Video: Gilad Atzmon - 'Jewish Controlled Opposition'

ministry of tokyo H I T  M E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjkQbMdTs0Q LOL ... I can hear Gilad  on saxophone at about 1:55.  Assume it was Gilad, as he would have been in the band at this time.  GILAD ATZMON Gilad Atzmon born Tel Aviv secular, right-wing conservative family 1994 - migrates to UK University of Essex master's degree in Philosophy British citizen in 2002 renounced his Israeli citizenship defines himself as "a British, Hebrew Speaking Palestinian" philosopher / Jazz musician / member Ian Dury and the Blockheads (joined 1998) critical of Zionism and various other Jewish related issues/subjects Video:  January 2016 Gilad Atzmon in NYC 'Jewish Controlled Opposition' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbx23Ygj3YM COMMENT I was interested in the 'controlled opposition' in terms of media, public discourse, intelligentsia talking heads etc. in general, before I stumbled on this video. Not sure I've really understood what this is about. Perhaps there is a video that precedes this?  *Edit:  it looks like Gilad Atazmon wants people to have the courage to speak up regarding the Israel-Palestine issue?  It also looks like a prediction of dire consequences of some kind.  It sounds like he's predicting war. Ian Dury's in here because Gilad Atazmon was/is in the group and I like 'Hit Me'. LOL Now I'm distracted checking out oldies I like ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJ4QoCskBN4 This is a bit earlier.  I love the SUDDEN STOP, pause ... and the B I G  R U S H. The climbing guitar thing is very nice, too. What I got out of Gilad Atzmon is the following, if I've understood correctly. History is the opposite of telling what has happened:  it is, according to Atzmon, an institutional attempt to conceal shame by building a zig-zag narrative around shame. I'm not entire sure what he's referring to. I see history and the official narrative as a matter of power and control, rather than shame. I'm not sure if my perspective is skewed, because I tend to see power (or lack of power) in just about everything. Atzmon says that there is a holocaust every 70 to 100 years. Said it was important to look at historical events in perspective.  By that I think he means looking at a wide picture; like a panoramic view of history.  But I'm not entire sure, as he didn't elaborate in this clip. Conveyed that there's not much difference between the left and the right, between the Cultural Marxists and the 'enlightened individualism' brigade.  Mentioned Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum (Ayn Rand) who was the icon of 'enlightened individualism'.  Talked about a 'brotherhood' of the 'most horrible Zionists' and what sounded like the 'JDP'.  But I can't find 'JDP', so I'll have to listen again to see what he's talking about, if I can make it out.  *Edit:  I'm not certain what he is saying, but going by the Greta Berlin entry in Wikipedia, it could possibly be JDL that he is referring to - although it still sounds like he's saying 'JDP' or something. Discusses the silencing of his voice, that of Greta Berlin, Ken O'Keefe (I think it was). Refers to Greta Berlin, pro-Palestinian activist motivated by 1967 Six-Day War. Began non-profit charitable organisation to send medicine and aid to Palestinians.  Internal Revenue & FBI then began getting involved.  Jewish Defence League caller allegedly told her her children would be killed if any passengers were murdered in airline hijackings that were going on at the time.  Greta Berlin withdrew from activism for 15 years, for the sake of her children. Asks: don't we believe in free discourse? Refers to the neocons: refers to Jewish sounding names and says "It's a Zionist synagogue; it's not a secret." Refers to a 'chain of disaster' and mentions factors in history, going from Cold War, Frankfurt School, bankers, capitalists, the 'Palestinian story', 2008 Crisis, Lehman Bros, Larry Summers, Deregulation, Alan Greenspan. Then asks what they have in common.   Assume he's referring to the Jewish role in these various factors. Says if we don't talk about it, there will be a disaster. Says when the chain is seen and understood as being "Jewish related", you become more clever than the system. This is when the real global disaster will happen. Gilad Atzmon says that the 'cognitive elite' are very quick to escape and says that they get bailed out. However, what he refers to as the 'cognitive elite' might, in fact, be the economic and political elite, to my way of thinking. Predicated disaster, I think.  Friends in Turkey feel it is coming, says Atzmon.  