing component of it – should be cheering on this revolution, if not directly enabling it. And yet, mostly they are trying to co-opt, tame or subvert it. Indeed, progressive broadcasters and writers increasingly use their platforms in the mainstream to discredit and ridicule the harbingers of the new age.

A good case study is the Guardian, considered the most leftwing newspaper in Britain and rapidly acquiring cult status in the United States, where many readers tend to assume they are getting access through its pages to unvarnished truth and the full range of critical thinking on the left.

Certainly, the Guardian includes some fine reporting and occasionally insightful commentary. Possibly because it is farther from the heart of empire, it is able to provide a partial antidote to the craven coverage of the corporate-owned media in the US.

Nonetheless, it would be unwise to believe that the Guardian is therefore a free market in progressive or dissident ideas on the left. In fact, quite the contrary: the paper strictly polices what can be said and who can say it in its pages, for cynical reasons we shall come to.

Until recently, it was quite possible for readers to be blissfully unaware that there were interesting or provocative writers and thinkers who were never mentioned in the Guardian. And, before papers had online versions, the Guardian could always blame space constraints as grounds for not including a wider range of voices. That, of course, changed with the rise of the internet.

Early on, the Guardian saw the potential, as well as the threat, posed by this revolution. It responded by creating a seemingly free-for-all blog called Comment is Free to harness much of the raw energy unleashed by the internet. It recruited an army of mostly unpaid writers, activists and propagandists on both sides of the Atlantic to help brand itself as the epitome of democratic and pluralistic media.

From the start, however, Comment is Free was never quite as free – except in terms of the financial cost to the Guardian – as it appeared. Significant writers on the left, particularly those who were considered “beyond the pale” in the old media landscape, were denied access to this new “democratic” platform. Others, myself included, quickly found there were severe and seemingly inexplicable limits on what could be said on CiF (unrelated to issues of taste or libel).

None of this should matter. After all, there are many more places than CiF to publish and gain an audience. All over the web dissident writers are offering alternative analyses of current events, and drawing attention to the significance of information often ignored or sidelined by the corporate media.

Rather than relish this competition, or resign itself to the emergence of real media pluralism, however, the Guardian reverted to type. It again became the left’s thought police.

This time, however, it could not ensure that the “challenging left” would simply go unheard. The internet rules out the option of silencing by exclusion. So instead, it appears, it is using its pages to smear those writers who, through their own provocative ideas and analyses, suggest the Guardian’s tameness.

The Guardian’s discrediting of the “left” – the left being a concept never defined by the paper’s writers – is far from taking place in a fair battle of ideas. Not least the Guardian is backed by the huge resources of its corporate owners. When it attacks dissident writers, they can rarely, if ever, find a platform of equal prominence to defend themselves. And the Guardian has proved itself more than reluctant to allow a proper right of reply in its pages to those it maligns.

But also, and most noticeably, it almost never engages with these dissident writers’ ideas. In popular terminology, it prefers to play the man, not the ball. Instead it creates labels, from the merely disparaging to the clearly defamatory, that push these writers and thinkers into the territory of the unconscionable.

A typical example of the Guardian’s new strategy was on show this week in an article in the print edition’s comment pages – also available online and a far more prestigious platform than CiF – in which the paper commissioned a socialist writer, Andy Newman, to argue that the Israeli Jewish musician Gilad Atzmon was part of an anti-semitic trend discernible on the left.

Jonathan Freedland, the paper’s star columnist and resident obsessive on anti-semitism, tweeted to his followers that the article was “important” because it was “urging the left to confront antisemitism in its ranks”.

I have no idea whether Atzmon has expressed anti-semitic views – and I am none the wiser after reading Newman’s piece.

As is now typical in this new kind of Guardian character assassination, the article makes no effort to prove that Atzmon is anti-semitic or to show that there is any topical or pressing reason to bring up his presumed character flaw. (In passing, the article made a similar accusation of anti-semitism against Alison Weir of If Americans Knew, and against the Counterpunch website for publishing an article on Israel’s role in organ-trafficking by her.)

Atzmon has just published a book on Jewish identity, The Wandering Who?, that has garnered praise from respected figures such as Richard Falk, an emeritus law professor at Princeton, and John Mearsheimer, a distinguished politics professor at Chicago University.

But Newman did not critique the book, nor did he quote from it. In fact, he showed no indication that he had read the book or knew anything about its contents.

