Copyright
© 2010, 2012 by Zahir Ebrahim.
All
rights reserved.
For
non-profit Gratis Distribution Only under Fair-Use Doctrine
Words:
20886 |
Pages: 70 |
Printed on Nov 19, 2012
Published
by Project HumanbeingsfirstTM
First
Edition November 2012
DOWNLOAD
PDF
http://tinyurl.com/Invisible-Rothschild
Copyright
© Zahir Ebrahim. Full permission to
copy, repost, and reprint, in its entirety, unmodified and unedited,
for any purpose, in any reproduction medium, granted, provided the
PDF URL above and this copyright notice are also reproduced verbatim
as part of this license, and not doing so may be subject to copyright
license violation infringement claims pursuant to remedies noted at
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html.
All images, quotations and excerpts are based on non-profit
“fair-use” for personal education and research in the
public interest consistent with the understanding of laws noted at
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html.
Partial replication or dissemination of this book with any page
omitted is an infringement. Any use beyond non-profit fair-use
requires written consent from all copyright holders. Verbatim
reproduction license and non-profit fair-use of copyrighted material
noted at http://Humanbeingsfirst.org#Copyright.
This
book is typeset in StarOffice and OpenOffice.
About
Zahir Ebrahim
Zahir
Ebrahim, an ordinary researcher and writer on contemporary matters,
grew up in Pakistan, studied EECS at UET, MIT, and Stanford,
engineered for a while in high-tech Silicon Valley
(http://tinyurl.com/zahir-patents),
and retired early to pursue other responsible interests. His maiden
2003 book of protest, written in the aftermath of 9/11, was rejected
by countless publishers and can be read on the web at
http://PrisonersoftheCave.org.
His prolific writings may be read at http://Humanbeingsfirst.org.
Preamble
Part-1
The
Endless BS Narratives
Zahir
Ebrahim | Project
Humanbeingsfirst.org
December
10, 2010
My
Confusion Series (MIRROR):
Part-1
, Part-2
, Part-2-Balfour
, Part-3
, Part-4
, Part-5
, Part-6
, Part-7
The
answer: Only one. Let me explain:
'In
this particular case, it took 50 of them…' -- How
many Rabbis does it take to create a Racist State?
'JERUSALEM
(AFP) -- Fifty Israeli rabbis have signed an open letter warning Jews
not to rent or sell property to non-Jews, saying those who do should
be "ostracized," a copy of the letter showed on Tuesday.'
-- December 07, 2010 'Don't
rent to non-Jews,' Israeli rabbis warn
'Keep
in mind that it is the Israeli himself that is the foreigner….
a fact that is way too often overlooked.' -- How
many Rabbis does it take to create a Racist State?
But
not according to the article by Ari Bussel, 'Israelis,
Haters of Israel',
appearing on December 9, 2010 at the Zionists' Canada Free Press:
'The
Muslims have successfully engaged in deceiving the Western World.
Deceit is permitted by their religion, even encouraged if it helps
them attain their goals (of spreading Islam and reaching global
dominance). It seems there was no one who excelled in it better, in
recent history, than Arafat himself. He created the notion of a
“Palestinian People,” of some “Nationhood”
and craving for Jerusalem as its “eternal capital.” In
short, he stole the Jewish-Zionist two thousand year history and
rewrote it into his own narrative.
So
successful was Arafat, that hardly even three decades later, the
world itself stands saluting the idea of a Palestinian Statehood (in
the boundaries of what was once known as Israel), with a Right of
Return of millions of Palestinians that were kept in refugee camps
throughout the Arab world, and with Jerusalem as their eternal
capital.'
So,
it appears that we have Jews piously arguing among themselves who “is
the foreigner” and who has more “successfully
engaged in deceiving the Western World”.
Just
as the Jews have argued pretty much about everything else under the
sun from time immemorial.
Today,
it spans the gamut from the invention of the Jewish peoples to the
invention of the Palestinian peoples, from the King's Torah showing
in how many ways the holy Jews can kill the unholy goy with
Rabbinical blessings along with the holy Rabbis' latest Fatwa quoted
above, to how many ways to settle the land of Canaan, which, as
Shimon Perez put it on the occasion of the 60th
Birthday bash
when welcoming George W. Bush to Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion Airport:
“Welcome to the new Israel: Three thousand years old, and
going on sixty”, while they all continue to live on
occupied lands granted by imperial fiat.
Imperial
fiat? Yes. Both, through one of empire's own instrument of the UN to
legally sanction the theft of Palestine, ahem, the 1948 birth of the
Jewish State after gratuitously Declaring the bold intention to
birth-pang that fact into existence several years prior in 1917, and
subsequently, through empire's active and tacit support for de-facto
colonization since 1967 by sewing incremental fait accompli, i.e.,
sowing hard realities on the ground which are then argued as
“impractical” to reverse.
So,
even when I understand imperial fiat as it is pathetically public
knowledge, whose claims can I believe? The guy who claims Jewish
people are invented, or the guy who claims Palestinian peoples are
invented? The guy who claims “Israeli himself that is the
foreigner”, or the guy who claims the Palestinians “stole
the Jewish-Zionist two thousand year history and rewrote it into his
own narrative”?
What
confusion!
Okay,
some might say, I can try to think for myself.
But
when I try to do that, I run into conundrums and observe rather
bizarre and funny things.
For
example, the funny thing that I observe in this instance, is that
when the Jews argue so energetically either side of dissent or
consent, they also continue to live on the lands of the Palestinian
peoples.
They
continue to pay their taxes and spend their earnings into the
Palestinian people's oppressors' economy.
And
they continue to lend full legitimacy to the oppressors of the
Palestinian peoples by being part of the very system of oppression,
from economic to academic to military, by their very act of being
there and spending their intellectual and physical earnings into that
oppressive system, by their very act of carrying the oppressor
state's identification papers, passport and travel documents, and by
their very act of accepting the Jewish state's racial hospitality on
the mere basis of their presumed Jewish bloodline, and most important
of all, by their coming to live there eagerly when they were not
themselves born there whereas those not of the right bloodline who
were in fact born there are not permitted to live nor visit there!
And
I find Palestinian peoples eagerly appreciating the support of these
pious Jews in trying to liberate the Palestinians so very much!
I
don't know about you, but I find that kinda bizarrely funny, at least
in a Kafkaesque sort of way.
Here
are two examples which illustrate this Kafkaesque humor more
concretely than just the general empirical observations above which
refer to no one in particular.
This
first one is an example drawn from the late prof. Baruch Kimmerling,
long time hero of many pious 'Left' Jews who glibly criticize their
adopted homeland, the side which forcibly occupied Canaan most
recently of course, from my essay: 'The
endless trail of red herrings'.
This essay was written when prof. Kimmerling was alive, and a draft
was emailed to him for his comments which he replied with stony
silence.
---
begin excerpt from 'The endless trail of red herrings'
Uri
Avnery's confessional "I am an Israeli patriot," explains
this enigma in as much clarity as the following gem from Baruch
Kimmerling, another Israeli Patriot who calls Israel his land when he
wasn't born there, and identifies himself in the oxymoronic category
of "Jew, atheist, and Zionist" where the latter two may be
consistent, but how does that pertain to being a Jew?
“As
a Jew, an atheist and a Zionist, I have two memorial days in my
country, Israel. One for the Holocaust and one for soldiers who fell
in wars. I also have one day of celebration, the anniversary of the
day Israel declared its statehood. [...] Independence Day is a
holiday for me, but also an opportunity for intense
self-introspection. A person needs a state and land, and this is my
land, my homeland, despite the fact that I was not born here. I am
proud of the unprecedented accomplishments of this country, and feel
personally responsible for its failures, foolishness, injustice,
evil, and its oppression of its citizens and residents (Jewish, Arab,
and others) as well as of those who are defined and defined
themselves as her enemies. I know that my holiday, a day of joy and
pride for me, is a day of mourning and tragedy for some of Israel's
citizens and, more so, for members of the Palestinian people
everywhere. I know that as long as we, all Jews everywhere, do not
acknowledge this, we will not be able to live here in safety, every
man and woman under their vine and under their fig tree. Happy
holidays, Israel.” (My Holiday, Their Tragedy, 2002.)
Disingenuous
self interest once again? Neither calling unequivocally for
abolishing the apartheid state (as far as I am aware, and if they
have already done so elsewhere, I eat crow with pleasure). And
neither extending to the displaced Palestinians the privileges they
apportion for themselves in Israel – making it their home when
not being born there (although Uri Avnery may well have been I don't
know, I have never met him) when they don't accord it to those who
indeed were and were kicked out by the very founding of the state
which Kimmerling is so proudly calling his independence day. He does
indeed magnanimously calls for Jews acknowledging the suffering of
the Palestinians so that he can live in peace in Israel, but not for
remedying the injustice in the only just and moral way – but
then, being an atheist, whence the source of morality? God is dead,
Nietzsche is alive, and so are his mantle-bearing ubermensch! Witness
it in his own essay the vacuous words without the concomitant
unequivocal call to abolish apartheid and make it one homeland for
those forcibly displaced by his independence day:
"The
transformation of the Holocaust into a solely Jewish tragedy, as
opposed to a universal event, only weakens its significance and its
legitimacy, tarnishing us and the memory of the victims. Likewise,
its unnecessary overuse by Jews in Israel and the rest of the world,
particularly political bodies, has made the Holocaust banal. Above
all, a provocative and dangerous approach has bought a place in our
hearts: that Jews, as the victims of the Holocaust, are permitted to
treat goyim however they want. Forceful and condescending,
"anti-gentile-ism" is identical to criminal anti-Semitism.
... What can I do? A person is closer to his own friends, tribe, and
people. Along with that, however, I cannot forget or refrain from
mourning the victims of this bloody conflict and feel deep empathy
with those who have suffered and still suffer as a result of the
fatal encounter between Jews and Arabs in this land. I hope that the
day will come when we will commemorate together and mourn together,
Jews and Arabs alike, for all of the victims of the conflict. Only
then will we be able to live together in this place in safety. ... I
know that as long as we, all Jews everywhere, do not acknowledge
this, we will not be able to live here in safety, every man and woman
under their vine and under their fig tree." (My Holiday, Their
Tragedy, 2002.)
I
am sorry that I am less than impressed, despite the
self-flagellation. "What can I do?" Kimmerling asks?
Here are three immediate things a conscionable Israeli can do if he
is a Moral-Activist (see example here):
1) Start a campaign to demand genuine justice – not mere
words of contrition – by requiring the apartheid nature of the
state and the "Berlin Wall" to be simultaneously
demolished. 2) Stop paying taxes that contributes to the
maintenance of the apartheid state. 3) As a conscionable
person, leave Israel until such time that others who have more right
to be there, on account of having being born there, and were forcibly
evicted, are also allowed to return! To me, it appears that without
any of the concomitant actions for Moral-Activism, the only reason
Kimmerling calls for the recognition of the plight of the
Palestinians is so that he and Zionist Jews like him can live in
peace.
---
end excerpt from 'The endless trail of red herrings'
The
second example is drawn from the recent new hero of many
Palestinians, prof. Shlomo Sand, from my essay 'Palestine:
The Struggle Forward'.
---
begin excerpt from 'Palestine: The Struggle Forward'
Recognizing
such convolutions for what they are, is such a crucial and
contemporary matter that it requires further elaboration. Professor
Sholmo Sand is the new rage in the Palestinian town. Who hasn't heard
of him or his book: The Invention of the Jewish People. He is a new
hero among the Palestinians – well, among some at least, and
like Professor Noam Chomsky before him, some excitedly carry him upon
their head and shoulders just like they carry Professor Norm
Finkelstein and many others. In fact, anyone from among the Jews who
will sympathize with them becomes a new showcase for the
Palestinians. Anna Baltzer is only the most recent example of that.
