Why Do They Hate Atzmon And Love Sand?

by Trevor LaBonte (Mouqawamah Music EXCLUSIVE)

Given that Gilad Atzmon and Shlomo Sand are both former Jews who have provided criticism of Jewish identity politics, it may be illuminating to understand why the organized, kosherized, Palestinian “solidarity community” embraces Sand while rejecting and disavowing Atzmon.

Atzmon’s initial reaction to his own “disavowal” was characteristically humorous, with him stating that he has only ever operated as an individual, and cannot be kicked out of any groups because he never belonged to any to begin with.

At any rate, it is well-known and easily observable that the Zionist-controlled solidarity discourse, whose primary mouth-piece is “Electronic Intifada”‘s Ali Abuminah, is deeply compromised and functions as a gatekeeper establishment, i.e. it seeks to censor “politically incorrect” ideas, while simultaneously providing weak, ineffectual criticism which ignores all of the key issues which would actually end the occupation of Palestine. Atzmon, a very successful jazz artist in his own right, as well as is the saxophonist on the latest Pink Floyd album, has remarked that “Electronic Intifada has reduced Palestinian resistance to an electronic board.”

In general, the Solidarity movement bears the unmistakable fingerprints of the Jewish left (which operates hand-in-hand with the jewish right), manifesting in a relentless need to convince their faithful but somnambulant following that Zionism has nothing to do with ‘Jews’ and Jewish culture, that these are two completely separate, non-intersecting spheres. The result of this programming is an ideological collective of curiously vociferous people whose top priority, above and beyond Palestinian liberation, is to never offend the Jews. These people can be seen on social media, energetically laying out their talking points to convey the image that “Zionism is the only problem,” Jews and Jewishness are positive and peaceful concepts, and are adamant that Jews and Jewish culture are outside the parameters of what can be considered socially acceptable criticism. They try to set us up to fail to address the real problem, which is Jewish exclusivity and Jewish ethno-centrism, something that has been endemic and definitive of Jewish culture for thousands of years before Zionism was even invented.

Also an important aspect of why Atzmon (and those who appreciate and disseminate his work) are shunned in the solidarity movement while Sand is not, is the “Anti-Zionist Zionist” background of Abuminah himself. Does Abuminah’s Princeton background play a role in his politics? Princeton is a very Jewish environment, as well as a very liberal-elitist environment, which would explain his Jew-appeasing softness on so much of the discourse. For example, he is an advocate of the so-called “One state solution for Israel and Palestine.” Of course, the “one-state/two-state solution” debate is itself a textbook false dichotomy, with both “solutions” conveniently ignoring that all of the land still properly belongs to the Palestians, and anyone who says otherwise cannot be said to truly support freedom for Palestine.

In addition, Abuminah has not yet raised the issue of how BDS recently quietly changed its mission statement at the behest of George Soros and his globalist NGOs to forsake Palestinian right of return and also allow for the creation of a Jewish state, supposedly inside the pre-1967 borders. This transforms BDS into a Trojan horse for Zionism, unless it is forced to change its mission statement back. Gilad has spelled this all out many times, including here in his speech at Tahra Ahmed’s “Seek, Speak, Spread Truth” convention in the UK.

The following article in the UK’s “Independent” gives away most of the key points which may explain the difference in the way Atzmon is received as compared to Sand:

“If politics today is often identity politics, the renunciation of a particular identity is inevitably a controversial act. Just as ex-Muslims such as Ayan Hirsii Ali act as lightning rods for fierce arguments over the place of Muslims in the modern world, ex-Jews such as Gilad Atzmon provoke vituperative debates over contemporary Israel and anti-Semitism.”

“In some ways, the Jewish identity refusenik Shlomo Sand does not deserve to be lumped in with Hirsii Ali and Atzmon. He does not present his renunciation as a heroic act. He does not imply that Jewish identity is necessarily perverse and evil. He does not deny or condone the history of anti-Semitism. What Sand does argue, though, is that contemporary secular Jewish identity is at best a delusion and at worst (in the case of Israeli secular Jewish identity) an insidious form of racism. For Sand, the only viable Jewish identity is a believing, religious Jewish identity – and he is not a believer.”

Maybe the reason that Sand has been accepted to kosherized “progressive” discourse is that, although he recently penned in Hebrew the book, “How I Stopped Being a Jew,” he is still essentially pro-Jewish and retains many Jewish ideological precepts.

Still, Sand has made some achievements in opening up the discourse, publishing the hugely important book, “The Invention of the Jewish People,” which finally and definitively admits the truth about Jewish culture and history being fabricated.

But perhaps Sand is a figure in transition, and has not yet come to the point of final realization. Whereas Atzmon has opened up a new avenue for investigation and discussion on the role of Jewish culture in the actions of the “Jewish State,” utilizing his background as an essentialist philosopher to dismantle Jewish identity politics, all of the things that superficially bind the Jews together as a people.

Atzmon is a supporter of Sand’s transition to non-Jew, stating, “Sand’s latest book, How I Stopped Being A Jew,  is a tragic testimony made by a morally awakened Israeli Jew who comes to realise that his spiritual, cultural and political existence is contaminated with Judeo-centric exclusivism and is fuelled by ethno-centric racism. Shlomo Sand decides to stop being a Jew – but has he succeeded?”