Said that there will be a lot of innocent people dying - not only Jews.  So he is predicting a war? Atzmon asked if Palestine is the problem, how is it possible that all the doctors are Jewish and will 'we' reveal the problem if 'we' are connected to the problem? Whether it is Finkelstein, Chomsky, Gidon Levy, Gilad Atzmon (himself) ... and others mentioned. Asks how it is possible that they are the prime doctors? I'm not sure why he thinks Palestine is such a problem that it will lead to world disaster.  Or, perhaps, this is just one of the problems.  Not clear to me. That lecture was in January of 2016, so it's current. I think what he's trying to say is that public discourse on the subject (or subjects?) is dominated by Jewish representatives. At some stage of the lecture, Atzmon referred to: George Orwell - saw it coming (Spanish Revolution?) Wrote '1984' controlled opposition = Emmanuel Goldstein character - Emmanuel  (Heb.  'god with us') - righteousness - Atzmon says:  righteousness totally fictional George Orwell understood there was something there; a controlled opposition. Why did Orwell pick a Jewish name, Atzmon asks.  Orwell fought in Spain. referring to:  1936 Spanish Revolution (?) (I think ... will have to double-check that) Atzmon says:  25% of International Brigade were Jews /  lingua franca was Yiddish We are not allowed to talk about it. His friend doesn't talk to him because he wants to talk about the Spanish war. We are not allowed to talk about Emmanuel Goldstein being a Jew. And why? Atzmon says: the element that sustains this regime is called: post-political correctness What is 'political correctness': political correctness is politics that does not allow political opposition Politics that does not allow political opposition is called: tyranny or dictatorship. But in the case of political correctness, it is far worse - far more dangerous. And why, he asks. Because it is self-imposed. Atzmon says: it is small evil planted in each of us that starts to censor us, as soon as we think freely. First time, it hurts; second time, we just avoid thinking; and the third time, we just get used to the idea that we better not think. AND THIS IS WHY in America you have 'activism'. ACTIVISM IS THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF THINKING / Thinking is being creative; thinking is understanding all of that on your own (ie points to board / material discussed) / INSTEAD we subscribe to cultural slogans - eg. BDS - are academics not free type point, I think it was. / to be a thinker is to lift every stone and to be courageous to look under / we owe it to ourselves and owe it to the Jews, because they don't do it for themselves / recommends speaking openly against all odds as remedy to doomed situation we have brought ourselves into. End. Aside from Orwell, Atzmon mentions 'mentors', as follows (look-ups from Wikipedia): Martin Heidegger German philosopher a most original & important philosopher of 20th C. Continental tradition philosophical hermeneutics hermeneutics (theory and methodology of interpretation - biblical, philosophical) René Descartes: located essence of man thinking abilities Martin Heidegger:  thinking is thinking *about* things / originally discovered in our everyday practical engagements Heidegger, contends: capacity to think cannot be most central quality of our being b/c thinking is a reflection upon discovering the world Heidegger argues human more fundamentally structured by Temporality / concern with & relationship to time existing as structurally open 'possibility for being' / importance of authenticity in human existence / finitude of time / being towards death argued truth: original meaning was UNCONCEALMENT language = house of being criticism of technology's instrumentalist understanding in Western tradition as 'enframing' / treating all of nature as standing reserve on call for human purposes Heidegger affiliation with German National Socialism Rector University of Freiberg / did not publicly apologise nor express regret / Wikipedia states he privately regretted his decision No time to look any more at this guy / interesting stuff ... like 'being' etc. But not very practical.  To my way of thinking, this is interesting and all well and good as mental gymnastics.  But the rest of us don't want to live according to the conclusions of these thinkers and their theories and ideals, no matter how impressive their mental gymnastics may appear to academics and intelligentsia devotees. I don't accept the universal and I think what's important must be defended, regardless of any appeals (be it emotional appeals or what presents as 'logical' argument). So my guiding 'principle' (or whatever driver) would be instinct?  