Her leading performance with Dr. Mustafa Barghouti on American
television left much to be desired. It is deconstructed here. [18]
The indiscriminate attachment to Jewish sympathizers of Palestinian
plight and permitting them to become the leading spokespersons for
the Palestinians has been great for ensuring that the Palestinian
narrative before the Western public is also controlled by the Jews –
even though they be most earnest in their show of sympathy. The “soft
Zionists” on the “left” have largely set the
boundaries, or the book-ends, for the discourse on resolving
Israel-Palestine in the West. Only a colonized mind accepts the
victimizers to be their liberators. This is also a rather murky area
and it is not easy to always know where to draw the line. Or whether
there should even be a line in an honest common struggle when one
sees enormously courageous Jews of conscience laying down their own
precious lives on a matter of principle, like those in the ISM
bearing witness to crimes against humanity and being shot dead by the
Israelis. But let's just stay with the imposing Jewish academic in
this article.
Look
what Professor Shlomo Sand says in the following interview –
and incidentally, after reading this interview, I lost all interest
in reading his book which doesn't contain anything new for me anyway
beyond what was revealed in The Thirteenth Tribe: Khazar Jews –
The revelation of another Jewish hoax, By Arthur Koestler, 1976. It
can be read here. [19]
Shlomo
Sand's statements in Ha'aretz, 21/03/2008, Shattering a 'national
mythology' By Ofri Ilani, can be read here. [20]
Begin
Excerpt
“My
initial intention was to take certain kinds of modern historiographic
materials and examine how they invented the 'figment' of the Jewish
people. But when I began to confront the historiographic sources, I
suddenly found contradictions. And then that urged me on: I started
to work, without knowing where I would end up. I took primary sources
and I tried to examine authors' references in the ancient period –
what they wrote about conversion.”
“The
supreme paradigm of exile was needed in order to construct a
long-range memory in which an imagined and exiled nation-race was
posited as the direct continuation of 'the people of the Bible' that
preceded it,”
“I
started looking in research studies about the exile from the land –
a constitutive event in Jewish history, almost like the Holocaust.
But to my astonishment I discovered that it has no literature. The
reason is that no one exiled the people of the country. The Romans
did not exile peoples and they could not have done so even if they
had wanted to. They did not have trains and trucks to deport entire
populations. That kind of logistics did not exist until the 20th
century. From this, in effect, the whole book was born: in the
realization that Judaic society was not dispersed and was not
exiled.”
[Interviewer]:
If the people was not exiled, are you saying that in fact the real
descendants of the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Judah are the
Palestinians?
“No
population remains pure over a period of thousands of years. But the
chances that the Palestinians are descendants of the ancient Judaic
people are much greater than the chances that you or I are its
descendents. The first Zionists, up until the Arab Revolt [1936-9],
knew that there had been no exiling, and that the Palestinians were
descended from the inhabitants of the land. They knew that farmers
don't leave until they are expelled. Even Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, the second
president of the State of Israel, wrote in 1929 that, 'the vast
majority of the peasant farmers do not have their origins in the Arab
conquerors, but rather, before then, in the Jewish farmers who were
numerous and a majority in the building of the land.'”
[Interviewer]
Why do you think the idea of the Khazar origins is so threatening?
“It
is clear that the fear is of an undermining of the historic right to
the land. The revelation that the Jews are not from Judea would
ostensibly knock the legitimacy for our being here out from under us.
Since the beginning of the period of decolonization, settlers have no
longer been able to say simply: 'We came, we won and now we are here'
the way the Americans, the whites in South Africa and the Australians
said. There is a very deep fear that doubt will be cast on our right
to exist.”
End
Excerpt
If
Professor Sand himself argues that there is no such thing as a Jewish
people, and the Arab Palestinians are the original inhabitants of
Palestine, then on what basis does he say the following:
Begin
Excerpt
[Interviewer]
Is there no justification for this fear?
“No.
I don't think that the historical myth of the exile and the
wanderings is the source of the legitimization for me being here, and
therefore I don't mind believing that I am Khazar in my origins. I am
not afraid of the undermining of our existence, because I think that
the character of the State of Israel undermines it in a much more
serious way. What would constitute the basis for our existence here
is not mythological historical right, but rather would be for us to
start to establish an open society here of all Israeli citizens.”
(emphasis added)
End
Excerpt
It
is common among this breed of scholarly Zionists – which is
perhaps why they also remain light-years ahead of the Palestinians –
to argue among themselves not just whether Palestinians are a people
(as both Moshe Katsav, Israel's former President, and Raphael Eitan,
former Chief of Staff of the IDF, have variously pondered; it can be
read here [21]), but also whether even Jews are a people. It's even
reported in the New York Times: Scholars Debate Roots of Yiddish,
Migration of Jews, October 29, 1996, which can be read here. [22]
There
is nothing new Professor Shlomo Sand has to offer Palestinians in the
Zionist's endless cycle of their own myth-constructions and their own
myth-destruction, except a new twisted justification for the invaders
to continue to occupy Palestine, despite himself arguing that he does
not have any roots there! But wait, he is not packing up to leave as
a matter of conscience, as a matter of principle, after learning all
that truth about the myths he had been fed. Now, it is the new mantra
of “establish an open society here of all Israeli citizens.”!
It's
akin to a robber comes into my house, takes over on the pretext of an
asinine justification that god gave this land to his ancestors and I
am the illegal occupant of his house; me and my children spend all
our lives trying to show that world that the robber is not only
criminal taking over my house but also an expert liar; then, a few
years later, the robbers' children and grandchildren create a
different drama, some showcasing books variously showing a) that
there is no god and “in the age of atheism, the Jewish people
can no longer base its existence on God but only on itself alone, on
its labor, on its land, and on its state”, and b) that even
there is no Jewish people; but the current crop of legatees still
want to stay in my house which he illegally occupied to start with?
Is
that absurd? But not in Alice in Wonderland.
---
end excerpt from 'Palestine: The Struggle Forward'
I
find these specific cases and those like them both perplexing and
funny when I begin to think for myself. I don't rightly know what to
make of it.
Perhaps
it is easiest to forget such paradoxes, chalk them up to life's minor
inconsistencies, and just move on?
It's
evidently too costly to think anyway. It can cause one to lose valued
friends and allies, comfort zones and treadmills, heroes and
hero-worship.
But
I would like to ask Jews who evidently think for themselves, what
should I make of such funny conundrums? What do you make of them?
And
since many respectable Palestinian thinkers demonstrate such sympathy
and solidarity with Jewish dissent emanating from Tel Aviv to
Jerusalem, perhaps I can ask them too what do they do with such
paradoxes. Do they simply ignore them?
Or
do they take the easy way out like me and seriously consider stopping
the onerous burden of thinking for themselves? The Jews most
eloquently think for both sides of the divide anyway, thus certainly
sparing the Palestinians any trouble.
I
am most confused!
How
many Jews does it take to confuse me?
Certainly
not 50 pious Rabbis hell bent on exercising their chosen people's
imperatives.
That
categorical imperative I can quite understand.
It
draws upon the ancient custom known as 'might is right'.
All
rational and independent thought, all moral sense, all commonsense,
must ultimately bow before that categorical imperative by definition.
No,
it takes only one moral Jew to confuse me.
One
single Jew who lives in Israel, is not born there, and proclaims
Palestinian rights!
I
would, I believe, be considerably less confused if all the pious Jews
not born in Palestine but still living there – just because
they are Jews and were given priority to immigrate there on that
basis alone over those Palestinians who were born there, whose
parents and grandparents were born there and forcibly evicted under
state sponsored terrorism, and prevented from returning to their own
ancestral continuously inhabited place of birth by the same state
sponsored terrorism – were to first vacate their own personal
occupation of another's home and rightfully return back to where they
came from, BEFORE they started clamoring for Palestinian rights. It
might be less confusing, and also more convincing, to those who dare
to think independently.
I
hope I may be forgiven this transgression of independent thought –
it is surely a minefield and has confused the hell out of me –
and I do believe the Rabbis have also forbidden the goy from thinking
independently from the Jews precisely for that reason. We tend to get
confused easily when we think on our own.
Isn't
there also a clause in the King's Torah that any goy found thinking
independently from the Jews should be immediately killed as he or she
represents a potential threat to the very existence of the Jewish
State? I do in fact recall statements from the King's Torah
reproduced in several articles by other Jews including Gilad
Atzmon's, that any goy who poses any threat to the legitimacy of the
Jewish State, or to the Jews, can legally be killed by the Jews,
preemptively.
Desire
for such preemption, the killing of the goy in cold blood, in
self-defense of course, was precisely expressed by Lawrence Kulak,
writing for ’5 Towns Jewish Times’ 5tjt.com, 11/12/2008
(cached here):
'“Muslims
believe in the literal interpretation of the Biblical doctrine of an
eye for an eye, and they do not have respect for anything perceived
as a lesser standard of justice. They killed our innocents, and
unless we kill theirs, they will go on killing ours. The Torah,
however, preaches a doctrine which, if implemented by the West, could
finally put an end to all Islamic terror: If somebody is coming to
kill you, rise up and kill him first.”'
Such
humble attempt at independent thinking as demonstrated here, surely
poses a threat to the very existence of the Jewish state – for
what if hundreds of thousands of Jews of the 4.5 million living on
usurped lands, choosing not to be damn hypocrites anymore, suddenly
left the Jewish state and renounced their ill-gotten citizenship of
the racist oppressive state?
What
if that number swelled to a million? Two million? They all, or most
of them anyway, retain their original nationalities and passports,
and there is no practical difficulties for them returning back once
they recognize the very immorality of their being there due to their
race alone when those who were born there cannot return!
Lighting
such a fire in the mind of moral Jewish men and moral Jewish women of
Israel, their Metanoia, surely qualifies as a dire threat to the very
existence of the pariah Jewish State?
And
thus easily become their target of assassination – who can hide
from the almighty Mossad hitman anywhere in the world if Victor
Ostrovsky is to be believed?
Could
such precariousness of independent thought possibly be the reason why
Palestinians often like the Jews to think for them and thus never
encounter such funny absurdities in all their struggles from the
safety of their forced Diaspora?
Is
this also why courageous Palestinian leaders on ground zero who shy
not from taking a bullet to their brains from the Israeli soldier who
may or may not fire at them for their physical defiance, somehow
prefer to not be assassinated for sure by Mossad for demonstrating
their intellectual defiance?
For,
these brave Palestinians evidently prefer to be accompanied by a
beautiful Jewish voice, and principally permit her to plead for the
Palestinians, as this chap, Dr. Mustafa Barghouti, did on prime time
television. As I said, I get easily confused when trying to think for
myself. From coast to coast, and continent to continent, excited
Palestinians and their Jewish supporters cheered that finally the
Palestinians' plight was heard on mainstream American television from
a most beautiful and most eloquent American Jew who had suddenly
woken up to the grotesque reality in the Holy lands and therefore had
no reason to be biased. In fact, the narrative of the Jewish voice
was almost mirrored by the Palestinian leader as well, sharing all
the same axioms with precision. I must evidently be a very lonely
fool to have tried this experiment of actually thinking for myself,
because I came away rather confused by all this amidst the roaring
applause of the supporters. That episode is narrated at length in
'Rescuing
a Failed Struggle From Its Narratives'.
I
could go on and on about my strange experiments with independent
thinking. But I'll just end now. I will sheepishly admit though that
I certainly used to enjoy life much better when I permitted others to
think for me. My confusions then were much less about absurdities and
almost entirely about whom to believe. It didn't matter if they were
Jews, or Muslims, Christians, or atheists. Even a monkey was fine
provided it came wearing a robe with 'expert' tattooed upon its
forehead. I only had to choose from among the many competing experts,
often going with the ones who represented my a priori world views the
best. I never needed to forge my own thoughts independently.