Atzmon continues, “[Sand’s] scholarship is pretty much limited to French liberal thinking and early post-modernist theory. The outcome is disappointing at times. How I Stopped To Be A Jew is a ‘politically correct’ text, saturated with endless caveats inserted to disassociate the author from any possible affiliation with anyone who may be viewed as an opponent of Jewish power, critical of Jewish identity politics or a challenger of the mainstream historicity of the Holocaust.”

Atzmon quotes from Sand’s book, “’I don’t write for anti-Semites, I regard them as totally ignorant or people who suffer from an incurable disease,’” (p. 21/Hebrew edition)” and then Atzmon continues, “writes the author who claims to be humanist, universalist and far removed from Jewish exclusivism. It all sounds very Jewish to me. When it comes to the Holocaust, Sand uses the same tactic and somehow manages to lose all wit and scholarly fashion. The ‘Nazis’ are “beasts”, their rise to power metaphorically described as a “beast awakening from its lair.” I would expect a leading historian and ex-Jew to have moved on beyond these kinds of banal clichés.” Sand so far refuses to acknowledge that “anti-Semitism” is not bigotry or racism, it is actually a rejection of Jewish bigotry and racism, another way in which Sand still registers as tribally motivated. Interestingly, the Holocaust remains sacrosanct in Sand’s writings, another prime litmus test for who has or has not made the transition to free thought.

Atzmon, on the other hand, in reference to the open field of holocaust revisionism, has remarked that “history IS revisionism. It is revisiting the past.” Atzmon refrains from saying what he thinks about the so-called Holocaust, no doubt because it is illegal to question the accuracy of its historicity in many countries.

While Sand’s writings admit that the Jews invented their history, he avoids taking the next step and questioning why they are permitted to carry on with the charade. This is precisely where Atzmon’s investigations begin. He is a critic of this aspect of Jewish culture itself, placing him outside the box, outside the “political correctness” parameters set by the so called “progressives.” He goes against the “rules” of the establishment by actually critiquing the Jewish “culture of critique.”

Another point in which Sand is onboard full-stop with the Jewish left and progressives is his disdain for nationalism. Says Atzmon: “Sand understands that Jewish identity politics is hollow, but he may fail to grasp that all identity politics are hollow. On the contrary, nationalism, which he clearly despises — the bond with one’s soil, heritage, culture, language, landscape, poetry is actually a cathartic experience. Though nationalism may well be an invention as Sand and others insist, it is still an intrinsically authentic fulfilling experience. As we all know, patriotic national feelings are often suicidal – and there’s a reason for this – because just sometimes it manages to integrate man, soil and sacrifice into a state of spiritual unification.”

For those keeping score so far, Sand hates “anti-Semites,” is a Holocaust enforcer, defends Jewish culture (even while exposing that it is a fraudulent invention), and despises nationalism. How is he not a Jew? After all, Jewish identity is not of an essential nature, one cannot simply “be a Jew.” Action is required. One must see the world as a Jew, and operate as a Jew, and Sand appears to be doing both.The Solidarity discourse advances the kosher agenda by disavowing people like Atzmon because he exposes that Jewish religion and culture are racist and exclusivist all the way. “Progressive” discourse is conspicuously disallowed to touch on these topics because the sinister goal of progressive discourse is actually to protect this highly vulnerable core-most issue. If one cannot discuss the simple fact that the Jewish state’s policies are inherently racist, there is little one can contribute to peace. Therefore this is the one issue that needs to be repeatedly brought to the forefront. The Jewish State is not evil because it is “Zionist,” it is evil because it is Jewish.

Many have been programmed to react quickly to this statement by pointing out that “not all Jews are Zionists,” however, this tiny yet noisy minority of “anti-Zionist” Jews also operate in racially driven state that is not categorically different from the Jewish-only state. Anti-Zionist jews have their own non-universal Jewish reasons why they want to prevent the world from witnessing the crimes Jews are capable of within the protection of their own sovereign state. However, it could all be a sick game too. (See also: The Tribal Nexus: Zionists and “Anti-Zionists” Unite To Ensure The Survival Of Israel –  http://mouqawamahmusic.net/the-tribal-nexus-zionists-and-anti-zionists-unite-to-ensure-the-survival-of-israel/)

While it is perfectly acceptable for Jews to perform or celebrate certain diabolical aspects of their supremacist culture, the practice of exposing it remains totally forbidden to gentiles for the most part. We are simply not allowed to criticize Jewish culture, because the Jews controlling what is considered acceptable discourse know that if the truth gets out about their racism and intolerance, the core of their power may be shaken. It is eerie that never before in the history of colonization has talk of the religion and culture of the occupiers been forbidden, except for the case of the unlawful and amoral Jewish occupation of Palestine.

