A review of Being In Time – a post-political manifesto, Gilad Atzmon, Skyscraper Publications, 2017
“There is just one point where I have encountered a difficulty” – Russell to Frege, 1902.
I introduced a talk by Gilad Atzmon, and organised a reading group to discuss his first book, “The Wandering Who?”, about Jewish identity politics. We had many criticisms of it.
The new book is much broader, and better. I have only one major criticism. This article is about that criticism, but though as a result it’s mostly negative, I actually think this book is a major contribution to understanding the times we live in. It explains Donald Trump, Brexit, the left, identity politics, political correctness, and especially, US support for Jewish supremacy in the Middle East. It is undogmatic, finding inputs from a wide range of sources. Atzmon even manages to get something useful out of the book “The Bell Curve” while rejecting its central premise, IQ. I mostly agreed with much of “Being in Time”.
But chapter four, “United Against Unity”, woke me up with a jolt.
But what about Hammed, a metal worker from Birmingham? Hammed identifies as a ‘Muslim’ – can he join a Left demonstration against the War in Syria? It’s a good question and the answer is not immediately obvious because it’s no secret that many of those who subscribe to ‘progressive’ and ‘liberal’ ideologies and especially activists, are rather troubled by religion in general and Islam in particular.
You could have fooled me. In 2003, I attended a large Palestine solidarity demonstration in London. There was a small group of Muslim extremists shouting “Hamas! Hamas! Jews to the gas!”. They were tolerated. Far milder expressions of white identity are violently excluded from left-wing events.
Shortly after criticising political correctness, Atzmon writes
What about Laura? She’s a Muslim convert who often hides her face behind a veil. Does she feel comfortable in ‘progressive’ or liberal gatherings? Not really.
“Feel comfortable”? This is political correctness!
The progressive left on both sides of the Atlantic is more than tolerant of Islam, the most regressive section of Western society.
The American women’s march against Donald Trump selected Muslim misogynist Linda Sarsour as one of its organisers,
and German feminists applauded Islam too.
Atzmon is right to say that a British patriot would not be welcome at an anti-war protest. But he’s completely wrong about the left and Islam.
One of the reasons Muslim men were allowed to get away with raping hundreds of underage girls for decades in Britain is that most of them live under Labour Party-controlled councils. Paralysed by political correctness, sending social workers who noticed that it was primarily “Asians” trafficking the girls, on “diversity” courses, they ignored the problem, or suppressed attempts to expose it, for fear of being called “racist”.
When Labour’s left-wing leader Jeremy Corbyn spoke in the House of Commons about the Grenfell tower disaster, he rightly pointed to Orgreave and Hillsborough as examples of police malfeasance, then he mentioned the Rotherham child-trafficking scandal as another example, again rightly. But he didn’t mention the other major factor: the overwhelming overrepresentation of Muslims among Rotherham’s child traffickers, and the influence of political correctness on allowing them to rape children. Instead, he went out of his way to make a gratuitous remark about Muslims breaking from prayers to help their neighbours in the Grenfell fire:
A more extreme example of the leftist attitude to Islam is the Socialist Workers Party arguing against Islamic terrorism – on the grounds that it wouldn’t work: Socialists Stand With The Oppressed.
Atzmon’s book is pretty good about the connection between identity politics and Zionist power in the West. He’s also right about the overrepresentation of self-identified Jews in the origins of the most sophisticated variants of movements designed to take advantage of Western self-doubt – Franz Boas’s anthropology, Theodor Adorno’s psychology and sociology (the Frankfurt school), Freud, postmodernism and the “anti-racist” anti-science of Stephen Jay Gould. But it’s not only Jewish activists who exploit this loophole. Political correctness also undermines the West’s defence against the influence of Islam.
Page 48: “Jewish ethnocentrism and even Jewish racial exclusivity is fully accepted, while other forms of ethnocentrism are bluntly rejected.”
In fact, the left tolerates prejudice from black activists, usually against white people. “African-American Studies” is positive, whereas the study of “Whiteness” is invariably negative. One can easily find dozens of examples by checking out the sites “The College Fix”, “Campus Reform”, Sargon of Akkad’s videos on Youtube, or reading up on the 2006 Duke University Lacrosse rape case. I suspect that’s the main reason for the left’s support for the socially conservative ideology of Islam – most of its adherents have dark skin.
Page 81: Atzmon claims that the Guardian does not mind offending ‘Islamists’, on the basis of its broadcast of one televised debate between two Zionist Jews.
He’s right about the paper’s hostility to the white workers. When hackette Zoe Williams went to Rotherham to investigate Pakistani taxi drivers raping underage white girls, she dismissed the mostly-white English Defence League as “racist”, instead asking for the opinions of… Pakistani taxi drivers. Atzmon doesn’t realise that this is normal. Muslims usually get gold in the Oppression Olympics. Here are six examples of the Guardian’s Islamophilia:
Zoe Williams: “This brutal blame game pays little heed to justice in Rotherham”
Suzanne Moore: “Poor children are seen as worthless, as Rotherham’s abuse scandal shows”
Jonathan Freedland: “Rotherham inquiry: the ‘PC gone mad’ defence is itself a form of racism”
Nazir Afzal: ‘There is no religious basis for the abuse in Rotherham’
Chi Onwurah – “The grooming of girls in Newcastle is not an issue of race – it’s about misogyny”. In a way, she’s right. It’s not about race, and it is about misogyny. Muslim misogyny. But she doesn’t say that.