Now,
even a single moral Jew can send me off into deep convulsions of
Kafkaesque proportions, as does most every other expert I encounter.
Perhaps I am going about this free-thinking business all wrong?
Perhaps there is some happy halfway compromise to fully independent
thinking which will also help me gain friends and influence people?
So,
thanks in advance for any enlightenment, and corrections to my
method.
-
### -
Source
URL:
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-many-jews-does-it-take-to-confuse.html
The
Invisible House of Rothschild
Part-2
& Part-3
Zahir
Ebrahim | Project
Humanbeingsfirst.org
Monday,
December 13, 2010
See
Part-1: How
many Jews does it take to confuse me?
Continuing
from Part-1...
Let
me highlight the socio-political conundrum identified in part-1,
quoting myself (since no one else ever quotes a confused person):
“Perhaps I am going about this free-thinking business all
wrong? Perhaps there is some happy halfway compromise to fully
independent thinking which will also help me gain friends and
influence people?”
The
following example almost always loses me friends, tempting me to stop
experimenting with independent thought altogether. I believe it is a
miracle that I still dabble in it every now and then. I observed the
following conundrum in 'Of
Ostriches and Rebels on The Hard Road to World Order':
---
begin excerpt from 'Of Ostriches and Rebels on The Hard Road to World
Order'
Herman
Van Rompuy's message of hope at the completion stages [of world
order] decades later was merely the cross-generational echo of
Richard N. Gardner's “prospects for peace, welfare and human
dignity” that had been long sewn “bottom up,
rather than from the top down” such that to the uninformed
public, it would always “look like a great ‘booming,
buzzing confusion’ to use William James’ famous
description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty,
eroding it piece by piece will accomplish much more than the
old-fashioned frontal assault.”
The
blood-drenched transformation stage that we find ourselves in today –
the wreckage of civilizations – is truly “Between Two
Ages”. That brilliant description is not mine, but the
title of Zbigniew Brzezinski's seminally self-serving 1970 book which
[presumably] got him appointed as the Executive Director of David
Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission. There are more than a dozen
Trilateralists and CFRs in President
Obama's Administration too, pushing the banksters' globalist agendas
finally to fruition across multiple fronts simultaneously.
The money behind them, at least in the United States, is primarily
the Rockefellers' who own the majority stake in the New York Fed,
which in turn largely controls the Federal Reserve System. In Europe,
the money is primarily the Rothschilds' who control all the world's
private central banks (including America's Federal Reserve and
international lending-policing agencies such as the World Bank IMF
tag-team and the WTO) with complex interlocking relationships among a
closed-knit tiny fraternity who exercise their will upon
international banking and global finance and thus upon all nations of
the world, through their largely unknown Bank for International
Settlements (http://BIS.org)
located in Basle, Switzerland.
Entirely
coincidentally of course, BIS is located in the same secretive
banking capital where Theodor Herzl had earlier made his notorious
Jewish manifesto, Der Judenstaat public in the First World
Zionist Congress in 1897 to set the public stage for the creation of
the exclusively Jewish state of Israel in 1948. Also entirely
coincidentally, the British Empire had gratuitously issued its famous
1917 Balfour Declaration in the name of Lord Rothschild, the
principal owner and founder of the international financial system who
had controlled the Bank of England since Waterloo. And again entirely
coincidentally, America's entry into World War I was facilitated
after the founding of its own 'Bank of England', i.e., the Federal
Reserve System principally by Paul Warburg, the banking fraternal
twin of Lord Rothschild in whose palace the Treaty of Versailles
was signed after World War I to enable the British Mandate over the
lands of historic Palestine.
These
remarkable coincidences have today made the Rothschilds the most
revered family name in Israel. Some call them the King of the Jews –
and to live up to that Solomon-ly title,
the Rothschilds have architected, financed and built the Jewish
state's principal hall of Justice, the Israeli Supreme Court in
Jerusalem. The Jewish State today enjoys the unparalleled privilege
of an “Iron Wall” that none can breach. The Rothschild's
frankenstein can with brazen impunity
exterminate, assassinate, and bomb, to the applause of the world
leaders (see 'Pamphlet: How to Return to Palestine'). And yet,
strangely, the Rothschild's role in seeding and orchestrating the
affairs of the modern world is consistently downplayed almost
universally. No media, no academic, no scholar, no historian, no
dissent-chief, no corporate executive, no
billionaire on Forbes list, the Forbes list itself, and of course no
politician and world statesman, dare utter that name publicly –
and so long as they don't, they can say anything else they want.
Elusive power such as this is not a figment of someone's imagination.
Prof.
Carroll Quigley was permitted to openly state the following in his
1966 book Tragedy and Hope, and his controlled revelations
which continued that tradition of downplaying the name of the
Rothschilds, only came on the heels of the free-wheeling Eustace
Mullins' well-documented exposé
of how the Federal Reserve System in the United States was
conspiringly created by forces representing
the same globalist banking elite, and he had not spared the
Rothschild name; this was followed by a series of books and
documentary films in the 1970s by many others including Gary Allen,
W. Cleon Skoussen, G. Edward Griffin, Antony
Sutton et. al.
---
end excerpt from 'Of Ostriches and Rebels on The Hard Road to World
Order'
I
dared to think about that palpable omission on my own, inviting both
confusion and loss of friends.
I
asked: why was that most distinguished and singular Jewish family
name, Rothschild, never permitted any significant mention not just in
the Western press, but in the worldwide mainstream presses? It surely
wasn't only because the AP and other news agencies, newspapers,
newsmedia, were interlocking owned/controlled by the uber financiers
of the world, the House of Rothschild.
Even
the brave president of Iran, Dr Ahmadinijad, and the brave president
of Venezuela, Chavez, courageously challenging the status quo of the
world anytime they acquire a microphone in their hands have not dared
to mention that name. It is evidently still risk free to waive Noam
Chomsky's 'Hegemony and Survival' from the UN podium and speak out
against the criminal excesses of the sole superpower and its Allies
du jour, but not okay to wonder out loud why was the Balfour
Declaration issued in the House of Rothschild name?
Hmmm....
What sort of elusive omnipotent power did that magical name command
such that it had erected an equally magical “Iron Wall”
around Der Judenstaat? An “Iron Wall” which protected the
Zionists' grotesque re-settlement and extermination project for
Jewish Lebensraum being conducted with brazen impunity, often under
thunderous applause of the Western leaders who continually renew
their vows to support the expansion of the Jewish State created in
the very name of Lord Rothschild, that none living dare mention and
investigate that name while they continue to pay lip-service in
support of the Palestinian peoples?
The
Palestine freedom zealots in the West can boldly investigate and
indict the dispensable Israeli leaders who come and go every
election, but not its founder who evidently goes on forever?
By
the Rothschild's own watered-down admission, they are not a has-been
House:
'We
provide advice on both sides of the balance sheet, and we do it
globally. ... We have had 250 years or so of family involvement in
the finance business, ... There is no debate that Rothschild is a
Jewish family, ... For a family business to survive, every generation
needs a leader, ... Then somebody has to keep the peace. Building a
global firm before globalisation meant a mindset of sharing risk and
responsibility. If you look at the DNA of our family, that is perhaps
an element that runs through our history.' --- Baron David de
Rothschild, The first barons of banking by Rupert Wright, UAE
thenational.ae, November 6, 2008
That
humble confession by Baron David de Rothschild quoted above exactly
fulfills in this generation, the well-known
directives issued by their forefather, the founder of the House of
Rothschild, Mayer Amschel Bauer. A long staple of Rothschild
biographers, the founding directives are even vicariously depicted by
Hollywood in the 1934 film which was intended to be an ode to the
Rothschild name. Watch this short
clip of the movie The House of Rothschild,
about half way through in that clip, the historical depiction from
the mouth of great-grandfather Amschel Rothschild, is empirically
being fulfilled today, 250 years later, as
glibly confirmed even in that watered-down admission from his own
great-grandson, David de Rothschild!
The
UAE National newspaper even openly stated its lack of faith in the
'coincidence theory' of history and noted the overarching
contemporary significance of the House of Rothschild:
'Among
the captains of industry, spin doctors and financial advisers
accompanying British prime minister Gordon Brown on his fund-raising
visit to the Gulf this week, one name was surprisingly absent. This
may have had something to do with the fact that the tour kicked off
in Saudi Arabia. But by the time the group reached Qatar, Baron David
de Rothschild was there, too, and he was also in Dubai and Abu Dhabi.
Although
his office denies that he was part of the official party, it is
probably no coincidence that he happened to be in the same part of
the world at the right time. That is how the Rothschilds have worked
for centuries: quietly, without fuss, behind the scenes.'
In
fact, according to the following article in the London Times, the
Rothschild's is the one unusual financial House in the world which
came out ahead without any legal extortion, ahem, financial bailouts
of people's money legally granted by the people's elected
Representatives to the robber barons of modernity (watch that bizarre
extortion racket for the forced Bailout in the United States in
October 2008 here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=sN3a1oTdDwM
, and witness my further confused experiments
in independent thought in 'Why
Bluff Martial Law?'):
'Not
all investment bankers are having to get by on reduced or no bonuses
this year. Rothschild group staff have received record bonuses, it
has emerged after the bank reported a 31 per cent improvement in
profits before tax to €459 million.
Record
results from both its advisory and private banking operations enabled
the bank to pay the bonuses to its 2,700 people in June.
Unlike
conventional investment banks Rothschild, whose chairman is Davide de
Rothschild, has steered clear of proprietary trading, prime broking
and other activities that have devastated rivals, although it still
wrote off €96 million because of souring loans.
Rothschild’s
year-end of March means the bonuses were paid before the most serious
setbacks to banks. Most investment banks pay out bonuses between
January and May. Goldman Sachs is due to tell its staff the size of
their payouts in the next three weeks.
Alongside
its pro-forma group-wide results, Rothschild unveiled a joint venture
with Rabobank of the Netherlands, whereby the two sides will pool
their staff and clients in the food and agriculture sector.
As
part of the deal, Rabobank is buying a 7.5 per cent stake in one of
the key holding companies in the Rothschild empire, Rothschild
Continuation Holdings, which owns the N M Rothschild business in the
UK.
Rabobank
becomes the second biggest investor outside the family after the
trading group Jardine Matheson, which owns 20 per cent. Rabobank’s
vice chairman Sipko Schat joins the Rothschild board.
It
is the second joint venture with a Dutch bank. Rothschild teamed up
with ABN Amro for 11 years in equity capital markets before
dissolving the arrangement when Royal Bank of Scotland took over ABN
last year.
Rabobank’s
stake was held in treasury by Rothschild after it bought it from the
insurer Eagle Star. No price was put on the deal. Jardine paid $185
million for its 20 per cent in 2005.
