From Yahweh to Zion by Laurent Guyénot

luc

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Gilad Atzmon has an interesting article about the recent pedophilia/sex scandals that involve many Jews - he also summarizes his theory of how "controlled opposition" emerges quite naturally among Jews:


In my recent book, Being in Time, I analyse Jewish controlled opposition. I argue that some self-identified Jews end up being on both polar extremes of every debate that is even mildly relevant to Jewish existence: Those who have recently been disturbed about the Jews who are at the centre of the impeachment trial have also found that Jews hold key positions on Trump’s defense team. Those who accuse Jews of pushing immigration and multiculturalism can’t deny that Trump’s senior policy advisor on immigration is Stephen Miller and that breitbart.com was “conceived in Jerusalem.” The Palestinians’ solidarity movement is dominated by a few well organized Jewish solidarity groups that do little but divert the discourse from the Palestinian right of return and exhaust the movement in their relentless witch-hunting of truth speakers and seekers.

In Being in Time, I point out that as soon as an issue or event is identified as a potential Jewish problem, a Jewish satellite dissent emerges to ‘calm things down.’ As soon as Corbyn became the modern Amalek (‘existential threat’), Jews for Jeremy was formed to dismantle the idea that Jews hate Corbyn collectively. Those who view Capitalism as a Jewish construct are similarly reminded that Marx was also a Jew. In Being in Time I argue that none of this is necessarily conspiratorial. It is only natural for Jews to denounce the crimes that are committed on ‘their behalf’ by a state that defines itself as ‘The Jewish State.’ The same applies to Jews who are genuinely tormented by the vast over representation of Jews in some problematic spheres. Yet, the outcome of all this is potentially volatile: every crucial debate regarding the West and its future; Globalism, Neocons wars, capitalism, immigration, multiculturalism, Israel and so on, is too frequently reduced into an internal Jewish exchange.

It was therefore just a matter of time before some Jews would admit that the involvement of a few prominent Jewish celebrities in some spectacular sex crimes is becoming rather embarrassing and even dangerous for the Jews.

It seems as if Jonah Goldberg has launched the ‘Jews against pedophilia’ campaign. Today, The Jewish World Review published an article titled “French pedo flap a cautionary tale for OUR cultural aristocrats.” In the commentary, Goldberg digs into the activities of Jewish radical ideology, along with those of the notorious paedophile, Gabriel Matzneff.

Goldberg was triggered by a New York Times article that examined the rise and fall of the paedophilia devotee. Matzneff is 83, an old man now, but he has been the darling of the French literary world and media for decades: his work was supported by leading newspapers and literary publications. “He’d appear on highbrow TV shows,” Goldberg writes, where he’d “regale interviewers and audiences with the sublime pleasures of having sex with children in France and on sex tours of southeast Asia.”

In his book “Under 16 Years Old,” Matzneff wrote, “To sleep with a child, it’s a holy experience, a baptismal event, a sacred adventure.”
But the contrast Goldberg draws between Jeffrey Epstein and Matzneff is surprisingly clumsy: “The well-connected billionaire spent vast sums to keep his sexual abuses at least somewhat secret. Matzneff not only confessed to his crimes, his confessions were celebrated as literary contributions.” I feel the need to remind Goldberg that nicknaming one’s plane the “Lolita Express” is hardly an attempt to hide one’s sexual morbidity and crimes. If anything Matzneff is like Epstein in that both celebrated a peculiar sense of impunity. Needless to mention, no Jewish outlet denounced either of them or their not very secretive activities before they were caught and charged.

Jewish Radicals and the role of the Orgasm

Next comes the ‘rationalisation.’ “Matzneff was a Child of 68,” Goldberg writes, “a product of the left-wing ‘May 68’ movement that shook France in the 1960s. These radicals subscribed to the idea that anything smacking of traditionalism or bourgeois morality was backward. Conventional sexual morality was part of the same rotten edifice as imperialism and racism.”

Goldberg doesn’t approve of the ‘Jewish radicals and their ideology. He reminds us that “a few years ago, Daniel Cohn-Bendit (a.k.a. Dany le Rouge), the famous former radical and leader of the European Green movement, got in hot water for his earlier writings and statements about “erotic” encounters with 5-year-olds. He (Cohn-Bendit ) dodged major consequences by disavowing his own words, saying they were merely intended to provoke.”