Instead Newman began his piece, after praising Atzmon’s musicianship, with an assumptive reference to his “antisemitic writings”. There followed a few old quotes from Atzmon, long enough to be intriguing but too short and out of context to prove his anti-semitism – except presumably to the Guardian’s thought police and its most deferential readers.

The question left in any reasonable person’s mind is why dedicate limited commentary space in the paper to Atzmon? There was no suggestion of a newsworthy angle. And there was no case made to prove that Atzmon is actually anti-semitic. It was simply assumed as a fact.

Atzmon, even by his own reckoning, is a maverick figure who has a tendency to infuriate just about everyone with his provocative, and often ambiguous, pronouncements. But why single him out and then suggest that he represents a discernible and depraved trend among the left?

Nonetheless, the Guardian was happy to offer its imprimatur to Newman’s defamation of Atzmon, who was described as a conspiracy theorist “dripping with contempt for Jews”, despite an absence of substantiating evidence. Truly worthy of Pravda in its heyday.

The Atzmon article appeared on the same day the Guardian carried out a similar hatchet job, this time on Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks. The paper published a book review of Assange’s “unauthorised autobiography” by the Guardian’s investigations editor, David Leigh.

That Leigh could be considered a reasonable choice for a review of the book – which he shamelessly pilloried – demonstrates quite how little the Guardian is prepared to abide by elementary principles of ethical journalism.

Leigh has his own book on the Guardian’s involvement with Wikileaks and Assange currently battling it out for sales in the bookshops. He is hardly a disinterested party.

But also, and more importantly, Leigh is clearly not dispassionate about Assange, any more than the Guardian is. The paper has been waging an all-but-declared war against Wikileaks since the two organizations fell out over their collaboration on publishing Wikileak’s trove of 250,000 classified US embassy cables. The feud, if the paper’s talkbacks are to be believed, has finally begun to test the patience of even some of the paper’s most loyal readers.

The low point in Leigh’s role in this saga is divulging in his own book a complex password Assange had created to protect a digital file containing the original and unedited embassy cables. Each was being carefully redacted before publication by several newspapers, including the Guardian.

This act of – in the most generous interpretation of Leigh’s behavior – gross stupidity provided the key for every security agency in the world to open the file. Leigh has accused Wikileaks of negligence in allowing a digital copy of the file to be available. Whether true, his own role in the affair is far more inexcusable.

Even given his apparent ignorance of the digital world, Leigh is a veteran investigative reporter who must have known that revealing the password was foolhardy in the extreme. Not least, it clearly demonstrated how Assange formulates his passwords, and would provide important clues for hackers trying to open other protected Wikileaks documents.

His and the Guardian’s recklessness in disclosing the password was compounded by their negligent decision to contact neither Assange nor Wikileaks before publication of Leigh’s book to check whether the password was still in use.

After this shabby episode, one of many from the Guardian in relation to Assange, it might have been assumed that Leigh was considered an inappropriate person to comment in the Guardian on matters related to Wikileaks. Not so.

Instead the paper has been promulgating Leigh’s sel-interested version of the story and regularly impugning Assange’s character. In a recent editorial, the paper lambasted the Wikileaks founder as an “information absolutist” who was “flawed, volatile and erratic”, arguing that he had chosen to endanger informants named in the US cables by releasing the unredacted cache.

However, the paper made no mention either of Leigh’s role in revealing the password or of Wikileaks’ point that, following Leigh’s incompetence, every security agency and hacker in the world had access to the file’s contents. Better, Wikileaks believed, to create a level playing field and allow everyone access to the cables, thereby letting informants know whether they had been named and were in danger.

Leigh’s abuse of his position is just one element in a dirty campaign by the Guardian to discredit Assange and, by extension, the Wikileaks project.

Some of this clearly reflects a clash of personalities and egos, but it also looks suspiciously like the feud derives from a more profound ideological struggle between the Guardian and Wikilieaks about how information should be controlled a generation hence. The implicit philosophy of Wikileaks is to promote an ever-greater opening up and equalisation of access to information, while the Guardian, following its commercial imperatives, wants to ensure the gatekeepers maintain their control.

At least Assange has the prominent Wikileaks website to make sure his own positions and reasons are hard to overlook. Other targets of the Guardian are less fortunate.

George Monbiot, widely considered to be the Guardian’s most progressive columnist, has used his slot to attack a disparate group on the “left” who also happen to be harsh critics of the Guardian.