Rothschild
advisory clients include Rio Tinto, which is fighting a hostile bid
from BHP, British Energy in its deal with EDF of France and Alliance
& Leicester when it was sold to Banco Santander.' --- Rothschild
pays out record bonuses to staff by Patrick Hosking, Times Online,
November 19, 2008
With
full spectrum control of the world's private central banks and BIS
firmly in the hands of the House of Rothschild and their closed knit
coterie, I of course, in my confused experiment of thinking for
myself, chalk that wizard financial success of bailing out from
publicly traded banks about to fail in a timely manner, and having
only successes for one's own private family bank, up to just another
coincidence. I strongly suspect that Gary Allen's confusion on such
coincidences far exceeded mine as evidenced from his book None
Dare Call it Conspiracy:
'Those
who believe that major world events result from planning are laughed
at for believing in the "conspiracy theory of history." Of
course, no one in this modern day and age really believes in the
conspiracy theory of history -except those who have taken the time to
study the subject. When you think about it, there are really only two
theories of history. Either things happen by accident neither planned
nor caused by anybody, or they happen because they are planned and
somebody causes them to happen. In reality, it is the "accidental
theory of history" preached in the unhallowed Halls of Ivy which
should be ridiculed. Otherwise, why does every recent administration
make the same mistakes as the previous ones? Why do they repeat the
errors of the past which produce inflation, depressions and war? Why
does our State Department "stumble" from one
Communist-aiding "blunder" to another? If you believe it is
all an accident or the result of mysterious and unexplainable tides
of history, you will be regarded as an "intellectual" who
understands that we live in a complex world. If you believe that
something like 32,496 consecutive coincidences over the past forty
years stretches the law of averages a bit, you are a kook!' (Gary
Allen, None Dare Call it Conspiracy, 1971, Chapter 1)
But
more pertinent to my confusion for the main point under
consideration, namely, the bizarre silence on the Rothschilds when it
comes to the topic of the holy lands which they 'own' completely, as
even demonstrated to the most ardent zealot fighting the cause of
Palestine by the fact of the Balfour Declaration gratuitously
awarding Palestine to the entire Jewish peoples being specifically in
just that one singular name, doesn't that omission appear
frighteningly absurd once again? See for instance: 'Zahir's
Response to Francis Boyle's Jewistan – What Elephant?'.
Well,
to me that silence is just as absurdly confounding as the bizarre
merrymaking with the 'Happy Unbirthday'
song at the Mad Hatter's Tea Party confounded Alice in Wonderland.
So,
while searching for a way out of these absurd confusions rapidly
piling up, I found this really bizarre interview asking similar
questions for the first time in modern times, about the House of
Rothschild, and I transcribed it: 'Rothschild
Connection to World Government and Zionism: David Icke –
Origins and Symbolism of the EU'.
Please
see what you make of such attempts at independent thinking. Also
please feel free to advise me how one ought to go about this
independent thinking business, the much wonted contribution of
Western civilization to modern man, or so they say, without stepping
on censor toes – never mind without losing friends. Even this
last thought is causing me a great deal of confusion. But first, here
is the interview.
---
begin excerpt from 'Rothschild Connection to World Government and
Zionism'
Transcription
of Red Ice Creations' David Icke's video interview by Project
Humanbeingsfirst, segment on The Rothschild Connection to World
Government and Zionism, Parts 6 & 7 [Parenthesis: Transcriber's
notes]
[
youtube=http://youtube.com/p/03D36F59DC6F1259 ]
Begin
Transcription:
'They
are all connected, and they are connected through the House of
Rothschild.
See,
if people just took a breadth, and looked at the whole scene, they
would ask serious questions:
[
Why is the Balfour Declaration addressed to a Rothschild? ]
[
Why is Israel's Supreme Court in Jerusalem built by the Rothschilds?
]
Why
does that slither of land, called Israel, and I have driven around
it, and you can virtually drive around it in a day, why does it have
so much power?
Why
is it the biggest by far recipient of American aid when it is one of
the richest per capita countries in the world?
Why
does it have the biggest F-16 fleet outside America?
How
come it can have a very considerable arsenal of nuclear weapons,
refuse to sign a Non Proliferation Treaty, and have a breadth taking
agreement which has just been confirmed by Barrack Obama in the last
few months, that they have a policy in terms of America and other
countries in Israel, that they don't ask whether they have got
nuclear weapons. And therefore, Israel does not have to say if they
have or not. This is an official policy!
Why,
when they pepper-bomb the most crowded piece of land in the world,
and instigate slaughter on a shocking scale, does the international
community, apart from one or two people, say nothing?
Simple.
The
House of Rothschild controls Israel. It created Israel. And more than
that, it created a political philosophy, note a POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY,
called ZIONISM.
What
they have brilliantly done, though it's breaking down, is they have
equated Jewish people as a race with Zionism, which is a political
philosophy. And at its core is a secret society, connects into the
other secret societies.
And,
so if you challenge Zionism, and its horrors, and its impositions,
and its hypocrisy, and its slaughter, you are equated with being
prejudiced against Jewish people.
What
they don't tell you is significant number of Jewish people are
actually appalled by Zionism. And actually openly protest against it.
And
there is some fantastic young people in Israel that refuse to serve
in the military, and end up in jail because of it. And you, know they
are incredible people to have that sense of value.
The
questions that I have just posed can be answered very easily.
The
House of Rothschild control American politics. They control the
neo-cons, they control Bush, they control what I call the demo-cons
that control Obama.
And
in the White House as I speak, we have the White House Chief of
Staff, Rahm Emanuel, who is the puppeteer,
immediate puppeteer of Obama, [ Just like
Bush's Brain was Karl Rove ] and his father actually served in an
Israeli Zionist terror group called Irgun,
which, with others, bombed Israel into existence and forced 750,000
to 800,000 Palestinians to leave their homeland after 1948.
The
reason, therefore, that Israel is the biggest recipient of American
aid and military support, is because this hand [points to right hand]
called the House of Rothschild, takes the money from the United
States and hands it to this hand [points to left hand] called Israel
of the House of Rothschild, and says thank you very much!
The
reason that there is no questioning of Israeli nuclear capability,
that they get away literally with mass murder, time and time again,
is because the House of Rothschild controls the countries of the
European Union, and controls the European Union. I mean, Tony Blair
is a "yes sir no sir, three bags full sir, how high would you
like me to jump sir" front man for the House of Rothschild.
So
who do they put in after he left the British Government, as
negotiator of peace in Israel - Tony Bloody Blair! 'What should I say
Mr. Rothschild, thank you very much, thank you thank you' [mimics
Tony Blair]. That's it.
So
when you have got the same force controlling all these different
agencies, than of course they are gonna be coordinated.
That's
the way Israel gets away with what it gets away with.
And
if people think its anti-Semitic, well actually anti-Semitic means
anti-Arab by the way, then they'll have to take it and shove it
somewhere where the sun don't shine 'cause I ain't
shutting up about this because it is fundamental to understanding the
world, and to understanding the European Union and world events!
The
Jewish people, in general, have been mercilessly used by the House of
Rothschild, and their front secret society, satanic secret society,
called Zionism, as a front which they can hide behind.
So
it is House of Rothschild organizations like B'nai Brith, Sons of the
Covenant, who created an organization called the Anti-Defamation
league, which goes around defaming everyone ironically, who have not
just campaigned for hate laws that stop you exposing these people,
they have actually written the bloody legislation in America, in
North America and Canada.
And
so, these hate laws which say you can't say this you can't say that,
because that's prejudiced and all that, they are not there to protect
gay people - everyone ought to their own I say, I couldn't care less
- they are not there to protect Jewish people, or minorities.
They
are there, simply, to stop legitimate investigation of the
Rothschilds and its network. That's what they are there for.
And,
they are in so many ways the Rothschilds. At operational level, the
center of the spider's web.
And
they need to be exposed.
[
'Therefore, focussing on Jewish political action groups like AIPAC,
ADL, JDL, Chabad Lubavitch Hasidics, et. al., who put Israel first to
influence the superpower's policies, or the hundred Jewish-dominated
opaquely funded private think-tanks like the AEI, CFR, et. al., who
ab initio construct the polices of war and hegemony favoring Israel,
without betraying any comprehension of the actual prime-movers behind
them, is not only an exercise in futility, but these visible magnets
are deliberately there, and manifest themselves with their
inexplicable arrogance, precisely in order to draw fire away from the
prime-movers!' --
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/05/palestine-theway-forward.html
]
Because
if they get exposed, and they go, when I say go [I mean] they are
removed from their positions of power, 'cause to be honest, if they
went to jail, for what they have been responsible for, the House of
Rothschild, they would have to reincarnate hundreds of times to
complete the sentence!
[
'If fair punishments are ever to be awarded for their crimes against
humanity for just the past 100 years in any Just court of law, Adolph
Eichmann would have to be retroactively let go by resurrecting his
soul from his grave with high honors and awarded multiple peace
prizes plus compensation, in order to administer hanging and
extraction of restitution as the graduated scale of ultimate
punishment for the ultimate prime-movers of all wars and pestilence
before which their errand boys' and patsies' crimes against humanity
pale in comparison.' --
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/11/rescuing-thestruggle-for-palestine.html
]
And,
we've ignored them. Or we have not ignored them, people have ignored
their power for long enough because they have brilliantly hidden it.
It needs the light to be shone on it because when they come down, in
so many ways, the House of cards comes down!
Thank
you very much.'
---
end excerpt from 'Rothschild Connection to World Government and
Zionism'
Conclusion
Aaaaaah,
confusion, confusion! I could just scream. No wonder why the goyem
don't think much, and it is not recommended for us to think by the
doctors who conveniently do all the original thought experiments
for us to save us the burden. Here is the problem alluded to earlier,
stepping on censor toes, and it can only be the inevitable conclusion
of our zeitgeist: If one avoids tabooed
thoughts for fear of censorship, loss of friends, being indicted and
incarcerated under the thought-crimes Bill pending in many a
legislature's quarters worldwide, is that still considered
'independent thinking', the gift of Western civilization to mankind?
Perhaps it is so under NewSpeak, the newly revised gift of Western
civilization to the Dawn of the New Age? The New Age being
hasteningly beckoned by Zbigniew
Brzezinski, cited above, wherein, he justified/rationalized
humanity's deadly plight in our zeitgeist
by quoting Hermann Hesse from Steppenwolf thusly; “Human
life is reduced to real suffering, to hell, only when two ages, two
cultures and religions overlap. . . . There are times when a whole
generation is caught in this way between two ages, two modes of life,
with the consequence that it loses all power to understand itself and
has no standard, no security, no simple acquiescence.”?
That profound insight, of brilliant hindsight and self-serving
foresight, very well could be the elusive key I have been searching
for to open the mysterious door past which I can't see.
Further
Study
To
catch only a fleeting glimpse for yourself of that veil past which
evidently no one else is able to see either, and which is seeding so
much confusion among those wanting to do their own independent
thinking that unless one opens up the final edition of the Newspeak
dictionary described by George Orwell in his seminal work '1984'
(watch the movie here),
one is destined to stay confused, read the following two books by
Eustace Mullins: The World Order – A Study
in the Hegemony of Parasitism, and The Curse of Canaan
– A Demonology of History. Additionally, The
Thirteenth Tribe by Arthur Koestler, and The Empire of
“The City” (world superstate) – The Jekyll/Hyde
Nature of the British Government by E. C. Knuth, are both
helpful in thinning out the powerful fog of confusion which surrounds
the origins and the rise to power of Black Nobility. A careful study
of these books (PDF available on the web;
search, download and read them before these out-of-print books get
banned, or, reading them is made a thought-crime), helps one
understand the elusive power which has corrupted and co-opted almost
all of dissent in the West today creating the sort of absurdities
highlighted in my confusions. The pernicious nature of that
indomitable power to mold, influence and corrupt across the board
world-wide was captured in the following way by W. Cleon Skoussen in
his commentary on Carroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope:
'The
real value of Tragedy and Hope ... [is the] bold and boastful
admission by Dr. Quigley that there actually exists a relatively
small but powerful group which has succeeded in acquiring a
choke-hold on the affairs of practically the entire human race. Of
course we should be quick to recognize that no small group could
wield such gigantic power unless millions of people in all walks of
life were “in on the take” and were willing to knuckle
down to the iron-clad regimentation of the ruthless bosses behind the
scenes. As we shall see, the network has succeeded in building its
power structure by using tremendous quantities of money (together
with the vast influence it buys) to manipulate, intimidate, or
corrupt millions of men and women and their institutions on a
world-wide basis.' (W. Cleon Skousen, The
Naked Capitalist, pg. 6)
The
publicly available need to research (as in need to know)
private archives of the House of Rothschild is now on the web.