Goldberg is a well-known and successful writer, he could have published his criticism of Matzneff and Jewish radicals in numerous national American news outlets but, presumably he made the decision to use a Jewish outlet. Whether intentionally or not, Goldberg provides an insight into Jewish survival strategy in general and Jewish controlled opposition in particular. Criticizing radical philosophy and the advocacy of pedophilia on ideological grounds by Jews in a Jewish media outlet conveys the image that Jews can deal with their problems. The goyim should let it go or, even better, move on.

But Goldberg’s account is either mistaken or misleading. The sex revolution that branched into advocating paedophilia wasn’t invented in 1968. Its radical Jewish roots take us back to the 1920-30s and, in particular, to the early work of Wilhelm Reich.

The Following is an excerpt from Being in Time in which I delve into Wilhelm Reich and his ‘genital utopia.’

In his 1933 work, The Mass Psychology of Fascism, Jewish Marxist and Freudian psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich attempted to explain the striking victory of ‘reactionary’ Fascism over ‘progressive’ Communism. Reich was desperate to rescue the relevance of revolutionary Marxism. In order to do so he formed a new ‘post Marxist’ theoretical outlook to explain why the Germans of his time favoured ‘authoritarianism’ over a ‘preferable’ communist revolution.

According to Reich, the attraction of reactionary and conservative politics and the inclination towards fascism is driven by a long history of rigid, authoritarian patriarchy which affects the family, parenting, primal education and eventually, society as a whole.
Of course, the remarkable popularity of fascism in Europe could have provided the scientifically-orientated Reich with a clear refutation of Marxist working class politics, theories and predictions. After all, dialectical Marxism had failed as a social theory as well as a methodical prophecy. But for some reason, he, like many other Jewish intellectuals of his time, decided to stick with Marx. Hoping to rescue what was left of dialectical materialism, and insisting that true communist political revolution would prevail once sexual repression was overthrown, Reich synthesized Marx and Freud into a ‘Sex Revolution.’

Wilhelm Reich posited that sexual liberation on a mass scale would save Marxist dogmatism and working people as well. In chapter five of The Mass Psychology of Fascism, he declared war on the patriarchal and conservative family which he saw as being at the core of mass conservatism: “From the standpoint of social development,” Reich wrote, “the family cannot be considered the basis of the authoritarian state, only as one of the most important institutions which support it.” The traditional family is a “central reactionary germ cell, the most important place of reproduction of the reactionary and conservative individual. Being itself caused by the authoritarian system, the family becomes the most important institution for its conservation.”

In the eyes of the neo-Marxist affection, both romanticism and traditional family values were obstacles to socialist reform and Reich’s vehicle towards the new world order was … orgasm! In his 1927 study, The Function of the Orgasm, he came to the conclusion that: “there is only one thing wrong with neurotic patients: the lack of full and repeated sexual satisfaction.” In the hands of Reich, the Marx-Freud hybrid was leading to what some critical cynics dubbed “genital utopia.”

Reich believed that for women within the patriarchal society, sex was within the realm of duty and/or restricted to procreation. “The maintenance of the authoritarian family institution requires more than economic dependence of wife and children on husband and father. This dependence can be tolerated only under the condition that the consciousness of being a sexual being is extinguished as far as possible in women and children. The woman is not supposed to be a sexual being, only the producer of children.”(The Mass Psychology of Fascism, Wilhelm Reich pg 56 37. Ibid pg 56)

Within the traditional society, the woman was robbed of any libidinal consciousness: “This idealization of motherhood is essentially a means of keeping women from developing a sexual consciousness and from breaking through the barriers of sexual repression, of keeping alive their sexual anxieties and guilt feelings. The very existence of woman as a sexual being would threaten authoritarian ideology; her recognition and social affirmation would mean its collapse.” Women were mere baby factories, who had only an instrumental role because: “Imperialistic wars require that there be no rebellion in the women against the function that is imposed on them, that of being nothing but child-bearing machines.” This description of the woman and the family fits the traditional Jewish orthodox family rather better than, say, the German, French, Italian or Spanish family cell.

But Wilhelm Reich wasn’t only a dialectic social revolutionary, he was also a pragmatist. He invented the Orgone Energy Accumulator, a wooden box about the size of a telephone booth, lined with metal and insulated with steel wool. The Orgone itself was a vague concept: an esoteric energy, a universal life force that was massless yet omnipresent and promised to charge up the body with the life force that circulated in the atmosphere and which he christened “orgone energy.” His Orgone box promised to improve “orgastic potency” and, by extension, physical and mental health . Thus, the newly liberated Western subject was invited to experience the true meaning of Marx and Freud through sweating towards full emancipation by means of accumulating ‘Orgone energy’ in this wooden box.

Those who watched Woody Allen’s comedy film Sleeper (1973) probably remember the Orgasmatron – the orgasm inducing machine. In Allen’s satirical take on Reich’s Orgone box, it is actually the authoritarian regime that encourages its citizens to emancipate themselves by means of their genitalia. In Allen’s prophetic movie, the orgasm, like consumerism is a reward from the oppressive regime that diverts the masses’ attention from their existential misery.

The ‘authoritarian’ Germans, both fascist and communist, quickly expelled Reich from their ranks. By 1934, even Freud didn’t want anything to do with Reich. The progressive Americans however, tolerated his ideas, at least for a while. Reich was eventually arrested and died in an American prison leaving behind some radical minds, still convinced that the Orgone box was acting as a greenhouse for cosmic, libidinal energy. Within the free-ranging pornographic realm in which we live, the universe has become an extended Orgone container: pornography is free to all; genital sex is deemed almost Victorian; heterosexuality, at a certain stage, was on the verge of becoming a marginal adventure. And yet authoritarianism hasn’t disappeared. Quite the opposite; to borrow Marx’s metaphor – it is sex and pornography rather than religion that have become the opium of the masses. And yet, this ‘progressive’ universe in which we live didn’t defeat the inclination towards violence. We are killing millions by proxy in the name of moral interventionism and Coca Cola.
I must say this whole topic is still somewhat of a hot button issue for me; yet at the same time, I think it's extremely important and requires some serious, careful and nuanced thought.
 

Phlebas

The Force is Strong With This One
Hello everyone :-) Thank you for this recommendation and thread. As others have mentioned the way the author creates a narrative line across the last 3000 odd years is awe inspiring. Once the thoughtful contributions and connections you guys have provided are added in, this stream of knowledge has changed my perception of human history entirely.

To echo Collingwood’s view that History is the study of the mind, this book is a laser sighted analysis of the collective mind of Judaism.

The fact it was recommended on this forum of critical minds quashed any fears I may have had about the book being a ill thought out hit piece against “The Jews”. I can’t recall any part of the author’s arguments that even broader on a attempt to place blame on an individual level.

If anything I think I am more sympathetic to the trauma the modern average jewish person has infected on them at a cultural and religious level now. I would be sympathetic towards someone who had grown up with a pathological parent but this abuse seems so interwoven into the fabric of judaism that it now strikes me as the longest case of ritual abuse there has every been.

From the initial declaration of possession from Yahweh onward the amount of double binds that have been forced upon those identifying as jewish is head spinning and it would seem the concept of antisemitism is an attempt to project that spirit crushing state of affairs onto us “Goy”

I had a number of realisations during the reading of this book that really drove home the importance of a person's frame work of analysis and how their own cognitive biases can hamper getting to the truth of a situation.

Before become acutely aware of the way the sociopathic mindset had been weaponised into the ethnic and religious frame work of Judaism I would always tend to down play the potential of a global jewish conspiracy that spanned thousands of years as I attributed too much credit to an individuals ability to resist such influences.

For every Henry Kissinger there was a Chomsky openly criticising Israel but now I just can’t shake the feeling Chomsky has been a figure of controlled opposition for quite some time. Unless the individual completely rejects the whole concept of judaism on the basis of not being one of the “chosen” they are likely to be an unconscious agent of that system of dominance. For a modern jew to do that they would have to reject or at least question the modern portrayal of the holocaust which is probably to difficult of a path for many to take.