Not sure.  It could be:  lunacy?  LOL [RIGHT-CLICK IMAGE, 'NEW TAB'] Martin Heidegger- philosopher stone-and-tile chalet at Todtnauberg, Germany [wikipedia] I can almost feel Martin Heidegger looking at this image.  Enlarge it and feel him on the slopes. todt = dead nau = ??? berg = mountain Jean-François Lyotard French philosopher, sociologist, and literary theorist modernist and postmodern art, literature CRITICAL THEORY music, film, time and memory, space, the city and landscape, the sublime elation between aesthetics and politics / articulation of postmodernism after the late 1970s analysis of the impact of postmodernity on the human condition co-founder:  International College of Philosophy (Paris) under the trusteeship of the French government department of research /  financing is mainly through public funds 'College recognizes that philosophy is better served by being located at "intersections"': Philosophy/Science Philosophy/Law Jacques Derrida is the driver behind the 'intersection' re philosophy approach non-governmental origin *** international span *** not destined to oppose itself supposedly:  designed to to balance and to:  question, open, occupy margins - new this and that WHERE WE WOULD TREAT MORE OF INTERSECTIONS THAN OF ACADEMIC DISCIPLINES {comment:  I don't like the sound of that / stand-alone disciplines sound preferable to me} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coll%C3%A8ge_international_de_philosophie Lyotard member of Socialisme ou Barbarie, 1954 socialist org / offshoot of Trotskyist mob (I think) deviated b/c Trotsky analysis could not explain:  new forms of domination in the Soviet Union Socialisme ou Barbarie: objective to conduct a critique of Marxism from within / during the Algerian war of liberation writings focus on Algerian situation & ultra-left of politics Lyotard:  hoped to encourage an Algerian fight for independence from France played an active part in the May 1968 uprisings 1974:  distanced himself from revolutionary Marxism - book:  Libidinal Economy felt that Marxism had a rigid structuralist approach / imposing 'systematization of desires' / via emphasis on industrial production as the ground culture [comment:  what about the capitalist 'systematization of desires' and emphasis on consumption/production?] - early 1950s:  taught at the Lycée of Constantine, Algeria - early 70s taught University of Paris VIII (to 1987) *next two decades* lectured outside France Professor of Critical Theory at the University of California, Irvine +  visiting professor at universities around the world incl: Université de Montréal in Quebec (Canada) University of São Paulo in Brazil founding director and council member Collège International de Philosophie, Paris split his time between Paris and Atlanta (taught philosophy & French, Emory Uni) CHARACTERISED BY: persistent opposition to universals, meta-narratives, and generality fiercely critical of many of the 'universalist' claims of the Enlightenment several of his works serve to undermine the fundamental principles that generate these broad claims Rejected theological underpinnings of: 1.  Karl Marx 2.  Sigmund Freud {comment:  I had to check that again.  Thought 'theological' was a typo.  It's not.  That's what it says in Wikipedia (unless they made a mistake).  What theology?  I would have thought all Marxists are atheists and that even a psychiatrist would have to separate himself from the superstition of 'god'.   What if they're right and I'm wrong and there is this god thing?  LOL} Rejected Theodor W. Adorno's negative dialectics Lyotard is a skeptic for modern cultural thought / impact of the postmodern condition was to provoke skepticism about universalizing theories / due to post WWII advancement of techniques & tech: / we have outgrown our needs for grand narratives grand narratives grand, large-scale theories and philosophies of the world, eg. progress of history, knowability of everything by science, and possibility of absolute freedom Jean-François Lyotard argues against the possibility of justifying the narratives that bring together disciplines and social practices, such as science and culture "the narratives we tell to justify a single set of laws and stakes are inherently unjust." / loss of faith in meta-narratives = effect on perception of science, art, and literature. "Little narratives have now become the appropriate way for explaining social transformations and political problems." [wikipedia] {ie. versus 'meta narratives' } "As metanarratives fade, science suffers a loss of faith in its search for truth, and therefore must find other ways of legitimating its efforts" /  +  world where technology has taken over grand narratives grand, large-scale theories and philosophies of the world, eg. progress of history, knowability of everything by science, and possibility of absolute freedom ceased to believe that narratives of this kind are adequate to represent and contain us all points out: no one seemed to agree: -  on what was real - + everyone had their own perspective and story we:  alert to difference, diversity, the incompatibility of our aspirations, beliefs and desires thus:  postmodernity characterised by an abundance of micronarratives {comment:  I disagree with relevance of these 'micronarratives'} from concept of 'abundance of micronarratives': Lyotard draws from the notion of 'language-games' found in the work of Ludwig Wittgenstein /  is based on mapping of society according to the concept of the language games Language-game (philosophy) German:  Sprachspiel philosophical concept - Ludwig Wittgenstein - Friedrich Waismann =  examples of language use and the actions (into which the language is woven) forms of language simpler than the entirety of a language itself (Wittgenstein) rejected the idea that language is somehow separate and corresponding to reality speaking of language is part of an activity / or a form of life =  gives language its meaning Lyotard's discussion re language-game =  primarily applied re contexts of authority, power and legitimation > concerned to mark distinctions between a wide range of activities in which language users engage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language-game_%28philosophy%29 Lyotard re language-games "The development of history is seen as a steady progress towards civilization or moral well-being" "...  thought that universality is a condition for something to be a properly ethical statement: 'thou shalt not steal' is an ethical statement in a way that 'thou shalt not steal from Margaret' is not. The latter is too particular to be an ethical statement (what's so special about Margaret?); it is only ethical if it rests on a universal statement ('thou shalt not steal from anyone'). But universals are impermissible in a world that has lost faith in metanarratives, and so it would seem that ethics is impossible. Justice and injustice can only be terms within language games, and the universality of ethics is out of the window. Lyotard argues that notions of justice and injustice do in fact remain in postmodernism. The new definition of injustice is indeed to use the language rules from one 'phrase regimen' and apply them to another. Ethical behaviour is about remaining alert precisely to the threat of this injustice, about paying attention to things in their particularity and not enclosing them within abstract conceptuality. One must bear witness to the 'differend.' In a differend, there is a conflict between two parties that cannot be solved in a just manner. However, the act of being able to bridge the two and understand the claims of both parties, is the first step towards finding a solution."  source {comment:  I'm bored now ... might leave it here} source ------------------------------------------- What is the obsession with 'morality'? I never give morality a thought.  Or very rarely. The part about the development of history as steady progress towards 'moral well-being' sounds like crap to me. 'Civilisation' is not a universal benchmark, even from within 'civilised' societies ... let alone the not so civilised. Man is uncivilised. 'Civilisation' is a veneer. Even where civilisation exists to some level, civilisation is fragile.  Chaos is never far away.  And the fall of civilisation is maybe even inevitable. Morality is what?  It is structured by man and it is PARTICULAR to the social order of particular people etc. There can be no 'progress' or progression to what is a particular developmental and historic accident of a particular people, when this is not a universal path or truth.  They're my initial thoughts. So how can you have 'progress' to something that does not exist outside of Frame A Civilisation or Frame B Civilisation, which are not one and the same? Screw 'morality':  I'm thinking it's really is over-rated. What is the point of morality, if the world is full of sociopaths who will screw you at any opportunity, and if the system itself is sociopathic?  LOL I'm starting to think what they call 'morality' is just a secular means of controlling the sheep. It's a huge disadvantage being saddled with 'morality'.  But I think it might be very difficult to cast off whatever sense of 'right' or 'wrong' people are raised with. As for these philosophers:  they lecture in French, American and Canadian universities of capitalists.  