Presumably sanitized of any adverse material – since its
primary purpose evidently is to glorify the 250 years of exploits of
the House of Rothschild – for those inclined
to experiment in forensic confusion, it may yet prove to be an
invaluable treasure trove of discovery:
http://www.rothschildarchive.org/ta/
. The private Rothschild Archives I imagine is where the official
biographers have always received their source material to write their
pandering odes to the House of Rothschild. See for instance, The
House of Rothschild by Niall Ferguson. Now it's available to
you as well!
For
those unable to read, but still inclined to experiment
in some self-inflicted confusion, Grace Power's Amenstop Production
DVD 'Ring
of Power'
may be a good starting point (watch part-1,
part-2,
the second part focusses on the House of Rothschild). I rather like
Grace Powers' DVD presentation which is based on some of the
historical material presented in the above books, because she
addressed her video to the lowest level mental acumen in Western
society with an easy to follow narrative. I have never met Grace
Powers, communicate with her every now and then over email, consider
her a seeker of knowledge
based on her work, but don't agree with her many esoteric opinions
and conclusions which, rather strangely, anyone who speaks of the
oligarchy, secret societies, and the Black Nobility, also often seem
to hold. I am glad the authors whose books are recommended reading
above appeared to be an exception to this bizarre
contemporary empiricism. Mullins' The Curse of Canaan is an
intriguing deconstruction of history which he based on his
understanding of the Bible and study of the Talmudic literature. One
may draw from Mullins' pointing fingers what one may, perhaps using
Bruce Lee's wisdom expressed in his martial arts movie Enter the
Dragon: “Don't concentrate on the finger or you will
miss all that heavenly glory” (watch movie clip here).
I
too apply such Zen of analysis to my own
self-inflicted confusions (when I could just as well bow before
'experts' and save me the bother), and Grace Powers' work is no
exception. What that specifically means in this case is not to throw
the baby out with the bath water. Leave aside the speculative
material for some future time, and focus directly on the rational
analysis based on obvious and historical facts. On the whole, Ring
of Power's narrative on the House of Rothschild is penetratingly
contemporary, as Grace Powers attempts to forensically tie 9/11 and
the documented historical quest for World Order of the Black Nobility
for the average dumbed-down television watcher of America. If the
size of the 'United We Stand' crowd and the size of protests in the
immediate aftermath of 9/11 are any indication, the dumbed-down and
indoctrinated peoples of America likely constitute well over 90% of
its 300 million population!
What
brazen absurdity once again. The mightiest superpower on earth in
this information age is also home to the most ignorant and mind
controlled peoples, including The
Master Builders of the Technetronic Era!
Who created such pathetic state of affairs in this once unassailable
nation and why? There is very little time left for its public to find
out. A short 10-minute readable summary is: 'Of
Ostriches and Rebels on The Hard Road to World Order'.
-
### -
Source
URL:
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-confusion-invisible-rothschild-usa.html
Zahir
Ebrahim | Project
Humanbeingsfirst.org
December
31, 2010 | Last Updated Jan 04, 2011
See
Part-1: How
many Jews does it take to confuse me?
Continuing
from Part-2,
where Baron David de Rothschild was quoted proclaiming:
Caption
World Governance By The Rothschilds, 2003 - Click to view GOVERNING
BY NETWORKS (Image via bibliotecapleyades-net via bureaudetudes-org
large 3 MB)
'We
provide advice on both sides of the balance sheet, and we do it
globally. ... We have had 250 years or so of family involvement in
the finance business, ... There is no debate that Rothschild is a
Jewish family, ... For a family business to survive, every generation
needs a leader, ... Then somebody has to keep the peace. Building a
global firm before globalisation meant a mindset of sharing risk and
responsibility. If you look at the DNA of our family, that is perhaps
an element that runs through our history.' --- Baron David de
Rothschild, The first barons of banking by Rupert Wright, UAE
thenational.ae, November 6, 2008
When,
in my state of perpetual confusion whereby my experiments in
independent thinking sometimes get out of hand, I have immoderately
challenged many a rebel leader on their omitting to mention the
Rothschild name in their otherwise erudite critiques of
modernity, I have always come up empty handed. This is amply
demonstrated in my responses to Salman
Abu Sitta,
Antoine
Raffoul,
Ismail
Zayid,
Khalil
Nakhleh,
Shadi
Nassar,
Mustafa
Barghouti and Anna Baltzer,
Jeff
Gates,
Jeff
Blankfort,
et.
al.
My most recent challenge was yet another unsolicited letter, this
time to an old timer Western rebel of the United States of America,
Mr. Jeffrey Blankfort. He courteously replied:
Caption
Detail-2 Israel benefactors World Governance By The Rothschilds, 2003 -
Click image for expanded
view GOVERNING BY NETWORKS. See Detail-1 at end for how power flows
seamlessly through the interconnected web of networks (Image via
bibliotecapleyades-net via bureaudetudes-org large 3 MB)
'I
do not mention the Rothschilds because I have yet to see a single
shred of evidence that they control the world's money supply, the
CFR, or anything else of such substance as to influence the way the
world works. As far as I can tell whereas once members of the
Rothschild banking family ran the banks of Western Europe, I see no
evidence that they do so today. ... Again, if you have any direct
evidence with unimpeachable sources that the Rothschilds are running
everything or for that matter anything behind the scenes I would
appreciate receiving it but lacking that up to now, I never mention
their name apart from Walter Rothschild being the recipient of the
Balfour Declaration.' --- Jeffrey Blankfort replying to Zahir
Ebrahim Nov. 11, 2010 (see full correspondence at the end
of this article)
I
was simply delighted that my new friend Jeff Blankfort had even
bothered to write back, as most brilliant chiefs, both Eastern and
Western, gallantly rising to defend the Palestinians as their own
cause célèbre, simply tend to ignore the meddlesome and
the confused who don't buy their craftsmanship. The crazy thing is,
that among the Palestinians themselves, many appear to prefer running
from Jew to Jew to solve their problems, as was observed by a
Palestinian friend of mine out of sheer
frustration: “We run from Jew to Jew, they create the
problem, and also argue the solution, they control the full spectrum
of our discourse as well as our existence.” I promised
Jeff: “Thank you mon ami for your reply. I will compose a
thoughtful reply later...”.
This
Part-3
attempts to respond to Jeff Blankfort's request for evidence for the
trumpeting-defecating elephant in the bedroom. As quoted above, Jeff
asked for “direct evidence with unimpeachable sources”.
I
will humbly endeavor to provide both – direct,
unimpeachable. And before concluding, I will even suggest that
the legal standard itself for proving criminal conspiracy is far less
than what Mr. Blankfort has generously demanded from me, for the
obvious reasons that even half-smart conspirators usually hide behind
their errand boys, like the Mafioso, and don't leave their calling
cards. More empirically however, unlike the dumb Mafioso who rob,
extort, and kill illegally thus enabling the state policing
apparatuses to be used to juridically hang them, brilliant
conspirators usually enact legalisms and statutes, and directly
employ the state's governing apparatus itself to mask and legalize
their dastardly plunders, their war-mongerings, their
social-engineerings, and their pernicious subversions of the peoples'
democratic institutions and constitution. Even the flag-waiving
ordinary indoctrinated American understood how that craftsmanship
worked when he and she witnessed the banksters' bailout extortion
racket in October 2008 (see 'Why
bluff Martial Law')
and their subsequent brazen accounting of how they spent it (watch).
And
yet, the law of un-intended consequences, i.e., nature, still has its
ways to un-obscure the golem if one has the eyes and the will to
perceive.
Let
me first state the criterion for proof as Blankfort did not stipulate
any beyond “direct,
unimpeachable”. I intend to demonstrate that an
omnipotent power exists, that such a power visibly existed not too
long ago using unimpeachable sources, and since there is no evidence
of such a power suddenly eviscerating, that
by the sheer force of logic, it must still exist even if occulted
from mainstream Americans today. And I will
top that off with the confirmation of its own existence by the
omnipotent power itself. I invite the readers to pretend that they
are a jury member, and reach their own verdict whether the following
can be sufficiently deemed “direct evidence” from
“unimpeachable sources” to satisfy the request of
Jeffrey Blankfort and all those like him who choose to willfully
remain innocent of knowledge of the most glaring, trumpeting,
shitting, elephant in the bridal suite.
First,
the unimpeachable source: Nuremberg Military Tribunal and its
official Record. I don't think there can be anything more
unimpeachable a source than that, do you?
Let's
first see what transpired at Nuremberg in the score-settling with
victor's justice in the aftermath of Word War II with respect to the
Nazi banker most instrumental in financing the Nazi war machine,
Hjalmar Schacht. While 21 Nazi chiefs were hanged (watch)
by Robert H. Jackson, the chief prosecuting counsel for the United
States (watch),
the banker whom the chief counsel as the official representative of
the United States government to the Nuremberg Military Tribunals,
most wanted to hang, was set free due to the intervention from the
Bank of England governor Sir Montagu Norman!
Say
what? Bank of England is so powerful that it prevailed upon their own
military Allies at Nuremberg to let go of the principal enemy who
financed the destruction of entire Europe and of the British Empire
itself – with agreement from all the Allied military high
command and their governments (with only Russia dissenting)? No, you
did not read that in history books did you, nor did you hear Noam
Chomsky talk about the inconvenient case of Hjalmar Schacht even when
he waxes eloquence about victor's justice at Nuremberg by
highlighting the case of Admiral Karl Dönitz, and evidently, nor
did you hear Mr. Jeffrey Blankfort bring it up in all his dissent-ing
critique of Noam Chomsky.
I
get really confused when I encounter such blind-sighted omissions
regarding the King of the Jews among the moral Jews who become
dissent-chiefs for the dumb goy, and book-end their own dissent so
wonderfully while still giving the illusion of vigorous debate.
Chomsky explains this Machiavellian construction rather elegantly
even as he implements it himself with involuntary help from his own
antagonist, Jeff Blankfort, and the goyem cheer for their favorite
horse – don't matter which horse wins, the real winners are
those who benefit from the calculated omissions, the race course
owners:
‘This
“debate” is a typical illustration of a primary principle
of sophisticated propaganda. In crude and brutal societies, the Party
Line is publicly proclaimed and must be obeyed — or else. What
you actually believe is your own business and of far less concern. In
societies where the state has lost the capacity to control by force,
the Party Line is simply presupposed; then, vigorous debate is
encouraged within the limits imposed by unstated doctrinal orthodoxy.
The cruder of the two systems leads, naturally enough, to disbelief;
the sophisticated variant gives an impression of openness and
freedom, and so far more effectively serves to instill the Party
Line. It becomes beyond question, beyond thought itself, like the air
we breathe.’
‘Democratic
societies use a different method: they don’t articulate the
party line. That’s a mistake. What they do is presuppose it,
then encourage vigorous debate within the framework of the party
line. This serves two purposes. For one thing it gives the impression
of a free and open society because, after all, we have lively debate.
It also instills a propaganda line that becomes something you
presuppose, like the air you breathe.’
‘The
smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit
the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate
within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and
dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free
thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the
system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the
debate.’ --- Noam Chomsky.
At
this point, before I go any further, please permit me to dust out the
following observation of novelist Aldous Huxley in the Brave New
World to illustrate why I consider artful omissions
and silence, as counter-intuitive as it might appear to the
profoundly innocent of knowledge, to be a most powerful
propaganda tool:
‘The
greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing
something, but by refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still
greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth. By
simply not mentioning certain subjects, by lowering what Mr.