There is an easy litmus test which reveals that the solidarity discourse is under the control of the occupiers: should the number one goal of it all to never offend the Jews, who are the usurpers, aggressors, oppressors, invaders, occupiers and colonizers in Palestine? To never examine the occupation within the context of the religion and culture of the occupiers? Clearly this is deeply problematic. Case in point: Can you imagine speaking about the brutal French colonization of Algeria without speaking of French culture, particularly vis-a-vis the “Enlightenment” or the various French interpretations of “Christianity”? Or the British occupation of the Southeast Asia subcontinent without talking about the empire mentality of British exceptionalism (itself based on British Israelism, a demented royal cult of Judaism for Gentiles) and the Church of England? Or the Portuguese colonization of Mozambique without discussing Portuguese “Catholicism” and Portuguese culture? No, no and no. Absolutely not. The very thought of it is unthinkable. Different colonizers behaved differently toward the peoples they colonized, governed (i.e. oppressed) them differently and even killed them differently, and thus, resistance against the colonialist barbarity took on different forms depending on the nature/culture of the occupiers. The fact that these principles cannot be applied to the Jewish invaders in Palestine isn’t just intellectually dishonest, it’s disgusting.

“Anti-Zionist Zionist” gatekeeper figures like Max Blumenthal tow the party line as well and seem to be in the mix only to reinforce this intellectual dishonesty. They wax lyrical about the generic “White Man” and pontificate endlessly about white supremacy and white privilege, but when it comes to the Jew, Jewish privilege and Jewish supremacy, not only in Palestine but in the West, they not only drop the ball but sometimes go as far as pinning the blame on the aforementioned mythical “White Man” for the crimes of their tribal brethren. For Blumenthal, this must be all about self-preservation, as he is the (Jewish-)privileged son of Jewish-Zionist Democratic Party stalwart Sidney Blumenthal. What these thought police do is reinforce Holocaust propaganda, go after revisionists and 9/11 truth activists, they are extremely hostile to the Syrian government — and in the case of Blumenthal, they openly disseminate interventionist propaganda for the Takfiri gangs — they go on and on about how Vladimir Putin is a ‘Nazi,’ they spread baseless sectarian lies about Hizbullah and to someone with his eyes open, it is all very transparently Jewish to the core.

When asked why he is disavowed  and why Shlomo Sand is embraced by Ali Abuminah’s kosher-controlled “anti-Zionists,”, Atzmon answered, “It is very simple… Sand proves beyond doubt that Jews indeed invented their past. However, I start exactly where Sand stops, I ask how do they get away with these lies and for so long. In order to [find the answer], we must grasp the notion of Jewishness and understand the meaning of Jewish power.” Atzmon defines “Jewish power” as the “capacity to stop us talking about Jewish power.”

It is clear that what the Zionist project fears most, what is the only thing that can stop it, is to have the racist nature of Jewish religion and culture fully exposed in broad daylight for all to see, which is what makes Shlomo Sand still kosher within the controlled, Abuminah-worshipping “solidarity” community which is in what Atzmon refers to as an “Anti-Zionist Zionist” organization, and what makes Gilad Atzmon someone the NWO clearly considers one of the gravest threats to its existence.

(Relevant corrections and additions provided by Mouqawamah Music Editor-In-Chief Jonathan Azaziah)

~ The End~

5 thoughts on “Why Do They Hate Atzmon And Love Sand?”

  1. You two must really stop producing such intellectual and thought provoking work. You need to issue more death threats like me 🙂

    Great stuff – the elephant has been in the living room taking dumps and knocking over furniture long enough now. Its time it was fully exposed.

    As for what can be salvaged from being “Jewish”? Paul Eisen has some things to say on that.

  2. “While Sand’s writings admit that the Jews invented their history, he avoids taking the next step and questioning why they are permitted to carry on with the charade. ”

    Jewish bankers.
    Control the money, control everything else.

  3. Here’s how I see it:
    Gilad Atzmon has quit being jewish. He’s quit the religion. He’s left the cult. And, Gilad has not only quit, “being israeli”, but he has exposed the lunatic-state in all its evil.
    Sand, on the other hand, has quit the religion/cult. However, Sand has not quit the culture. Sand has also not quit the so-called, “jewish state”. Sand stands up for, “israel”, minimally by virtue of the fact he continues living there.
    So, why would they hate Atzmon and love Sand?
    Gilad is a threat to the lunatic-state, and to the lunatics, themselves. Gilad tells the whole world what, “zionism and jewishness”, is all about and, perhaps, how to end it. Sand promotes the, “jewish state of israel”, but Sand seems to think there’s a way to soften its ugliness. Sand does not *yet* comprehend that there is no calming that beast. Gilad sees it for what it is and Gilad exposes all of it. You won’t catch S Sand doing this to any degree.

    If one quits the chosenness of jewishness, one must also quit living in the stolen land of, “israel”. What we see is a man who calls himself atheist, yet still sees the jews as chosen! Now, if they are chosen to live on top of the country of Palestine, who chose this for them? How does that make any sense? Were Sand to decide to pay Palestinians for his lease (for he cannot actually be an owner of the land unless he emmigrates to Palestine and becomes Palestinian), I might see him in a different light, but I don’t believe Shlomo Sand sees what he is doing wrong. And this keeps him safe, and I dare say loved, in the land of the jew.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *