NYC: protest Gilad Atzmon at Theatre 80

My ongoing conflict with Gilad Atzmon, professional peddler of the most rank anti-Semitic garbage, appears to be experiencing a new irruption. It emerges that the rascal will be appearing April 30 at Theatre 80 Saint Marks, a venerated cultural institution right in my own neighborhood, Manhattan's East Village. Of course neighborhood residents and other righteous New York antifas have called a protest, just as we did when a Jew-hater was similarly hosted at the supposedly "progressive" Brooklyn Commons last year. You can read the Facebook announcement for the protest. Both Atzmon and Theatre 80 operator Lorcan Otway have gone online with their own responses—and both are riddled with inaccurate claims about Yours Truly. So I have no choice but to clear the air. Here goes...

First Atzmon. In his screed on his own website, "Bill Weinberg and the Progressives' Tourette's Syndrome," he writes (with typically garbled use of quotation marks):

But what really fascinates me about Weinberg & Co , is their vulgar attitude, an attitude soaked in violence. In one short paragraph, while inviting their Facebook friends to picket the Theatre 80 event, the Weinbergs call me a 'racist', an 'antisemite', an 'all-around human garbage fire' and just when you think that his Tourette's syndrome has reached its climax, the same, vile symptoms reappear, I am 'master shitlord.' And Lorcan Otway, a NYC cultural hero, Theatre owner and a defender of freedom of speech is reduced into a "slimy venue owner."

I don't know who "the Weinbergs" are (none of my family members are involved in the protest), but I never wrote the words "all-around human garbage fire," "master shitlord" or "slimy venue owner." That verbiage does appear on the Facebook announcement for the protest, but I didn't write it. Anyone familiar with my writing would recognize it as alien to my style.  Atzmon seems to think that I am the only one in New York who opposes him. Or my family members, of whom he knows nothing.

Next, Otway. He has an opinion piece in the Times of Israel (lovely how these supposed anti-Zionists run to the Zionist press to give them some cover), entitled "Why I give Gilad Atzmon the stage." Invoking his father's defiance of red-baiting as a writer in the McCarthy era (as if this justifies giving a platform to Jew-haters), he also makes some distorted claims about me:

Most of the time, but not always, when people are invited, I agree with them, to some degree or agree that they should be heard. For example, Bill Weinberg told me that I should not have had a group come to my theater and say that the US government blew up the World Trade Center. I agree with Bill — that it is not a rational contention that the government blew up the buildings. However, I did not agree with Bill that I should not let someone say that from my stage. And so, I invited Bill, on my dime, to organize an evening to counter speech with speech. He chose not to do so. Today, Bill feels I should not allow Gilad Atzmon to speak from my stage, in spite of the fact that Gilad invites questions and has opposing points of view on the panel with him — all of which he has organized and for which he is paying.

No, that's not how it went down. While Theatre 80 has indeed opened its stage to 9-11 conspiracy theorists, that isn't what I sought to counter with an alternative event there. What I discussed with Otway was an event at Theatre 80 in support of the Syrian Revolution, to balance the Assad-shilling propaganda he has allowed at the space. And I did not "choose" not to do it. It merely hadn't happened yet. The last I left it (a few weeks ago), I told Lorcan I would get back to him when my comrades and I were ready to hold the event. By his use of the past tense, I assume the invitation is now rescinded.

As you might imagine, Otway's defense doesn't go down very well with Times of Israel's readers. From the comments:

Andrew Michaelson · Saddleback College
Simple question; if Marine Le Pen or the German AfD wanted to book your theatre, would you accept their bookings? If not, why an unapologetic anti-Semite like Atzmon?

David Bernstein · Arlington, Virginia
Freedom of speech doesn't mean that any particular individual has to provide a forum for that speech on his property. By doing so in these circumstances, you are complicit with Atzmon's neo-Nazi views.