In a column in June he accused Ed Herman, a leading US professor of finance and a collaborator on media criticism with Noam Chomsky, and writer David Peterson of being “genocide deniers” over their research into events in Rwanda and Bosnia. The evidence was supposedly to be found in their joint book The Politics of Genocide, published last year, and in an online volume, The Srebrenica Massacre, edited by Herman.

Implying that genocide denial was now a serious problem on the left, Monbiot also laid into journalist John Pilger for endorsing the book and a website called Media Lens that dedicates itself to exposing the failings of the corporate media, including the work of the Guardian and Monbiot. Media Lens’ crime was to have argued that Herman and Peterson should be allowed to make their case about Rwanda and Bosnia, rather than be silenced as Monbiot appeared to prefer.

Monbiot also ensnared Chomsky in his criticism, castigating him for writing a foreword to one of the books.

Chomsky, it should be remembered, is co-author (with Herman) of Manufacturing Consent, a seminal book arguing that it is the role of the corporate media, including liberal media like the Guardian, to distort their readers’ understanding of world events to advance the interests of Western elites. In Chomsky’s view, even journalists like Monbiot are selected by the media for their ability to manufacture public consent for the maintenance of a system of Western political and economic dominance.

Possibly as a result of these ideas, Chomsky is a bete noire of the Guardian and its Sunday sister publication, the Observer.

He was famously vilified in 2005 by an up and coming Guardian feature writer, Emma Brockes – again on the issue of Srebrenica. Brockes’ report so wilfully mischaracterised Chomsky’s views (with quotes she could not substantiate after she apparently taped over her recording of the interview) that the Guardian was forced into a very reluctant “partial apology” under pressure from its readers’ editor. Over Chomsky’s opposition, the article was also erased from its archives.

Such scurrilous journalism should have ended a young journalist’s career at the Guardian. But ridiculing Chomsky is standard fare at the paper, and Brockes’ career as celebrity interviewer flourished, both at the Guardian and the New York Times.

Nick Cohen, another star columnist, this time at the Observer, found time to mention Chomsky recently, dismissing him and other prominent critical thinkers such as Tariq Ali, the late Harold Pinter, Arundhati Roy and Diana Johnstone as “west-hating”. He blamed liberals and the left for their “Chomskyan self-delusion”, and suggested many were “apologists for atrocities”.

Monbiot’s article followed in the same vein. He appeared to have a minimal grasp of the details of Herman and Peterson’s books. Much of his argument that Herman is a “genocide belittler” depends on doubts raised by a variety of experts in the Srebrenica book over the figure of 8,000 reported executions of Bosnian Muslims by Serb forces at Srebrenica. The authors suggest the number is not supported by evidence and might in fact be as low as 800.

Whether or not the case made by Herman and his collaborators is convincing was beside the point in Monbiot’s article. He was not interested in exploring their arguments but in creating an intellectual no-go zone from which critical thinkers and researchers were barred – a sacred genocide.

And to achieve this end, it was necessary to smear the two writers as genocide deniers and suggest that anyone else on the left who ventured on to the same territory would be similarly stigmatised.

Monbiot treatment of Herman and Peterson’s work was so slipshod and cavalier it is hard to believe that he was the one analysing their books.

To take just one example, Monbiot somehow appears to be unable to appreciate the careful distinction Herman’s book makes between an “execution” and a “death”, a vital differentiation in evaluating the Srebrenica massacre.

In the book, experts question whether all or most of the 8,000 Bosnian Muslims disinterred from graves at Srebrenica were victims of a genocidal plan by the Serbs, or casualties of bitter fighting between the two sides, or even some of them victims of a false-flag operation. As the book points out, a post-mortem can do many things but it cannot discern the identities or intentions of those who did the killing in Srebrenica.

The authors do not doubt that a massacre, or massacres, took place at Srebrenica. However, they believe we should not accept on trust that this was a genocide (a term defined very specifically in international law), or refuse to consider that the numbers may have been inflated to fit a political agenda.

This is not an idle or contrarian argument. As they make clear in their books, piecing together what really happened in Rwanda and Bosnia is vital if we are not to be duped by Western leaders into yet more humanitarian interventions whose goals are far from those claimed.

The fact that Monbiot discredited Herman and Peterson at a time when the Guardian’s reporting was largely cheering on the latest humanitarian intervention, in Libya, was all the more richly ironic.

