Category Archives: Provocateurs

Book Review of Gilad Atzmon’s “The Wandering Who”

Book Review of Gilad Atzmon’s “The Wandering Who”

Elias Davidsson, November 16, 2011

A compendium to Mein Kampf

At the outset, the author, whose main qualities are neither modesty nor civility, makes sure to inform the reader about his courage and fame as a jazz saxophone player. His book, presented as an essay on Jewish identity politics, is essentially a fraud. The object of the book is to demonstrate the existence of a global Zionist network, that according to the author determines U.S. foreign and domestic policy, in short a network whose purpose and effect is world domination.

The author makes it clear at the outset that he rejects the view of Zionism as a national, colonial movement for a Jewish State in the Middle East. Under the subheading Zionism, a Global Network, he writes: “Zionism is not a colonial movement with an interest in Palestine, as some scholars suggest. Zionism is actually a global movement that is fuelled by a unique tribal solidarity of third category members (…) While in its early days, Zionism presents itself as an attempt to bring the world Jewry to Zion, in the last three decades it has become clear to the Zionist leadership that Israel would actually benefit from world Jewry, and especially the Jewish elite, staying exactly where they are.” (page 19). Adolf Hitler reveals a similar view in his book Mein Kampf: “For [a] while Zionists try to make the rest of the world believe that the national consciousness of the Jew finds its satisfaction in the creation of a Palestinian state, the Jews again slyly dupe the dumb “Goyim”. It doesn’t even enter their heads to build up a Jewish state in Palestine for the purpose of living there; all they want is a central organization for their international world swindle, endowed with its own sovereign rights and removed from the intervention of other states.” Hitler then goes on to describe the nefarious machinations of this Jewish world cabal.

Rejecting the common view of Zionism as a nationalist ideology, the author presents Zionism as a headless, amorphous “organismus” (German in the original): “It is more than likely that `Jews’ do not have a centre or headquarters. It is more than likely that they aren’t aware of their particular role within the entire system, the way an organ is not aware of its role within the complexity of the organism….Looking at Zionism as an organismus (sic) would lead to a major shift in our perspective of current world affairs.”(page 21). The author appears to have borrowed the German term organismus from Hitler, who used it in Mein Kampf to designate the organic nature of a state. Borrowing again from Mein Kampf, the author asks in all innocence: “How did America allow itself be ENSLAVED by ideologies inherently associated with foreign [Zionist] interests”? (page 26 – emphasis added). In Mein Kampf, Hitler repeatedly warned against the “enslavement” of the German nation by world Jewry.

The idea of a Zionist organismus or network appears widely throughout the book. Here another example: “Within the Zionist network there is no need for a lucid system of hegemony. In such a network, each element is complying with its role. And indeed the success of Zionism is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” (page 69) By such description, the author establishes the appearance of an amorphous but well synchronized functional entity that must necessarily possess a brain. Other would simply call it a secret organization.

The author reveals his desperate efforts to demonstrate the existence of such organismus and its responsibility for the initiation of wars of aggression when he arbitrarily selects three leading American Jews, Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby and Alan Greenspan, to represent, as it were, this “collective functioning system”, or as he prefers to call it “third category brotherhood”, an expression that he equates with “racial solidarity” and with “Zionism” (page 21).

Ascribing perfidy to Wolfowitz and his friends, Iraqis are described by the author “as the victims of those third category INFILTRATORS within British and American administrations” (emphasis added). The Bush administration is said to have “complied” with Wolfowitz’s political philosophy (page 25), implying that he had the power to coerce the Bush administration, which duly “complied”. The author makes it clear that according to him the former two individuals are part of a group of Zionist infiltrators who are responsible for the Iraq war: “THEY planned to rob the Arab oil and to simultaneously `secure’ their beloved Jewish state.”(page 26 – emphasis added).

The author asks in what appears as contrived innocence: “How is it that America failed to restrain its Wolfowitzes? How is it that America let its foreign policy be shaped by some ruthless Zio[nist]-driven think tanks?”(page 27). But he does not provide an answer. Had he attempted to answer his own question, he would have had to inquire why the numerous American billionaires and board members of the largest US corporations, including Boeing, Enron, Halliburton, and IBM, did not oppose this alleged Zionist perfidy, if the Zionist plans were contrary to their interests. The inference left unexpressed by the author is, that absent Zionist infiltration, the US ruling circles would not have attacked Iraq (or Panama, or Grenada, or Afghanistan, or Libya) and that US imperialism is actually a Jewish enterprise.