A few other observations... Local leftist writer Donna Minkowitz turned down an invitation to be on the panel with Atzmon, correctly perceiving that she was being used as a token Jew to provide cover for a Jew-hater. She called the rascal out in The Forward, in a piece entitled "Why A 'Proud Self-Hating Jew' Asked Me To Tout His Book."

Showing no such compunctions about being thusly used is Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro of the wacky Neturei Karta, who is praised by Atzmon on his website, and is also to appear on the panel. As I've pointed out, Neturei Karta is an ultra-reactionary spin-off of the Satmar Hasidic sect that rejects Zionism on the obscurantist grounds that establishment of a Jewish state before the coming of the Messiah is an abomination before God. While claiming to be "True Torah" Jews who reject mainstream Judaism as apostate, they are quite willing to make common cause with Jew-haters. Their representatives notoriously attended Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Holocaust-denial confab in 2007. They of course deny they are denialists, but they had no problem embracing David Duke with their honored presence in Tehran.

"Ex" Klansman David Duke of course avidly promotes Atzmon on his own website. And Atzmon has returned the favor, praising David Duke, and saying he has been unfairly vilified for being "a proud white man."

None of this is surprising. As I've pointed out before, Atzmon has a website full of Holocaust revisionism, claims that Hitler's anti-Semitism was "in direct response to the declaration of war on Germany by the worldwide Jewish leadership," and shameless defenses of age-old anti-Semitic tropes

And while Atzmon and his defenders hide behind "anti-Zionism" (or "criticism of Jewish culture"), he has been roundly condemned by legitimate anti-Zionists. The US Palestinian Community Network runs "A Call for the Disavowal of the Racism and Antisemitism of Gilad Atzmon." The aggressively anti-Zionist blog Jews sans Frontieres has called out Atzmon as a "classical anti-Semite." The Angry Arab blog also states clearly: "[T]his is somebody that we should reject from the pro-Palestinian advocacy movement."

The protest will be Sunday, April 30, from 4:30-10 PM at 80 St Mark's Place, between First & Second avenues in Lower Manhattan. I, for one, am not calling on Otway or Theatre 80 to cancel the gig, which will just give Atzmon and his vile ilk an opportunity to play the victim and whine about "censorship." But we will use his appearance there as an opportunity to raise the alarm about his noxious politics and how they are being mainstreamed by (mostly) clueless progressives.

Join us.

Weinberg strikes back at Atzmon in Times of Israel

I couldn't let Otway's (shall we say?) inaccuracies about me in the Times of Israel go unchallenged, and responded with a piece of my own there, "Why I am protesting Gilad Atzmon." Please note that I took pains to make clear that I do not share the publication's Zionist political consensus. 

Meanwhile, the problematic activist attorney Stanley Cohen, who will also be on the panel with Atzmon, has a piece of his own on the matter in the (always problematic) Counterpunch... ironically invoking the Lower East Side's history of political dissent to justify opening Theatre 80 to this fascist weasel. You can't make this stuff up.

Upcoming Atzmon protest makes The Villager

Scoopy's Notebook, their gossip page. Almost hoping it doesn't run into "real" news.

Problematic coverage of Atzmon protest in The Villager

Stanley Cohen is featured in The Villager dissing the planned protest in the most dishinest, cynical and dangerous terms—implying that we are akin the JDL, saying we plan to "disrupt" the affair (nobody has used that term until this piece!), and hinting that we are preparing violence.

Atzmon's cute irony

Note that he calls his ugly screed "Bill Weinberg and the Progressives' Tourette's Syndrome" because I accurately call him a Jew-hater—when every third word off his own keyboard is "tribalist," "zionist," "chosenist" or other such epithets that are clearly stand-ins for "kike." Not even a dog-whistle. Even Richard Nixon exercized greater subtlety.

More distorted coverage of Theatre 80 affair

Bedford & Bowery is the latest to weigh in. My response, as it appears in the comments:

How many errors are in this article? Let's count.

1. My leaflet "did not contain any examples of Atzmon's anti-Semitic speech"? Yes it did. Specifically his claim that Hitler’s anti-Semitism was “in direct response to the declaration of war on Germany by the worldwide Jewish leadership,” and his embrace of David Duke as a "proud white man."

2. Nobody denied Atzmon and his fellow panelists "the right to speak," yet this bogus charge goes unanswered.

3. I never called Atzmon a "Holocaust denier," which is something he can deny by skirting the edges of outright denial (merely claiming, e.g. that the Jews had it coming anyway). I wrote that he has "a website full of Holocaust revisionism," which is unquestionably true. He is even speaking this very week at the Holocaust-reviionist Institute for Historical Review in Orange County, California! Yet this isn't mentioned, and his bogus charge against me goes unchallenged.

4. We protested in the spirit of opposing bad speech with more speech. We made no attempt to "repress speech." Yet Cohen's utterly cynical claim that we were inciting violence goes unchallenged.

OK, let's stop at four. I could go on, but those are the most egregious. This is weak, sloppy, fascist-abetting pseudo-journalism. I thought way better of Mary Reinholz.

Better coverage of Theatre 80 affair...

Video of proceedings at Theare 80....

...is online at YouTube. I don't have the stomach to watch it, although I am reliably informed that I am repeatedly mentioned from the stage...

Just for the record....

The text of the flyer I was giving out outside Theatre 80...

JEW-HATERS OUT OF THE EAST VILLAGE

Why is Gilad Atzmon appearing at Theatre 80? Atzmon, a self-proclaimed “Proud Self-Hating Jew,” has a website full of Holocaust revisionism, claims that Hitler’s anti-Semitism was “in direct response to the declaration of war on Germany by the worldwide Jewish leadership,” and shameless defenses of age-old anti-Semitic tropes. He has made a career out of mainstreaming and legitimizing hatred. Oddly, he has admirers on the “left” when he is also a darling of the racist radical right. "Ex" Klansman David Duke avidly promotes Atzmon, and Atzmon has returned the favor, saying Duke has been unfairly vilified for being "a proud white man."

These are NOT the voices that progressives should be promoting. Atzmon has the right to free speech, just like everyone else. But East Village venues with a progressive history have no responsibility to provide him with a stage—indeed, they have the responsibility not to. That is why we are protesting Theatre 80.

As anti-Zionist Jews who oppose Israeli apartheid, we work to fight anti-Semitism here in the diaspora, rather than rallying around an oppressive settler state. That is why we are protesting Theatre 80.

All claims documented and linked at NewJewishResistance.org

More better coverage of Theatre 80 affair...

...in The Villager again, this time by Sarah Ferguson, appropriately entitled "Flirting with the Devil." It makes clear Atzmon's blatant play to xenophobia, recycling the old canard that George Soros is trying to undermine America by "supporting pro-immigration lobbies." The crowd apparently lapped it up, with one audience member railing against the 1965 immigration act that overturned racial quotas.

OK, why exactly are "leftists" giving this jerk the time of day?

More problematic Villager coverage on Theatre 80 affair

Lorcan Otway has an opinion piece in this weeks' Villager, with the dishonest title of "Now more than ever, free speech lives at Theatre 80." I just left the following comment:

I object in the strongest terms to The Villager's apparent attitude that platforming a Jew-hater and objecting to platforming a Jew-hater are equally legit POVs. This is the same kind of bogus equivalism that we all reject when the MSM does it re. climate change, for instance. So now both Otway and Stanley Cohen have had their say on this matter in the pages of The Villager, while I have not—apart from being briefly quoted in Sarah Ferguson's story. My own piece on this and related matters, submitted last week, apparently languishes on the editor's desk.

And Lorcan's invocation of MLK in this context is repulsive in the extreme.

We shall see how this transpires....