So why do the Guardian and its writers publish these propaganda articles parading as moral concern about the supposedly degenerate values of the “left”? And why, if the left is in such a debased state, can the Guardian’s stable of talented writers not take on their opponents’ ideas without resorting to strawman arguments, misdirection and smears.

The writers, thinkers and activists targeted by the Guardian, though all of the left, represent starkly different trends and approaches – and some of them would doubtless vehemently oppose the opinions of others on the list.

But they all share a talent for testing the bounds of permissible thought in creative ways that challenge and undermine established truths and what I have termed elsewhere the “climate of assumptions” the Guardian has helped to create and sustain.

It hardly matters whether all or some of these critical thinkers are right. The danger they pose to the Guardian is in arguing convincingly that the way the world is presented to us is not the way it really is. Their very defiance, faced with the weight of a manufactured consensus, threatens to empower us, the reader, to look outside the restrictive confines of media orthodoxy.

The Guardian, like other mainstream media, is heavily invested – both financially and ideologically – in supporting the current global order. It was once able to exclude and now, in the internet age, must vilify those elements of the left whose ideas risk questioning a system of corporate power and control of which the Guardian is a key institution.

The paper’s role, like that of its rightwing cousins, is to limit the imaginative horizons of readers. While there is just enough leftwing debate to make readers believe their paper is pluralistic, the kind of radical perspectives needed to question the very foundations on which the system of Western dominance rests is either unavailable or is ridiculed.

Reading the Guardian, it is possible to believe that one of the biggest problems facing our societies – comparable to our compromised political elites, corrupt police authorities, and depraved financial system – is an array of mainly isolated dissidents and intellectuals on the left.

Is Atzmon and his presumed anti-semitism more significant than AIPAC? Is Herman more of a danger than the military-industrial corporations killing millions of peoples around the globe? And is Assange more of a menace to the planet’s future than US President Barack Obama?

Reading the Guardian, you might well think so.

Posted in PoliticsComments Off on The Dangerous Cult of the Guardian



The Wandering Who? is brutally honest in its presentation, and if the reader is equally honest in the reading, her thinking will evolve in unexpected ways.

In the late 1970s, The Origin of Consciousness in the breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, a book by Princeton psychologist Julian Jaynes, gained minor celebrity for its original but controversial views concerning the evolution of the human brain/mind relationship. To this day, I don’t know how much of the thesis I accept, but it gave me a perspective that has now become a part of how I look at my fellow human beings on a daily basis.

Gilad Atzmon’s The Wandering Who? has had something of the same effect.  It is very original in its thinking, and even iconoclastic.  Even though there are very few readers who will agree entirely with everything Atzmon has to say, the effect is to question one’s assumptions and to recognize a new perspective.

In fact, to say that Atzmon is an iconoclast is something of an understatement; as soon as one chapter forces you to build new assumptions, the next one compels you to tear them down again. True, he provides you with new building blocks of interpretation and understanding. However, I found myself unsure of the new structure. Doubtless, many readers will have to digest these ideas and test them before they feel confident about accepting or rejecting them.

Atzmon’s basic thesis will be familiar to those who follow his writings.  Although he has long railed against Zionism, he considers it to be merely one manifestation of “Jewishness” – what Atzmon calls an ideology of chosenness – that is the root of the problem.  For him, therefore, Jewish anti-Zionism is merely another face of the same problem.

Atzmon, who was born Israeli to Jewish parents, therefore considers himself anti-Jewish, which obviously invites charges of anti-Semitic racism.  He rebuts such charges, however, by distinguishing between “anti-Jewish” (which he is) and “anti-Jew” (which he is not). A philosopher and logician by training and education, he embraces anti-racism, but objects to the Jewish way of thinking that distinguishes people who call themselves Jews from the societies in which they live. To him, this is a pernicious ideology that is a cause of misery wherever it is found, even in “anti-Zionist” circles.  (I should also point out that Atzmon does not object to Judaism as a religion per se.)

There is much more.  Not everyone will find it all worth reading, and the reader will probably have to keep a very open mind even to consider some of the connections that Atzmon makes, much less accept his arguments.  However, the exercise has its rewards in terms of exposing us to a very novel and important perspective that deserves consideration, and which can potentially be useful in understanding the events and movements that affect Jews and the societies in which they live. The Wandering Who? is brutally honest in its presentation, and if the reader is equally honest in the reading, her thinking will evolve in unexpected ways. For that, if for nothing else, we owe this work a debt of gratitude.