The Guardian ran a story “Muslim women ‘blocked from seeking office by male Labour councillors’”. Notice that the religion of the women is mentioned, but not the men. Can you guess why?
Page 125 – ID Politics – the belief that the personal is political unless you are Muslim or white. This reiterates the idea that the left encourages identity politics for all except Muslims and white Europeans. He’s fifty percent right.
Page 129 – Atzmon argues that Islam and Christianity are similar, but Judaism is different, because it’s based on “an obedience regulatory system”, in which “God-loving is not voluntary”. And again on page 197. He argues that Christianity and Islam are universalist, as opposed to the sectarian attitudes of Judaism – “the chosen few”. He’s right about Judaism, and the myth of “Judaeo-Christian”, but he substitutes the equally false “Islamo-Christian”. The only way Islam is universalist is that anyone can join it, and many had no choice. If you haven’t signed up, or especially if you leave it, it’s not a bit universal. Its God is close to the vengeful monster of the Old Testament, not at all like his son, the pacifist who founded Christianity. “Judaeo-Islamic” is a more accurate neologism.
Page 144 – “Real Jewish power is actually the power to silence criticism of Jewish power”. Right. But what is the power to silence the defence of a scientific view of gender differences inside Google? The need to fire a black diversity officer at Apple who said it’s ok to be white? The show-trial of student Lindsay Shepherd, for showing a video clip of a debate on “gender pronouns”? The fact that Nobel Prize-winning biologists can be fired for an opinion, or a joke … and dozens of similar examples, too numerous to mention, and no doubt hundreds which have never attracted the publicity of these cases. Some of them can be found here: “The Left-Wing Campaign Against Liberal Values”. This is political correctness. Jewish power is one of its results.
Social Justice has taken over, not just academic humanities departments, but large sections of the media, and, amazingly, the most important corporations in the world, such as Apple and Google. “Cultural Marxism” is not a paranoid right-wing conspiracy theory.
It’s my contention than Zionists use the same mechanisms as SJWs to manipulate Western societies to do things which are opposed to the interests of most of their inhabitants, rich and poor. Like professors of “African-American Studies”, they use false, or meaningless, allegations of racial prejudice to take advantage of our morality. We can kill both of these birds with one stone.
Support for Israel is a result of political correctness, the expression of a weakness in white European people and societies. The immigration of millions of Muslims, among them many who don’t accept Western values, is another. Atzmon dismisses concern about Islam altogether. But read “Being and Time”. Apart from its blind spot regarding ‘Islamists’, it’s damn good.
Thanks for re-stimulating the debate on Atmon’s ideas. My take continues to mirror Atmon’s . I am currently working with two Muslim women on an event and have had a variety of email exchanges and one meeting. I also just attended a Palestinian Solidarity meeting partially to promote the event with these women.
Bottom line: The Muslim women are far more hip to what is going on in general, and these high powered women in particular are light years ahead of the solidarity activists who have been toiling in vain for 17 years. While at the solidarity meeting Jews were quite well represented I don’t think there was a single self-admitting Muslim there. And there was a heavy reluctance to engage with the Muslim community.
The “radical Muslims” that you saw at the rally in London, were they really “Muslims”? The chant that ironically reinforces myths while discrediting the march at the same time. Sounds like an Arab Spring maneuver. Sounds like a practice version of isis or any of the other zio inspired Muslim movements (like the Wahhabi sect)
Makow has been all over this.
Good point about “Judaeo-Islamic”. I’d put it slightly differently. Judaism is tribal: the Jewish “God” is the personification of “what’s good for the Jews”. That tribe is “ethnic”, or to be more precise, it’s viewed as formed by descent, kinship, race. Christianity is not like that at all. Islam isn’t itself racist – some Muslims are of course racists, but not all are, not by any means, unlike Judaists, who all are. On the whole, Muslims welcome converts and if you show some interest many Muslims will try to convert you, whatever your skin colour. But you are right that it is tribalist in a way that most of Christianity isn’t. Some Christians view leaving Christianity as a sin against the Holy Ghost, or perhaps all do, but most don’t make a big fuss about it. Generally speaking among Christians there’s no great problem with it. This is different from the general view among Muslims when, say, a Muslim woman decides she isn’t a Muslim any more and can therefore marry a non-Muslim if she wants. She will be reviled.
This story is true, but as usual, Gilad’s method is to wait until there’s evidence which conforms to his theory, and then brandish it.
“Apparently, it takes one determined lobby to ruin the future of American scholarship.”
No, there are lots of lobbies doing that. There’s feminism, social justice and radical Islam, to name but three. Trans activists assault people in ‘gender studies’ they don’t like, Noah Carl was dropped from London University for doing valid genetics research into people, Tim Hunt was fired for a joke which offended a feminist, a woman was assaulted at Middlebury for hosting a Bell Curve co-author, the Christakises at Yale and the Weinsteins at Evergreen were driven out by mad black activists and their simpering white allies, the Sullivans out of Harvard for just doing their job and defending another Weinstein, and an ex-Muslim woman was interrupted by Islamic radicals, again at London, and these reactionary mediaeval retards were supported by both the women’s and LGBT societies.
All of this undermines the idea that Jewish power is the principal threat to academic freedom, and this is why Atzmon never mentions it.