Churchill calls an “iron curtain” between the masses and
such facts or arguments as the local political bosses regard as
undesirable, totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion much
more effectively than they could have done by the most eloquent
denunciations, the most compelling of logical rebuttals. But silence
is not enough. If persecution, liquidation and the other symptoms of
social friction are to be avoided, the positive sides of propaganda
must be made as effective as the negative.’ — Aldous
Huxley, Preface (circa 1946) to Brave New World, 1931, Harper,
pg. 11
I
have to wonder about my sanity sometimes – why don't I get it
when brilliant chiefs inexplicably dabble in their own thought
control, in their own self-policing?
Why
do I persist in experimenting with independent thinking? Just accept
the pious statements of the Jewish chiefs that there is not a shred
of evidence of the existence of the King of the Jews controlling the
state of affairs in the world today, lest I be labeled a 'kook', a
'denier of established truths', and carted away to some re-education
camp for my own, as well as other's safety! 'Denier' I have already
been anointed by none other than a recovering Jew, a reformed
Zionist, Christian friend of mine, Israel
Shamir! Yes, I know I have accumulated some lovely
friends in my few journeys into the unknown world of independent
thinking! I now try my best to stay away from such confusions, and I
believe this is one of my last few times as my new year's resolution!
Before
we jump too far ahead as I briefly did in the preceding passages to
give a taste of the acerbic logic about to develop, let's study this
shockingly revealing fact of Hjalmar Schacht which is so
uncontrovertibly recorded in the pages of victor's justice at
Nuremberg, and the circumstances surrounding this fact. The following
is excerpted from David Irving's Nuremberg, the Last Battle (
PDF
). It appears in my document “Monetary
Reform: Who will bell the cat?”
as footnote [11] and [13] and is reproduced below along with the
passage being footnoted:
Caption
Nuremberg, the Last Battle: Bank of England overriding
the victorious Allies and freeing the Nazi Banker Hjalmar Schacht
from the hangman's noose
'Yes,
confessionals after faits accomplis, is a characteristically
“cleansing” Christian tradition. Somehow, it only seems
to work for those in absolute power, never for the common man.
“You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to
you, we won't do it again” [Ben Bernanke to Milton
Friedman] doesn't seem to be part of the ordinary judicial system
where the common man is made accountable for stealing bread. But it
is part of the Nuremberg Military Tribunals which let Dr. Hjalmar
Schacht, the former governor of the Reich Bank [11] – the
bankster who orchestrated the financing for Hitler and enabled his
war machine with funding from Wall Street [12] and the City of London
financiers – go scot-free!
Whence
such awesome power to even let a fascist banker who caused the
destruction of all of Europe – as per the Nuremberg established
principle of “all the evil which follows” –
become a prominent and influential member of the financial community
once again in post-war Germany “as though there had never
been a blemish on his character”? [13]'
Footnote
[11] Dr. Hjalmar Schacht (Reich minister of economics until 1937,
Reichsbank president until 1939). David Irving, Nuremberg, The Last
Battle, 1996, page 160.
“[Jackson]
regarded the former president of the Reichsbank as the most
contemptible of all the defendants. He had provided the finance for
the spectacular rise and rearmament of Hitler’s Germany. More
than any other, this man’s financial genius had paved the way
for the violation of the Versailles Treaty.” (page 157)
“Ambitious
and arrogant, Schacht [Highest IQ 143, page 292] had walled himself
in behind a belief in his own righteousness. He seethed with rage at
being imprisoned with Hitler’s henchmen. He admitted to having
violated the Versailles Treaty, but countered that since the Allies
were in collusion against Germany this was no crime. .. He admitted
rebuilding Germany’s run-down economy, but not for the purpose
of waging war; Hitler had dismissed him as soon as he balked at the
aggressive planning that began.” (page 293)
“Hjalmar
Schacht – ‘after Göring the toughest of them.’
He [Jackson] had always regarded Schacht as one of the most
despicable defendants. The banker’s arrogant attitude since the
trial had begun only vexed him all the more.” (page 327)
“Even
more irritating for Jackson was that Schacht was overheard in the
cells confidently predicting that he would be acquitted. Irritating
rumours circulated that the prosecution of Schacht was not in
earnest. Letter-writers taunted Jackson that he would never succeed
in convicting a big banker – whether friend or foe, they were
the new Untouchables. He soon became aware that the Nazi banker did
indeed have friends in the most unlikely places and influence
everywhere. One day one of his team, the eminent New York
international lawyer Ralph Albrecht, reported to him that the British
assistant prosecutor Colonel Harry J. Phillimore – later a lord
justice of appeal in London* – had accosted him in the hall
outside the courtroom and urged the Americans to relax their
remorseless pressure on the banker. When Albrecht, perplexed, asked
‘Why?’, Phillimore uneasily explained that certain
representations had been made by Sir Montagu Norman, governor of the
Bank of England from 1920 to 1944. ‘It would be most
unfortunate,’ murmured the British colonel, ‘if anything
were to happen to Schacht.’ In fact Schacht had been an
informer of Sir Montagu, secretly apprising him of the political and
financial decisions taken at the highest level in Berlin for sixteen
years before the war.” (page 328)
“There
is in the records of His Majesty’s treasury in the British
archives an illuminating file on the efforts made by Sir Montagu
Norman to get Schacht released.” (page 329)
“He
[Jackson] regarded the case against the banker as a test of the good
faith of the entire prosecution. As he had said in a secret meeting
of all the chief prosecutors in April, of which there is a shorthand
record in his files, ‘If the court, for instance, holds that we
have no case against Schacht, then it seems clear that we can have no
case against any industrialist, as the case against him is stronger
than the others.’ ... He [Jackson] privately recorded later, ‘I
would at least stand out forthrightly in demanding his conviction,
convicting him if I could.’ He harried the banker mercilessly
in the witness box, addressed him as ‘Schacht,’ tout
court, confronting him with the evidence of his participation in
Hitler’s aggressive planning until eventually the defendant had
to admit that he had been untruthful about his dealings with the
Führer. Jackson showed the Tribunal newsreel film of Hitler’s
triumphant return to Berlin in July 1940 after the defeat of France –
long after Schacht would have had them believe he had fallen into
disfavour. There was Schacht, in Prince-Albert morning coat and top
hat, the only civilian among the generals waiting on the station
platform to pump the Führer’s hand – indeed with two
hands he caught hold of the Führer’s, stepped out of line,
and followed him ‘in almost lickspittle fashion,’ as
Jackson remarked later. And this was the Nazi gentleman for whom the
British lawyer Phillimore and banker Sir Montagu Norman were
interceding. All the more acute was Jackson’s fury when the
Tribunal – with only the Russian judge publicly dissenting –
acquitted Schacht. Biddle, who read out this part of the judgement,
claimed some months later that he had also wanted to convict, but the
British had insisted on an acquittal and had left him no choice.”
(pages 329-330)
Also
see page 392. http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Nuremberg/NUREMBERG.pdf
Footnote
[12] Antony C. Sutton, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, 1976
http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/
Footnote
[13] David Irving, Nuremberg, The Last Battle, 1996, page 402: “As
he was released from his [Nuremberg] cell, German police stepped
forward and arrested him. A German court sentenced him to eight
years’ imprisonment as a major offender under the
denazification laws enacted by the Control Council in Berlin. He
served two years in solitary confinement, and was eventually released
in 1948. The world of banking absorbed him again as though there had
never been a blemish on his character.”
Let's
also recall from my article “Of
Ostriches and Rebels on The Hard Road to World Order”
what Professor Carroll Quigley had stated about Montagu Norman, and
all the other governors of world's private central banks:
'The
powers of financial capitalism had (a) far-reaching aim, nothing less
than to create a world system of financial control in private hands
able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy
of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a
feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in
concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and
conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for
International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland; a private bank owned
and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves
private corporations. Each central bank, in the hands of men like
Montagu Norman of the Bank of England, Benjamin Strong of the New
York Federal Reserve Bank, Charles Rist of the Bank of France, and
Hjalmar Schacht of the Reichsbank, sought to dominate its government
by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign
exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the
country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent
economic rewards in the business world.' (Carroll Quigley, Tragedy
and Hope, 1966, Chapter 20, page 324)
'It
must not be felt that these heads of the world's chief central banks
were themselves substantive powers in world finance. They were not.
Rather, they were the technicians and agents of the dominant
investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised them up and
were perfectly capable of throwing them down. The substantive
financial powers of the world were in the hands of these investment
bankers (also called “international” or “merchant”
bankers) who remained largely behind the scenes in their own
unincorporated private banks. These formed a system of international
cooperation and national dominance which was more private, more
powerful, and more secret than that of their agents in the central
banks. This dominance of investment bankers was based on their
control over the flows of credit and investment funds in their own
countries and throughout the world.' (Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and
Hope, 1966, Chapter 20, page 326)
Is
it too rude to ask – that if Montagu Norman is merely among the
“technicians and agents of the dominant investment
bankers of their own countries”, then who is the
dominant investment banker of England who has in fact controlled the
Bank of England and the City at least since Waterloo?
Rothschild
N. M. and Sons.
This
is what they confirm of themselves today on their own website:
Rothschild has been at the centre of the world's financial
markets for over 200 years. Today, it provides Investment Banking,
Corporate Banking and Private Banking & Trust services to
governments, corporations and individuals worldwide. Baron
David de Rothschild has already been quoted in the beginning of this
article, proclaiming: 'We provide advice on both sides of the
balance sheet, and we do it globally. ... We have had 250 years or so
of family involvement in the finance business'
But
here we shall just stick with Nuremberg for the moment.
Sir
Montagu Norman, at the behest of the owners of the Bank of England,
set one of their own criminal banksters free from the clutches of the
hangman's noose. Those owners, both commonsense and force of logic
suggests, commanded at least that much power which could trivially
prevail upon all of the Military Tribunal members, except Russia who
voted against it. Americans had lost 300,000 soldiers in that 'just
war' against the axis powers, the United Kingdom had lots its empire
along with its jewel in the crown, and Europe lay decimated, 6
million Jews exterminated – we won't quibble with the holocaust
industry here – 20 million Russians butchered, and sum-total of
50 million human beings, mostly Christians, and most of them German
civilians under the unspeakable fire-bombings of civilian cities by
the Allies, lost their lives in the name of fighting the aggression
initiated by the Nazis which was even termed “... the
supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in
that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole”.
Just
watch the video of the closing speech of Robert Jackson condemning
the Nazis (cited earlier). It was a superlative public relations
Tribunals, because, it was utmost important for the United States of
America, the emerging superpower from the ashes of World War II, to
pontificate to the entire world its moral and military supremacy, and
condemn the abhorrence of aggression of the Nazis as it was itself
entering a new Cold War with the new enemy. Nuremberg was entirely
about public relations. And the United States judges at Nuremberg
wanted to make an outstanding example of the Nazi war machine and its
bankster to demonstrate their own moral high grounds.
Despite
all of these empirical motivations, those who controlled the Bank of
England, call it Foundation-X for the lack of a better handle
to refer to this non-existent power which none can see, could spring
one of their own from the sure jaws of death?
This
incontrovertible fact and its significance indicates the existence of
a power which is superior to the combined power of the victorious
allies of World War II.
So,
the evidence of Hjalmar Schacht being set-free unequivocally
demonstrates at least the existence of an elusive omnipotent power in
1946.
And
we already know that this immense power also existed in 1917, when
the Balfour Declaration was issued in its name (see Part-2).
Caption
Revisiting the Curse of Canaan: The Balfour Declaration November 2nd
1917 - The first-cause of Palestinian genocide in the Land of Canaan
is in the Name of a Rothschild and yet they don't know that name!
Where
did that amazing power, which was confirmed to exist in 1917 when it
prevailed upon the British empire to grant the Zionists another's
land, and again in 1946 when it prevailed upon the British and
American empires to grant amnesty to their own arch enemy that had
seen tens of millions of Christians dead, so suddenly vanish in the
mere 60 years since?