You can now order Gilad Atzmon’s New Book  or


Paul Larudee, PhD (born April 25, 1946) is a San Francisco Bay Area human rights advocate for justice in Israel and Palestine. He works with the International Solidarity Movement and the Free Palestine Movement, and was cofounder of the Free Gaza Movement. He has a Ph.D. in linguistics from Georgetown University and spent 14 years in Arab countries as a contracted U.S. government advisor, Fulbright-Hays exchange lecturer, teacher, training administrator and graduate student. Paul has visited the Palestinian region many times since 1965, including four times with the International Solidarity Movement, a Palestinian-led movement that applies nonviolent principles to resist Israeli actions. Paul was among seven ISM volunteers wounded by Israeli gunfire in April, 2002 in an attempt to help Palestinian families. In 2006, he was held in detention for two weeks while unsuccessfully appealing a decision to deny him entry to Israel. He helped organize nonviolent resistance in Lebanon during the 2006 Israeli invasion. He is one of the founders of the Free Gaza Movement, whose boats, on August 23, 2008, became the first in 41 years to enter Gaza by sea, breaking the Israeli naval blockade. He is also a founder of the Free Palestine Movement, which also seeks to challenge Israel’s blockade and denial of access to all of Palestine by sea, air and land. (Wikipedia)

Posted in PoliticsComments Off on A LINGERING WHAT?



Gilad Atzmon: Ken O’keefe speech  closed the day in Freiburg. It was a monumental talk that was received with a standing ovation. Ken is probably one of the most charismatic and inspiring  persons in our movement.  You may want to regard these  2 videos as extended audio tapes. Apparently there was a problem with the cameras towards the end of the day. The videos are largely audio recordings with a bit of visuals.

Sameh Habeeb delivered, as he always does, a  genuine, down to earth,  picture of the hellish situation in Gaza. Sameh, posses this unique talent to convey the true spirit of Palestinian resistance. Bless him




List of Intellectuals Gagged for Hunting theTruth )


The Link to this Website have been removed from some pro-Palestinian Websites, because the content of the Website are highly “controversial”, my advise to all readers is to consult with their local “Thought Police” before embarking on reading, if you decide to proceed and read it anyway, you do so at your own risk, such “controversial” materials can cause some of your brain cell to suddenly ignite, which in turn might cause it to catch fire… BE WARNED

The approval of the “Thought Police” is always preferable, so you don’t get in trouble with them, you don’t want to find your name on their long list of “racists”, “anti-Semites”, Holocaust deniers” or conspiracy theorists”:

It is ironic that some of the “Thought Police” themselves been victims of slander and smear campaigns-  their names are published on the SHIT list, yet they engage  in similar behaviour and use the same methods!

I would suggest to the “Thought Police”, and they know who they are, if they still insist on following the sleazy methods of Zionist, to prepare their own smear list. To save them time, I would kick start it, and suggest that they call it the LIGHT List ( List ofIntellectuals Gagged for Hunting the Truth )

This preliminary list can give them a good start:

Gilad Atzmon,

Professor Richard Falks,

Proffessor John Mearsheimer,

Paul Eisen,

Israel Shahak,

Israel Shamir,

Anthony Lawson,

Stuart Littlewoods,

Eric Walberg,

Jonathan Azaziah,

Helen Thomas,

Alison Weir

If they wish so, they can add Nahida the exiled Palestinian to theLIGHT List, after getting approval of their members, but if some members who know Nahida personally disapprove, they can add “Nahida’s articles” instead, as you know, Nahida and Nahida’s articles are TWO totally unconnected entities, they have absolutely nothing in common.



Are They Really ‘The People Of The Book’?



Ahead of the publication of my  The Wandering Who the entire Zionist network is in a total panic. Veterans Today’s senior Editor Gordon Duff  commented yesterday that just a ‘few books have been opposed as this one has’. He may as well be right.

It started last  Friday, with the Hasbara mouthpiece  Jewish Chronicle of London attacking Professor Mearsheimer for endorsing a book ‘by an antisemite’.

I don’t know how many times do I have to mention that I am not an antisemite for I really  hate everyone equally. For some reason, my detractors refuse to take this simple message on board.