This book coupled with the above linked article by Gilad Atzmon about Jewish controlled opposition really drove home the futility of engaging with any element of the "Jewish question” with a person who is unaware or unwilling to acknowledge the sociopathic nature of that religion and culture. It can only lead to a endless competition of victimhood and even if one was mined to such a detrimental interaction, who can compete will 3000 years of collective abuse.

While people like Gilad Atzmon seem able to break free of this mental prison they do seem to be quite low in number.

Towards the end of reading this wonderful book I started to listen to The Portal podcast by Eric Weinstein I have not researched Eric Weinstein’s background beyond listening to him on Joe Rogan's podcast but he strikes me as a decent, moral and intelligent person who seems aware of the concept of cognitive bias but still managed to produce a hour long podcast on Jeffrey Epstein and only mentioned Israel once in a passing.

I wasted many a year assuming that capitalism was the purest expression of the sociopathic mindset in the world while now I realise that was just part of the screw job neo-marxism had done on my thinking.

Reading this book, Collingwood and the threads that tear postmodernism to pieces on this forum have been instrumental in helping me start to discard some of that intellectual nonsense. Thanks for the mind scrub everyone :love:
 

Voyageur

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Just finished Gilad Atzmon's book "Being in Time: a post-politcal manifesto". It's very short, but essential IMO to understand what's going on particularly when it comes to today's culture war and identity politics. Although I don't think Atzmon hits the mark on every target, it reads like a crucial missing chapter of Guyénot's book, the second half of the book being particularly enlightening.
It has been on my pile and so finally dove in (have not finished). Right away it was interesting to see Cynthia McKinney opening up with a forward, and as for McKinney she had suffered any number of insults from within and out of the political castle that was once her home. She mentions of her 'booting' from the political body wherein "I was freed to float into post-political oblivion-the place where people who are not chosen go when the Zionists in control no longer want to be reminded of your existence."

As an aside, you can listen to McKinney discuss (when she was there 2011) the NATO bombing of Libya - "the door to Africa," as Cynthia said, and there has been a lot of built up and horrific background since.

In the forward, Cynthia's main question ends citing the "invisible coup" of the pilgrim state, and mentions how Atzmon addresses her questions.

Atzmon in his book delves into the questions of right/left political discourse, which brought up some further thinking, however he does put some light on things in this respect; knowing both need each other to balance (similar to Peterson), yet it is an old game to deeply divide both (a 'culture war' as you said, luc): it became for many on one side simply a hyper-progressive identity base for the left in search for some fountain of utopia, while many on the right are grasping for nostalgia et cetera. So, much of it (the old game) is manufactured political and religious oil and water that can't be allowed to mix.

Atzmon also writes on Marx and many other things in quick chapters, and thus far, in a way, there is kind of a mirror being held up that applies not just to Jewish people alone, which reminds of Paul's Necessary Sin - being children under the law et cetera.


According to Atzmon, as racist and cruel Talmudic Judaism as a religion is, it isn't at the root of the problem, but rather just another manifestation of tribalism and "chosenness". He rightly points out that many (if not most) Jews are secular and hardly know anything about Judaism. But their tribalism and "chosenness syndrome" compulsory drives them towards the invention of all kinds of "chosenness" religions.
McKinney said something about her 2010 venture into Gaza (kidnapped and imprisoned by Israel) wherein she said she had started her career prior in congress and did not even know what a Zionist was. So, on the one hand you have Jewish people not knowing 'anything' concerning their own Judaism, while non-Jewish people understand less of it, and forget Zionism, it's too hard for many on either side to get their heads wrapped around.

I think these 3 books do a darn good job:

Laurent Guyénot, "From Yahweh to Zion"
Israel Shahak, "Jewish Religion, Jewish History"
Gilad Atzmon, "Being in Time" {appreciate the 'Being in Time' recommendation}
Yes, really important, and the first read, as a primer, was Atzmon's 'The Wandering Who?: A Study of Jewish Identity Politics' and one can listen to this older SOTT interview with Atzmon from 2014.

Lastly, and again on McKinney, here is a reminder of her imprisonment in Israel (Fox News 2009):

"We were in international waters on a boat delivering humanitarian aid to people in Gaza when the Israeli Navy ships surrounded us and illegally threatened us, dismantled our navigation equipment, boarded and confiscated the ship."
 
Top Bottom