Did
the earth swallow it, did the sky absorb it, or was there an
earthquake which sunk it?
What
happened to it?
In
my experiments in confusion, I valiantly searched for such a
catastrophic event which could have silently vanquished that
Foundation-X which had existed only 60 years earlier.
I
am sorry to report here that there is no known documentation existing
on planet earth in the annals of public archives which records any
such cataclysmic event where that elusive power could have
disappeared. If one exists in secret classified archives, like aliens
abducting them off the face of the planet, I do not possess such
powers to access those classified documents, let alone unlock them of
their public relations baggage. We shall just wait for Wikileaks
to let us know if UFO-Abduction is indeed that elusive cause of their
sudden vanishing from the face of the earth. Julian
Assange has already hinted: “it is worth
noting that in yet-to-be-published parts of the cablegate archive
there are indeed references to UFOs.”
In
the meantime, back here on earth outside the Plato's cave, by the
sheer force of inevitable logic, I must rationally conclude that such
a power, Foundation-X, still exists right here on earth. And,
since I have also not found, despite vigorous search in libraries and
on the web, any evidence that the Foundation-X ownership
surreptitiously changed hands except from
generation to generation within the same DNA cess-pool, and as
admitted by the scions now wielding the baton themselves, then,
whomsoever were the owners of Foundation-X in 1946, and in
1917, are still the owners today.
Casa
de Rothschild!
Let
me know if this sufficiently constitutes Jeff Blankfort's requirement
for evidence: “if you have any direct evidence with
unimpeachable sources that the Rothschilds are running everything”
Now
let me briefly examine the legal requirement for evidence in the
United States. The following definition is excerpted from my
Editorial: Some
Dare Call it Conspiracy! Are you among them?
April 19, 2009:
Conspiracy:
“in law, agreement of two or more persons to commit a
criminal or otherwise unlawful act. At common law, the crime of
conspiracy was committed with the making of the agreement, but
present-day statutes require an overt step by a conspirator to
further the conspiracy. Other controversial aspects of conspiracy
laws include the modification of the rules of evidence and the
potential for a dragnet. A statement of a conspirator in furtherance
of the conspiracy is admissible against all conspirators, even if the
statement includes damaging references to another conspirator, and
often even if it violates the rules against hearsay evidence. The
conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence. Any conspirator
is guilty of any substantive crime committed by any other conspirator
in furtherance of the enterprise. It is a federal crime to conspire
to commit any activity prohibited by federal statute, whether or not
Congress imposed criminal sanctions on the activity itself.” --
Columbia Encyclopedia
Permit
me to highlight the core legal standard in that passage with
emphasis:
1)
The conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence.
2)
Any conspirator is guilty of any substantive crime committed by any
other conspirator in furtherance of the enterprise.
3)
A statement of a conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy is
admissible against all conspirators, even if the statement includes
damaging references to another conspirator, and often even if it
violates the rules against hearsay evidence.
My
goodness! The entire gang of banksters despite their web of control
can be roped in even if one conspirator can be indicted. I have just
demonstrated the corrupting power of the bankster fraternity, and
shown that the Casa de Rothschild exists
today because it existed in 1917 and 1946 by the evidence of Balfour
Declaration and Nuremberg Military Tribunals, respectively. This
fraternity has such immense powers that it can legally enact Federal
Statutes, like the Federal Reserve System of the United States, by
having the American Congress enact their preferences into law. When
such an extortion happens, the above artfully defined definitions of
conspiracy become irrelevant. The law of
the sovereign becomes the ultimate arbiter
of what is crime and what is virtue, as aptly demonstrated by Saint
Augustine of Hippo in the 4th century:
“When
the King asked him what he meant by infesting the sea, the pirate
defiantly replied: 'the same as you do when you infest the whole
world; but because I do it with a little ship I am called a robber,
and because you do it with a great fleet, you are an emperor.'”
(The City of God against the Pagans, Page 148).
This
modus operandi, of theft of public's wealth by legalism enactment by
the sovereign, appears to be right out of the Protocols.
Witness Protocol
1,
items 3 through 5 which lend an empirical definition to the term
“legal” when applied to control the masses:
3.
It must be noted that men with bad instincts are more in number than
the good, and therefore the best results in governing them are
attained by violence and terrorisation, and not by academic
discussions. Every man aims at power, everyone would like to become a
dictator if only he could, and rare indeed are the men who would not
be willing to sacrifice the welfare of all for the sake of securing
their own welfare.
4.
What has restrained the beasts of prey who are called men? What has
served for their guidance hitherto?
5.
In the beginnings of the structure of society, they were subjected to
brutal and blind force; after words – to Law, which is the same
force, only disguised. I draw the conclusion that by the law of
nature right lies in force.
Based
on insights gleaned from these contortions, especially item 5), if
you can enact Federal Statutes and laws to protect your graft by
wielding the hidden might of your indomitable force, then, there is
no “conspiracy” in the legal terms because you did not
violate any Federal Statutes!
Isn't
that just marvellous?
So,
the House of Rothschilds, using their hired front men and political
errand boys, backed by their interlocking interests in all the
world's central banks, have protected themselves from that definition
of Conspiracy by shrewdly employing the uber-Machiavellian Protocols!
But
have they protected themselves from RICO?
See
my editorial
which contains an extended excerpt of laws from the late Eustace
Mullins' 1985 book World Order, which could have potentially
been used in earlier times.
I
now believe that the accelerated pace
towards world government today, under the complete co-option of all
organs of state worldwide, makes the bankster fraternity almost
immune by way of any legal recourse in the entire Western Hemisphere.
They might occasionally sacrifice a red
herring errand boy here and there at the altar of reform to keep the
plebeians happy, if it ever came to that!
These are the ultimate UNTOUCHABLES! No one can even see them.
I
hope that between Part-2
and Part-3
of this series of my goyish attempts at independent thinking, there
is sufficient grounds for courageous moral Jews like Mr. Jeffrey
Blankfort to finally perceive their own brethren – the King of
the Jews – who have bestowed upon Zionistan its creation. Its
ethos. Its “iron wall” that none can breach. Their full
spectrum interlocking control of the world's private central banks
continually enables them to implement their own two centuries old
familial boast “give me control of a nation's money
supply and I care not who makes its laws” with such
brazen impunity that it is almost always accompanied by the
thunderous applause of European and American goy statesmen and law
makers. The King of the Jews have inflicted upon the entire Jewish
peoples a calumny that the Jews shall not be able to outlive even if
they exist for another 3000 years! See: From
Genesis to Genocide in Palestine : The Golem Is Not Jewish!.
The following sentiment barely captures it:
'If
fair punishments are ever to be awarded for their crimes against
humanity for just the past 100 years in any Just court of law, Adolph
Eichmann would have to be retroactively let go by resurrecting his
soul from his grave with high honors and awarded multiple peace
prizes plus compensation, in order to administer hanging and
extraction of restitution as the graduated scale of ultimate
punishment for the ultimate prime-movers of all wars and pestilence
before which their errand boys' and patsies' crimes against humanity
pale in comparison.' ---
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/11/rescuing-thestruggle-for-palestine.html
All
persons of any faith (or no faith) not entirely consumed by
depravity, apathy, Faustian pacts, and if I might be so bold as to
emphatically add, pious hypocrisy, should have no qualms calling a
spade a spade. What prevents one from doing so, is suggested in my
pamphlet: How
To Return to Palestine This Day Forward.
What
can one do about it today? Practicably nothing, as suggested in: “Of
Ostriches and Rebels on The Hard Road to World Order”.
But
I pray that I am mistaken, that Machiavellian political
science and infinitely deep pockets of the oligarchy exuded through
their tax exempt foundations, private central banks, income tax
levied upon masses, and national debt levied upon nations – an
inflexion of power which can bring combined superpowers to their
knees – can straightforwardly be trumped by copious narratives
of dissent chiefs and plebeians' abundant prayers!
Thank
you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
Source
URL:
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-confusion-pt3-omnipotent-rothschilds.html
From:
Project Humanbeingsfirst.org
To:
Jeffrey Blankfort
Wed,
Nov 10, 2010 at 7:51 PM
Dear
Jeff,
Hello.
I
am not sure that you would necessarily care to know my opinion –
but I thought I'd forward you the following letter nevertheless. It
is a short communication to an MIT co-alum who had asked me for my
opinion of your recent interview ( Jeffrey
Blankfort: Chomsky misfires on US-Israel relations — By
Kathleen Wells on November 4, 2010
).
Just
as you observe in your interview of others who don't seem to
[perceive] some other daylights, my own take is similar, that “It's
like the monkey: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.” ...
With
Best wishes,
Zahir
-----
Forwarded message ------
From:
Project Humanbeingsfirst.org
Date:
Wed, 10 Nov 2010
I
finally got some time to read the interview – and read almost
half-way through until I got bored. Mr. Blankfort is both perceptive
and accurate, as far as he goes. I learnt some interesting factoids
in it, like He is Jewish, that he had joined AIPAC, etc.
I
admire Mr. Blankfort all the more for his standing up to what is
right and moral irrespective of his own tribal affiliation, and his
not giving in to expediencies and abhorrent political realities on
the ground. The latter argument is Noam Chomsky's forte, and my good
professor has made them time and again, all of which I have
deconstructed in considerable depth in my 2007 essay “The
endless trail of red herrings”.
More
pertinent to your inquiry however of what I thought of this
interview, the issue of the Jewish Lobby in the United States –
which Professor James Petras itemized here:
and
this was my letter to Professor Petras for the energies he spent
compiling his excellent list:
James
Petras' list includes only a subset of the hundreds of Jewish
organizations throughout the world, and almost all the national and
international level think-tanks along the Hudson and the Potomac, not
to forget Hollywood/newsmedia moguls, nor the average Jewish person
who is suckled on the mother's milk of Zionism since birth which
creates that tribalism that Mr. Blankfort mentions.
For
my take on the Jewish Lobby's efforts for Zionism – the root
cause – please see the first portion of this article:
How
comes Europe succumbs to the same pressures as the United States?
What
is the common prime-mover?
Blankfort
is silent. I am not.
The
difficulty is that Mr. Blankfort's silence is more meaningful and
instrumental than my loquaciousness because I am an unknown, whereas
Blankfort is nationally and perhaps internationally known.
But
I seek truth wherever I can find it – perhaps because I belong
to the 'untermenschen' class bearing the brunt of “imperial
mobilization”. And all the Jewish exponents of truth that I
have ever met, including who take bullets to their head to uphold
decency and morality, directly affiliate with the civilization
bringing us “imperial mobilization”:
And
here is a letter I had written Mr. Blankfort:
And
the following outlines my thoughts on how to deal with Zionism, as
activists, with Mens et Manus:
Best
regards,
Zahir.
---
--- ---
From:
Jeffrey Blankfort
To:
Project Humanbeingsfirst.org
Wed,
Nov 10, 2010 at 10:52 PM
Dear
Zahir,
I
do not mention the Rothschilds because I have yet to see a single
shred of evidence that they control the world's money supply, the
CFR, or anything else of such substance as to influence the way the
world works. As far as I can tell whereas once members of the
Rothschild banking family ran the banks of Western Europe, I see no
evidence that they do so today. There are a number of other Jewish
bankers who have surpassed them in influence and if the Rothschilds
were as powerful today as you claim them to be, there would be some
kind of trail to find at least a hint of what they have been doing.