Then, the Islamophobic agent-provocateur “Harry’s place” — who never miss a chance to muddy the water — joined in, intimidating and harassing  a London academic  just because she tweeted that she likes Atzmon’s book

Just before London Tea Time, America woke up. Within the hour, her Zionist stooges were ready to join the campaign. EX- IDF concentration camp guard Jeffrey Goldberg* had a clear plan to chew Professor John J. Mearsheimer circulating the same banal and unsubstantiated accusations.

At that stage, it appeared to be a campaign that was run by hundreds of Zionist enthusiasts – but if one scratches the surface, it was actually an orchestrated move of barely more than five Jewish bloggers, who have managed to mobilise another twenty or so book burners or shall we call them ‘wandering  sockpuppets’ that habitually attack in different areas of the net and the press, co-coordinating to harass, bully and intimidate, with the same dull, repetitive, accusations, ‘arguments’ and smears.

By Sunday night the Guardian published an appalling piece by one Andy Newman of Swindon , who, according to one of his “Socialist Unity” editors, attacked Atzmon simply to appease the relentlessly Islamophobic “Harry’s Place” public.

Top columnist and Middle East analyst Jonathan Cook reacted to the Guardian smear saying, “whatever one thinks of Atzmon, this is clearly a smear job of him (and Alison Weir). Where is the evidence, or even convincing argument, for the claims being made?  It is pure Pravda.” Not exactly a flattering comment on the Guardian.

By then it was clear that  Islamophobic Award winning Harry’s Placewasn’t going to stop.

In fact Harry Place’s, Goldberg and JC collective shameless tantrum is explored in The Wandering Who. I define it as ‘Pre Traumatic Stress Syndrome,’ as opposed to Post Traumatic stress syndrome. They are all terrorized and genuinely traumatized by a book they refuse to read with the hope that the Goyim may surrender and ban it on their behalf.

On Monday afternoon, Professor Mearsheimer published acomplete expose  of  Goldberg’s lameness and the  tactics he and his ilk use against myself and others. They quote out of context, they ‘copy and paste’, they forge paragraphs, they deliberately and consciously attribute misleading meanings. In fact, none of those who reacted to the book negatively has read the book or any of my papers. They all refer to quotes that were picked arbitrarily from the ‘Amazon Lookinside page’. I find myself wondering, are these people really the ‘People of the Book’? I guess that People of  the ‘Copy & Paste’ is a much  better description for  Goldberg  and his wandering sockpuppets.

Within minutes after Mearsheimer revealed the typical deceitful operation, the wandering sockpuppets were called in to fight Mearsheimer and Walt at the “Foreign Affair Journal” site. By the time they finished posting their filth, the respected magazine comment section looked indeed like a cyber shtetle.

In a final  desperate attempt to jeopardize the publication of the book and to silence its author. Richard Seymour AKA ‘Lenin Thumb’,  authored a new anti Atzmon manifesto  

I read Richard ‘Lenin’ Seymour’s  text with interest and found out that for some reason, both ‘avant-garde revolutionary’  Seymour’s text, and Guardian’s ‘socialist’  Andy Newman’s drivel are suspiciously far too similar to the unforgettable ‘Aaronovitch Reading Atzmon’ performance at the Oxford Literature Festival.

One may wonder how come Seymour, an alleged revolutionary radical Marxist, Andy Newman, a mediocre socialist  and Neocon pro war Aaronovitch are caught together naked holding ideological  hands.

How is it that the three try  to prevent myself and others from criticising Jewish political lobbying. For some reason they also don’t want us to look closely into the events that led to the financial turmoil. How is it possible that a hard core Zionist and ultra radical leftists are not only employing the same ideological argument but also performing the exact same tactics?  Clearly, there is an obvious ideological and political continuum between Aaronovitch, Newman and Seymour. The Wandering Who  scrutinizes this very continuum


Zionism clearly  maintains and sustains  its ‘radical left opposition’ and the logos behind such a tactic is simple- ‘revolutionary’ left is totally irrelevant to both the conflict and its resolution. Hence, Zionists cannot dream of an easier opposition to handle. When the Zionists detect a dangerous rising intellect who aims at the truth, they obviously utilize and mobilize the Jewish left together with the few willing Sabbath Goyim executioners to gatekeep the emerging danger. Seymour, Newman and a just few others are always happy to slay the emerging intellect.

Indeed they were effective for years. From an intellectual perspective our movement is pretty much a desert. Every deep thinker we have ever had has been targeted and destroyed by the Jewish Left and their Sabbath Goyim.  But for some reason, they somehow failed with me. My views on Palestine and Israel are now circulated on most dissident journals and my book The Wandering Who is endorsed by the most important people scholars and activists in our discourse.