So how independent can they possibly be?  LOL Getting back to the Gilad Atzmon video:  I was surprised there was criticism of Naom Chomsky.  I think he's wonderful. And he's sort of cute, like a puppet. Got me wondering whether Gilad Atzmon is some form of 'controlled opposition'  ... LOL Not sure what point he's making. I would argue that non-Jews are not out of the 'debate' loop because they stand back from public debate they consider to be taken care of by the Jewish opposing sides of the debate: few are (a) game or (b) independent or (c) professionally immune from consequences of speaking out and (d) few would be afforded a platform to express contrary viewpoints. If anyone of note is even mildly critical of, say, Israel or Zionism, there is strong opposition, condemnation and international media/public drama coming their way from pro Israel/Zionist organisations, Western media, Jewish journalists and talking heads (as well as the whole of mainstream media ... LOL), various 'progressive' keepers of Western morality etc, along with non-Jewish political allies (which would be probably be just about all the Western mainstream politicians and talking heads).  For an example of the drama politicians can expect for, say, supporting the Palestinians:  look at the drama in the UK, where Jeremy Corbyn was targeted for a political take-down as Labour leader, while Ken Livingstone was crucified by all and sundry.  LOL So (in my opinion) it's not exactly the way Atzmon depicts it, where there's two opposing Jewish sides to a debate, and because they're engaged in this debate, non-Jews willingly step back from a debate, on the basis that the Jewish opposing sides are 'taking care of it' or whatever. There is nobody to engage in such a debate, because there's probably few non-Jewish talking heads that are independent in terms of politics, or 'professional immunity', or independent in terms of ideology, and there's maybe few that can afford the flack. Also, there appears to be concentration of mainstream American media (and entertainment) that is under Jewish control.  Jewish journalists have (proudly) conceded the media and entertainment control in articles, for anyone that wants to look this up.   So that doesn't exactly support the likelihood of presentation of alternative viewpoints or opinions in mainstream media. On top of this, Western journalists, politicians and officials from various countries make official visits to Israel, which is bound to lead to a projection of Israeli influence. If any Western politician is considered to have spoken 'out of turn' (ie be critical in some way of Israel's actions or policies, however mildly), there's a guaranteed hue and cry in the media. I don't think Noam Chomsky is deserving of the criticisms in this video.  Whatever he has said in the videos I've viewed has been sound.  And I don't see him as part of the 'controlled opposition'.  Nor do I see Chomsky as a 'Zionist' (unless Atzmon was kidding, or something?).  Chomsky sounds like a left-leaning academic to me.  But I'm not sure if he is; I've not really taken an interest in his political leanings. As much as I admire Chomsky, Chomsky and I diverge sharply when we enter into refugee territory:  I see absolutely no responsibility on the part of Europeans for taking 'remedial' actions that (a) disadvantage Europeans or (b) divest Europeans or (c) destroy European nations, regardless of what European capitalists and their US-Anglo capitalist partners have done, and however 'responsible' these capitalists and their politicians are for any consequences of foreign policy or intervention abroad. For me, that 'responsibility' does not translate to some follow-up action and the 'responsibility' does not transfer to the European people.  For me the 'responsibility' is simply theoretical:  it's not practical and is not an obligation.  It ends there.  It does not translate to destruction of European society to make 'amends'. I don't know how much of this I'll remember.  Pathetic, considering this isn't even really scratching even the surface.  But I'm just an average person with limited intelligence. Some of this might eventually sink in with repeat exposure on my travels. I'm finishing up with Marc Bolan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYUkAXrqWvY P.S.  ...  I'm not really big on reading about the finitude of time.   It's so depressing being aware that your being - your very existence and your every action - is so pointless and that you are so close to being extinguished eternally. I've added in a couple of key points I missed out on, while I got side-tracked with the philosopher look-ups.