A similar, yet somehow less successful effort, is undertaken by the author to impute to Alan Greenspan, former head of the Federal Reserve, a plan to manufacture the credit crunch and defraud the American people, in order to serve Israel. In order to emotionally prepare the reader for such insinuations, the author mentions, in passing, that Jewish bankers have had a “reputation” as “backers and financiers of wars and even [of] one communist revolution.”(page 27) This casual remark is clearly intended to suggest that Alan Greenspan – by virtue of his Jewish background – is also one of these perfidious bankers. After making these highly suggestive remarks regarding Alan Greenspan, but sensing the danger that readers might regard him as peddling the idea of a “Zionist plot or even a Jewish conspiracy” to defraud America, he says that the US credit crunch was after all nothing but “an accident”.(page 30)

Readers who have not read Atzmon’s writings before, might be surprised to discover that he spends inordinate efforts to discredit anti-Zionist leftist groups such as “Jews Against Zionism” and “Jews for Justice in Palestine”(page 62), i.e. groups who oppose Israeli policies and support Palestinian rights in the name of Jews. For him, such groups exemplify a pathological clinging to Jewish identity. The author takes issue with a long defunct Jewish organisation in Tsarist Russia, the Bund, which opposed Zionism and attempted to represent the interests of Jewish workers. Another defunct organisation that appears to greatly bother the author is the leftist, socialist Israeli organisation Matzpen, one of the first ones to oppose Zionism and the occupation of Palestinian lands. The author writes, under the sub-heading “Matzpen and Wolfowitz”: “For the Matzpenist, to liberate Arabs is to turn them into Bolsheviks; the neocon [who attacked Iraq] is actually slightly more modest – all he wants is for Arabs to drink their Coca-Cola in a Westernized democratic society” (page 108). Leaving aside the absurdity of the claim that Matzpen intended or had the capacity to “liberate Arabs” or turn them into Bolsheviks and that the primary aim of U.S. imperialists is to make Arabs drink Coca-Cola, he reveals hereby his deep hatred towards Jewish socialists and his shallow understanding of imperialism.

Not content to lambast Jewish socialists, the author cites approvingly Karl Marx who believed that “in order for the world to liberate itself from Capitalism it had better emancipate itself from the Jews.” (page 115) The author then writes: “Within the modern Jewish national and political context, Jews kill and rob…[T]he progressive Jew [robs] in the name of `Marx'”(page 123) For Adolf Hitler Marxism was actually a Jewish theory.

The reader will probably be shocked to discover that the author – who claims to support Palestinian rights – actually rejects the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because “it impedes an authentic moral exercise” and because it “fails to provide answers to some different questions that arise as we proceed in time and live through some dramatic changes.”(page 63) He does not explain what he means by these laconic statements and does not appear to base his opposition to racism and to Zionism on any normative ground.

While showing no interest for rights, norms or principles, the author displays a surprising interest in Holocaust Denial: “65 years after the liberation of Auschwitz, we (…) should ask for historical evidence and arguments rather than follow a religious narrative that is sustained by political pressure and laws.”(pages 174-175). He does not reveal what should be asked and why. Is the author doubting that Jews were industrially exterminated by the Nazis? Or does he believe that the Jews themselves organized the Holocaust? He also suggests that we ask “Why were the Jews hated” (page 174), leaving the reader to fill in the blanks. And lest we will not heed his advice, the author admonishes us that should we fail to ask the above questions “we will continue to kill in the name of Jewish suffering.”(page 176).

As these glimpses demonstrate, this is a book that deals primarily with the concept of a Jewish (or Zionist) global and omnipotent conspiracy, notwithstanding the author’s objection that there is no such conspiracy, because Jewish control is exercised openly. The German elite used successfully the deadly myth of a Jewish world conspiracy to divert anti-capitalist sentiment and prevented thereby a Socialist revolution. The price was paid by millions of deaths. This book might one day serve the same purpose for the U.S. elite, particularly as it is written by a bona fide Jew and Israeli. It purports to offer evidence that Israeli agents in the garb of American citizens had for decades manipulated and deceived patriotic Americans, politicians, public officials, journalists and others, to act against the interests of America. In that sense, this book represents a danger both to ordinary Jews and to those who oppose U.S. imperialism. The book is not recommended for the general public.

Maidan snipers: who did or did not know? Everybody knew!

Maidan snipers: who did or did not know? Everybody knew!

So this morning we have a “revelation” EU officials are discussing the reports that the Maidan snipers were not sent by Yanukovich but that they were insurgents firing on both sides.

Immense surprise everywhere!

Well, a few “minor fringe proponents of conspiracy theories” did mention something like that, but for the “proper and rational people” (the folks who watch TV and read the corporate media) this is a big surprise.

Might make you wonder who really did know about this.

I can tell you.  I have seen it happening many years ago, in the wars in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo.  Here is how this works:

How does intelligence work?

One good model of how intelligence works are the “three As”: Acquisition, Analysis and Acceptance.  Let’s look at them one by one:

Acquisition: this is the collection or raw data which includes translations of the world and, importantly, local press, and all other types of “open sources” such as blogs, magazines, press conferences and releases, official news bulletins etc.  The next level is are the proprietary but not formally classified sources.  Think tank reports, banking documents, commercial documents, corporate memoranda, etc.  Then comes the level in which sources, methods and means must be protected and concealed from public view: informal conversations with officials, radio intercepts, conversations with bankers, with transportation officials (trucks, trains, airlines, shipping), reports from political and military attaches and exchanges with other intelligence services.  Actual “spying” or HUMINT also contributes to this level.  All these multi-level sources provide simultaneous provide raw data which is then analyzed on the next level:

Analysis: first, the data is usually classified by some source of system which gives a rating on a) the source itself (reliable? trustworthy?) and then b) on the information received (corroborated? credible?).  The information is then passed on to the next level analyst who will process it and make a synthesis of his/her main finding for his/her department head (by regions or specialization). These guys then go over the findings and present typically present them in an inter-departmental meeting which then is submitted to the next level.

Acceptance: this is a crucial level because the folks getting the processed information from the analytical section are already not intelligence specialists, but generals (this is a political rank, really), politicians, government officials, etc.  They make the key judgment call as to what to do with the info they get.  They also get to express their satisfaction, or lack thereof, with the intelligence they get and that, in turn, has a direct career impact upon the senior department heads in charge of analysis.  In pain English this means that the top analysts take a big risk if they pass on “politically incorrect” or, rather, “politically unwanted” information up the chain of command.  They, in turn, will whether consciously or unconsciously promote those analysts to do not put them in this difficult situation.

This system works pretty well when dealing with low-visibility or politically neutral or minor issues.  But when a government places its full weight behind “theory A” this system often breaks down and begins sending up the chain of command information which will not result in career loss.  “Theory B” rapidly disappears.

The example of Bosnia:

I can personally attest to the fact that the vast majority of sources did report that the so-called “UN Safe Areas” in Bosnia, which were supposed to be entirely demilitarized, were chock full of Bosnian-Muslim forces and that most of them actually hosted a full Army Corps.  Likewise, everybody knew that the US and Turkey were flying in weapons and dropping them in huge amounts in the Bosnian-Muslim controlled areas.  Furthermore, most analysts were also aware the the bombings of the Markale Market were not committed by Serb, but by unknown individuals shooting from Bosnian-Muslim areas.  In my experience this information was, however, usually simply ignored at the level of department heads.  It was not denied, mind you, and in private conversations all the department heads knew about it, but that is where it stopped.  The pretext?  Always the same one: “it’s a rumor and a detail, not really relevant for the overall picture”.  Nevermind that it came in from all sources, including high rated ones, and nevermind that this info was corroborated many times over.  And nevermind that it paints a totally different picture of a false flag operation which resulted in the US and NATO getting militarily involved.

Then, those who organized the false flag operation in the first place will use their contacts in the corporate media to leak the info. At this point of the big and “reputable” media outlets will quote each other and literally bounce that story off each other, sometimes add a few “details” (aka complete fabrications) or pure speculations (really spins) to the story.  At which point all the politicians are presented with a mass media which literally screams “the world is flat!  the world is flat!” and a few highly classified reports which, at best, report that “some sources claim the world is round”.  Guess with whom the politicians will go?

Back to the Maidan snipers intercept

Now listen carefully to Ashton’s reaction to  news about the insurgent snipers:

“I think that they do want to investigate, gosh!”

What?!  Is she seriously suggesting that the new regime, which came to power courtesy of these snipers, will actually investigate itself?  Is she that dumb?  Of course not!  But she is annoyed by this topic so she just tosses in a simple cop-out which basically means “I am not interested, let the Ukies handle it” (knowing full well that they won’t).

Paet, by the way, immediately get the message and gives a new spin to his previous remark: he mentioned this info not because he is outraged, no, only because if this story takes on its own life this “will discredit the new coalition”. Oh how nice of him, he worries that if the truth comes out the Eurofascists will be embarrassed.  Next time, he won’t even bring it up.  Those central European politicians sure learn fast from their western masters.

But Ashton is not even happy with that, she wants to change the topic, and begins making general pious statements about how it is important that the Rada work well.

End of topic, turn the page, next!

This is how it’s done.  I know. I lost my career over something like that.

As for the media, it is even worse.

There are two types of reporters in a conflict zone:

Type A: never leaves his fortified bunker/hotel and only attends the briefing of whichever side he is with.  Then he sends reports back home claiming that these reports come “from the battle zone”.  He could get the same reports by videoconference sitting at home, but nevermind.

Type B: that is the true frontline reporter.  He does run around under bullets, he interviews local commanders, often on both sides, he spends nights drinking cheap booze with local mafia men or mercenaries and he is often very, very well informed.  In fact, his reports are often used by intelligence services (whether by agreement or by other methods).

Type A just parrots whatever he hears.  The problem with type B is that while he is typically very well informed, he also is typically highly partisan to one side or the other.  If he “turns local” and begins to have sympathies with the ‘bad guys’ he soon as to find new employers,  usually smaller magazines and newspapers, or his career ends.  But if he is on the side of the “good guys” (Empire puppets) then he often sees his role as a participant in the war.  He hates the other side and will use his audience to trash it as much as can be.  Bottom line: even if some reporters are very well informed, the system is such that their reports usually get buried in the small or local media.

There is one exception to this rule: specialized magazines.  During the war in Bosnia you could get far better information from magazines like the US Army’s Parameters, the USN Proceedings or the Reports of the US Military Studies Office or the Occasional Papers of the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst, than from the Washington Post or the Wall Street Journal.  This applies to non-English speaking countries too: France, Belgium, Russia, Brazil – they all have their specialized magazines which often are far better informed that the big press.

What does this all mean for you?

What this all means is that the information you are getting from your politicians or the corporate media is at best useless, and typically deliberate fabrications.  There is only one thing you can do about it: throw away your TV, throw away your radio, don’t ever read the papers and basically cut off your brain form the sewage flow.  The next step is to get your info only on the Internet, preferably from “non-major” sources including: local media websites (by local I mean “local to the conflict area”), blogs, discussion groups, specialized and professional websites.

True, there is a lot of garbage on the Internet, so you need to do the same thing as analysts do: begin by rating your sources and then reply mostly on those you trust.  Likewise, you can also begin by rating the information itself.  Language can be a problem, but then built for yourself a list of sources which you trust and which know the local language.

And did you know that it is estimated that 80% of all the information used by a government is “open source” – available to the general public.  As for the 20% of it, it is mostly boring technical stuff of stuff which will become public after a while and but which is critical now.  Not stuff you are ever going to need.

This is not as hard as it seems and most of us doing something similar instinctively.  With a little time and effort cutting yourself totally away from the corporate media and switching to an Internet based selection of sources you trust will give you a totally different view of the world.  If you are then later exposed to the corporate media you will be amazed by the nonsense you hear and you will wonder what the hell they are talking about on the Idiot Tube.  It’s quite fun, really.  Or very discouraging.  Or both.

The exception:

There is one exception to this rule: the new big media which has appeared in recent years to present an anti-CNN option for the world.  First, al-Jazeera, the Russia Today, Telemundo, Press TV, etc.  They have vested interest in debunking the Imperial lies and in presenting the true facts.  However, the example of al-Jazeera which almost suddenly became a propaganda tool during the war on Libya should make us cautious and careful and always keep a eye on whether any of these Internet TV are becoming yet another propaganda tool.


This sniper business is going nowhere.  Everybody knows about it, and nobody cares.  Just like everybody knows that the Right Sector and Svoboda are neo-Nazi parties, just like everybody knows that the new regime is illegal, illegitimate and that it came to power by deceit and by violence.  Everybody knows and nobody cares as long as “our SOBs win”.  So use this opportunity to “retaliate” against the plutocracy which controls the entire informational space except the Internet and reject their sources.  All of them.

Kind regards and many thanks,

The Saker