So far, all efforts to stop the book have fallen apart . There is no sign of anyone pulling the book out but there are clear signs that the Hasbara orchestrated campaign has backfired. No one surrendered to the Zionist campaign and its stooges. As they said in Tahrir Square, ‘we have lost our fear.’   The Wandering Who is now a best seller for more than a week (as far as Amazon ranking can tell). On the Jewish best seller list, it is even more popular than the Babylonian Talmud and the Torah. I guess that this is indeed a great concern for Zionists and  their stooges, but there is nothing they can do about it.

You can now order Gilad Atzmon’s New Book  or

* Jeffrey Goldberg made Aliya when he was eighteen: he left America for Israel, joined the IDF and served as a prison guard in an Israeli concentration camp during the First Intifada.


Posted in PoliticsComments Off on Are They Really ‘The People Of The Book’?

New Book, endorsements, concerts and talks

The Wandering Who is Out This Week

“Gilad Atzmon decided to open Pandora’s Box, and ignite a debate that has been frustratingly dormant for too long. His experiences are most authentic, views are hard-hitting, and, at times, provocative. It must be read and discussed.”  Ramzy Baroud,  Palestine Chronicle


“A transformative story told with unflinching integrity that all (especially Jews) who care about real peace, as well as their own identity, should not only read, but reflect upon and discuss widely.” Professor Richard Falk


“Essential to an understanding of Jewish identity politics and the role they play on the world stage.” Professor John J. Mearsheimer 


“Atzmon’s insight into the organism created by the Zionist movement is explosive.” Professor William A. Cook


“A pioneering work that deserves to be read and Gilad Atzmon is brave to write this book!” Dr. Samir Abed-Rabbo


“Gilad’s escape from spiritual claustrophobia towards a free and open humanitarianism is fearless” Robert Wyatt


“In his inimitable deadpan style, Atzmon identifies the abscess in the Jewish wisdom tooth – exilic tribalism – and pulls it out. Ouch!” Eric Walberg, Al Aharam Weekly


“It is more than an academic exercise. It is a revelation!”Lauren Booth, Press TV


“A brilliant analysis that makes what appear to be contradictions in Jewish identity based political behavior not only comprehensible but predictable.” Jeff Blankfort


“Atzmon has the courage – so profoundly lacking among Western intellectuals” Professor James Petras


“Having known Gilad for 25 years, I read the book in English, I heard it in Hebrew and reflected on it in Arabic. Gilad Atzmon is astonishingly courageous” Dr. Makram Khoury-Machool


“Gilad Atzmon is someone who encompasses what it means to be an intellectual.” Kim Petersen, Dissident Voice


“Gilad Atzmon is the Moses of our time, calling all of us out of the Egypt of our boneheaded nationalisms and racialisms and exceptionalisms and chosen-people-isms toward some form of humanistic universalism.”  Dr. Kevin Barrett


“Perhaps only a musician could have written this sensitive, perceptive lament over how so many Jews, believing themselves to be doing ‘what is good for the Jews,’ have managed to carve the heart out of the Palestinian nation and make this tragedy look like the natural order of things.”Kathleen  Christison
“Gilad’s The Wandering Who? would have been a welcome delight to Albert Einstein just as it will be the irritating nemesis for Abe Foxman ideologues.” Dr. Paul Balles 


“A book that will shake up a few people….” Gordon Duff


“Engaging, provocative and persuasive.’ Jeff Gates


“When you finish reading this book, you may likely as well see a different face in the mirror.” Professor Garrison Fewell


“The Wandering Who deconstructs the unique political identity that shapes the reality of the Jewish Nation and the crimes committed in its name. As a non-Jew, I found it illuminating!” Sameh Habeeb, Palestine Telegraph


“The Last Jewish Prophet”  Professor William T. Hathaway

“Atzmon is an iconoclast.” Dr.  Paul Larudee


“Like all truth tellers of any merit Atzmon can expect the wrath of the powers that be and their minions as a reward for what he is exposing.   People like Atzmon will have played a vital role in saving us from ourselves if indeed we do manage to survive.  Love and respect to my brother Gilad Atzmon.” Ken O’Keefe


“The magical and yet extremely subtle gift that Gilad Atzmon offers through his personal journeys in The Wandering Who? is the wisdom of disillusionment.” Shahram Vahdany, MWC News


“Atzmon’s writing respects no sacred cows. His wit is biting, his insight and logic compelling.” Richard A. Siegel


“Sometimes a brash, abrasive provocateur is what is required as a catalyst for genuine debate.” Sunny Singh


“This is a very perceptive and instructive book” Roy Ratcliffe


You can now order Gilad Atzmon’s New Book on  or


A new video  about the book and beyond:
You can now order the book on or



Live Concerts and talks




10 Book Launch:  A Panel Discussion on ‘Jewish Identity Politics’

7:30 pm, Resource for London, 356 Holloway Road, London N7 6PA


12  Gilad Atzmon & The OHE,Queen’s Theatre, Barnstaple


13  The Road to Bop* / Gilad Atzmon & The OHE, Leeds Seven  Arts,


14 The Road to Bop* / Gilad Atzmon & The OHE  @ The Millennium Hall/ Polish Catholic Centre, Sheffeild


16 Gilad Atzmon, The Bell, Market Hill, Clare, Suffolk


17 With Nick Hill, The Bedford Arms, Bedford


18 The Road to Bop* /  A talk and a Concert, Unit 7 Fairfax House, Myatts Fields South, London SW9 7JR


19 Gilad Atzmon and the OHE + workshop, No.1 Shakespeare Street,  Stratford Upon Avon


20 The Road to Bop* / Gilad Atzmon & the OHE Chapel Art Centre Bath


21 The Road to Bop* /Gilad Atzmon with  Alan Barns,  Coljazz RAFA, Rochester


22  The Road to Bop* / Gilad Atzmon & The OHE Hideaway, London


23 The Road to Bop* / Gilad Atzmon & The OHE, Calstock,Devon 


24 Gilad Atzmon @ David’s Bookshop, Letchworth


25 The Road to Bop* / Gilad Atzmon with Frank Harrison  @ Albion Beatnik Book Shop, Oxford


28 Gilad Atzmon & The OHE,Bimhuis, Amsterdam, Holland


29 Gilad Atzmon & The OHE, Umea Festival, Sweden


31 Gilad Atzmon & The OHE, Trondheim, Norway



1 Gilad Atzmon & The OHE, Trondheim, Norway

*The Road To Bop- Ahead of his concert, Gilad will give a talk about his first encounter with Jazz music and its impact on his ethical and philosophical stand. The talk will explore different aspects of music and their direct link with Gilad’s views on morality.

Posted in LiteratureComments Off on New Book, endorsements, concerts and talks



Gilad Atzmon on The Kevin Barett’s Truth Jihad Radio Show

On 28th September I was a guest on the Kevin Barrett’s radio show.  We spoke about everything: Israel, Palestine, freedom of speech, Islam, Judaism, Jewish identity, Zionism, Nazism vs. Zionism,  The Guardian and its ‘new cult’ , The Wandering Who, The Wondering me, the ‘left’, Jewish ‘anti’ Zionism and more.

Chating with Kevin is an inspiring event.

To listen to the radio show click here.

Posted in PoliticsComments Off on Gilad Atzmon on The Kevin Barett’s Truth Jihad Radio Show

Foreign Interests In Our Midst

Gilad Atzmon

The Jewish Chronicle reported yesterday that Israeli War Criminal Mrs Tzipi Livni is heading to Britain following the amendment of Britain’s universal jurisdiction law.

Under the old terms, ethically driven British citizens were able to apply for an arrest warrant for suspected war criminals. That meant that Israeli political and military leaders were strictly advised to stay away from this kingdom.

Legislation has now brought a new requirement aimed at preventing the courts from being used by morally driven individuals. The in-justice secretary, Ken Clarke, outlined how changes would give the Director of Public Prosecutions veto power over arrest warrants.

Mrs Livni was at a risk of being arrested due to her direct role in Operation Cast Lead, 2009.

The recent change of Britain’s Universal Law of jurisdiction was the outcome of some relentless Israeli Lobby pressure. As it happens, the Jewish Lobby in Britain promotes foreign interests in our midst but it also damages the ethical scope of British legislation. It clearly manages to derail Britain’s ethical stand.

What British citizens receive in return is indeed an open question.  It is about time Britain reinstated its independence. It is about time it is run from London rather than from Jerusalem.

You can now order Gilad Atzmon’s New Book on  or

Posted in PoliticsComments Off on Foreign Interests In Our Midst

Shoah’s pages


October 2011
« Sep   Nov »