I
have a number of personal suppositions about how and why certain
things have happened but if you read what I say and write I am always
able to document my claims. In my radio program today, I explained in
brief how the Balfour Declaration was the payment to the Zionists for
their having succeeded in bringing the US into World War One at a
time when the British were about to lose and I provide unimpeachable
documentation for that statement. It is one of the most important
buried pieces of the puzzle that most advocates for Palestinian
justice have ignored. Here is the link:
http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/47021
In
my interview I spoke only about the Zionist operations in the US
because they are far and away the most important but I am more than
aware of their activties in the UK with all the major parties as well
as in France, Italy and Germany. It is their money combined with
their organization, plus the fact that there is no serious political
opposition that enables what I call the Ziontern (Zionist
International) to have its way. As in the US, most Palestinian and
pro-Palestinian groups are hesitant to take on the Ziontern
internationaly or in their own backyard because they are either
dominated by or intimidated by what Gilad Atzmon first identified as
"Jewish tribalists," who while they may be genuinely
anti-zionist are as ready and willing to shield Jews from collective
blame for their crimes against the Palestinians and Lebanese as any
Zionist. These are the folks who routinely attack me on their blogs
when I expose their hero, Chomsky.
Again,
if you have any direct evidence with unimpeachable sources that the
Rothschilds are running everything or for that matter anything behind
the scenes I would appreciate receiving it but lacking that up to
now, I never mention their name apart from Walter Rothschild being
the recipient of the Balfour Declaration. It was Judge Louis
Brandeis, however, an American Jew, who apparently was the one who
convinced Woodrow Wilson to break his vow to the American people to
go to war. And it was Edward Bernays, Freud's nephew and the father
of modern propaganda who devised the campaign to get Americans
willing to support the war.
Finally,
I support BDS, not because that is the ideal tool for international
organizing against the Zionists but that given the relative little
strength we have as a group, it is the only means at the moment that
has a chance of getting anywhere. Here, in the US, I would like to
see campaigns exposing every member of Congress who has sworn their
loyalty to Israel, be they Jewish or not, but I don't see that
happening. Even at Al-Awda conferences, there is a tendency to stay
away from discussing such political activity.
Yours,
Jeff
---
--- ---
From:
Project Humanbeingsfirst.org
To:
Jeffrey Blankfort
Thu,
Nov 11, 2010 at 12:41 PM
Thank
you mon ami for your reply. I will compose a thoughtful reply
later...
regards,
zahir.
---
--- ---
-
### -
Appendix
The
BDS Red Herring
“Finally,
I support BDS, not because that is the ideal tool for international
organizing against the Zionists but that given the relative little
strength we have as a group, it is the only means at the moment that
has a chance of getting anywhere.” -- Jeffrey Blankfort in his
letter to Zahir Ebrahim
Zahir
Ebrahim | Project
Humanbeingsfirst.org
April
15, 2011
Preamble
My
following comment on BDS, made in March of 2010 to the article
“Leaked Zionist strategy Paper to counter BDS” (PDF
cached here)
on the now defunct website Palestinethinktank.com, is archived below.
Its accuracy is testified by the unchallenged rise of the Jewsonly
State of Israel as the new ruling state of the West, and perhaps the
world in a one-world government. A ruling state cannot be dictated to
by other nations, but it can and does dictate to other nations,
including to the world's sole superpower! Does the Jewsonly State of
Israel fit that bill?
This
new ruling state exudes power throughout
both hemispheres through many proxy arrangements. It, in turn, is
controlled by those who own the world's major financial institutions.
These oligarchs select presidents and prime ministers of the world's
nations from behind the scenes as puppetmasters, mobilize or
neutralize the public by their control of the world's mass media, and
enact war and peace making events to suit their own timetables. These
rulers of the world were explored in my Confusion Series in the
context of Israel in part-1,
part-2,
and part-3.
Anyone wishing to confront the abhorrence of the new up and coming
ruling state of the world would surely be wise to examine its elusive
and impenetrable power-base
which is examined therein.
The
deconstruction of the ineffectiveness of BDS noted below remains
unchallenged by empiricism in which it is solely rooted. BDS is
evidently yet another “collection agency” like most of
Western dissent, to gather the energies of conscionable peoples into
good solid runs on the treadmills of inefficacy. While activists feel
content patting themselves on their back on how great their movements
are, systematic new realities are constructed on the ground by
“history's actors” which subsequently
cannot be reversed nor rolled back. Useful idiots blindly jumping on
the bandwagon of BDS are many, thoughtful people rather few. And
that's why the rulers win!
They
win because, as some statistics suggest, less then 2% people in the
public actually think, 8% think they think, and 90% would not be
caught dead thinking. The rulers just love to throw crumbs of
plausible effectiveness
through their own fabricated opposition, just like they throw
crumbs of plausible deniability
through fabricated cover stories, and create many side shows
to occupy men and women of conscience lest
some end up focussing their considerable energies and inventiveness
on those factors which can actually alter imperial faits accomplis
before they can transpire.
This
concept of fait accompli is evidently most poorly understood by even
the uber learned pied pipers of dissent. Here is a senior White House
Advisor explaining it to the New York Times correspondent for those
who only learn wisdom from the podiums of power:
'“We're
an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while
you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act
again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and
that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and
you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”' (Ron
Suskind, New York Times, Oct.
17, 2004)
And
here is Ariel Sharon, former prime minister of Israel, explaining it
to Winston S. Churchill III:
'Winston
S. Churchill III, grandson of the famed British prime minister,
recalled last October at the National Press Club here a telling
encounter he had had in 1973 with the hawkish Ariel Sharon, now the
Israeli prime minister, about Zionist objectives. “What is to
become of the Palestinians?” Churchill asked. “We’ll
make a pastrami sandwich of them,” Sharon said. Churchill
responded, “What?” “Yes, we’ll insert a strip
of Jewish settlements in between the Palestinians, and then another
strip of Jewish settlements right across the West Bank, so that in 25
years’ time, neither the United Nations nor the United States,
nobody, will be able to tear it apart.' (cited in Zahir Ebrahim,
Rescuing a Failed Struggle From Its Narratives, November
2009)
#
Project Humanbeingsfirst.org on March 11th, 2010 at 20:12:
Hi
– how was this position paper leaked?
In
concept, it is not too dissimilar to the publicly available document
discussed here previously by Paul J Balles, bringing knowledge of The
Israel Lobby's Global Propaganda Manual to us. I subsequently could
easily download the TIP report's PDF from the publicly available
source-website and enjoyed reading all its
116 pages. It was not a secret. Why is this one? What does "leaked"
mean for this document?
What
is so shocking, or even revealing in it? To warn them to watch what
they say (and not what they do)?:
"No
Israeli should feel compelled to change their politics, no matter
what Chomsky and Finkelstein would choose to do.
But ALL Israelis should watch their language, understanding
that false Nazi/Apartheid/ Racism analogies feed Israel’s
harshest enemies, who wish to wipe out the state."!
Give
me a break – when Zionistan can bomb and kill and burn men
women and children with impunity in front of the entire world's
powerless spectating eyes, when every Western statesman from the
Queen to the President pays homage to them, especially their visit on
Israel's 60th birthday bash while their own Bibles were being burnt
downtown, and when their sugar-daddy owns/controls all the Western
world's central banks thus controlling their national/supra-national
laws, someone expects me to believe that Israel is afraid of the BDS?
Ever
hear of a "limited hangout", the "hegelian mind fck",
and "red herrings"?
Someone
may well be laughing up there in the darkened rooms of the Knesset,
and at the BIS, puffing on their cigars.
Not
to suggest that conscientious people shouldn't try with whatever
means at their disposal to check and counter state-tyranny upon a
beleaguered peoples. But also to not forget
that to keep dissent and opposition deluded as useful idiots and kept
running on treadmills is a key element of political science based
statecraft – one that wages wars by way of deception. A
fabricated Israeli opposition to the ineffectual BDS reinforces the
belief among the innocent and the pious that it is an existential
threat to Israel.
So
let us analyze this BDS threat to Israel. Threats are a calculus –
not a linear equation. There are variables which scale in different
dimensions with each other. Akin more to operations research and game
theory than any simple formulaic prescription. The calculus of threat
and its mitigation deals in probabilities, and pushing odds of the
preferred outcome overwhelmingly in one's
favor.
So
someone who has looked at BDS closely, as well as studied Israel's
overall assets in the world – from people to banks to laws –
kinda help me out here. Please put up a seed analysis of why BDS is
of any real empirical consequence to Israel (as opposed to some
philosopher's theoretical one)? That, why is the above "leaked"
document anything other than a red herring, a psyops to get
conscionable people to ineffectively pursue
what's not of any real consequence – as they have all along
been doing for the past 60 years? In 2007, Uri
Avnery wrote an interesting article titled "Facing
Mecca", to which I had written a response – it is here:
I
could be wrong, and this may not be a red herring. "Show me"
– as they might say in Missouri, that this "leaked
document" is not a Mighty Wurlitzer's piece.
Just
FYI, Fletcher Prouty in his book "Secret Team" observed the
following. Great for introducing red herrings, "cognitive
diversity", and variations on "limited hangout" by the
Mighty Wurlitzer:
'There
is another category of writer and self-proclaimed authority on the
subjects of secrecy, intelligence, and containment. This man is the
suave, professional parasite who gains a reputation as a real
reporter by disseminating the scraps and "Golden Apples"
thrown to him by the great men who use him. This writer seldom knows
and rarely cares that many of the scraps from which he draws his
material have been planted, that they are controlled leaks, and that
he is being used, and glorified as he is being used, by the inside
secret intelligence community.
Allen
Dulles had a penchant for cultivating a number of such writers with
big names and inviting them to his table for a medieval style
luncheon in that great room across the hall from his own offices in
the old CIA headquarters on the hill overlooking Foggy Bottom. Here,
he would discuss openly and all too freely the same subjects that
only hours before had been carefully discussed in the secret inner
chambers of the operational side of that quiet Agency. In the hands
of Allen Dulles, "secrecy" was simply a chameleon device to
be used as he saw fit and to be applied to lesser men according to
his schemes. It is quite fantastic to find people like Daniel
Ellsberg being charged with leaking official secrets simply because
the label on the piece of paper said "top secret," when the
substance of many of the words written on those same papers was
patently untrue and no more than a cover story. Except for the fact
that they were official lies, these papers had no basis in fact, and
therefore no basis to be graded top secret or any other degree of
classification. Allen Dulles would tell similar cover stories to his
coterie of writers, and not long thereafter they would appear in
print in some of the most prestigious papers and magazines in the
country, totally unclassified, and of course, cleverly untrue.
In
every case, the chance for complete information is very small, and
the hope that in time researchers, students, and historians will be
able to ferret out truth from untruth, real from unreal, and story
from cover story is at best a very slim one. Certainly, history
teaches us that one truth will add to and enhance another; but let us
not forget that one lie added to another lie will demolish
everything. This is the important point. Consider the past half
century. How many major events — really major events —
have there been that simply do not ring true? How many times has the
entire world been shaken by alarms of major significance, only to
find that the events either did not happen at all, or if they did,
that they had happened in a manner quite unlike the original story?'
Here
is a note on the Mighty Wurlitzer:
Thanks.
Zahir
Ebrahim
Project
Humanbeingsfirst.org
-
### -
Source
URL:
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2011/04/response-to-leaked-zionist-paper-bds.html
Postamble
The
Language of Zionism
Response
to 'Joseph Massad – The Language of Zionism'
Zahir
Ebrahim | Project
Humanbeingsfirst.org
Preamble
My
comment to Joseph Massad, a Palestinian professor of Middle Eastern
Studies at Columbia University, made in May 2010 for his article “The
Language of Zionism” (PDF cached here)
on the now defunct website Palestinethinktank.com, is archived below.
It once again illustrates how the Palestinians have themselves become
a victim of their own narratives. They miss by a mile while the golem
is barely half a furlong from the finish line.
#
Project Humanbeingsfirst.org on May 9th, 2010 at 2:09:
On
the conclusion of the article:
"After
62 years of persistent Israeli colonialism of Palestine, unless
President Obama and Israeli leaders understand that colonialism is
war and anti-colonialism is peace and that the only viable state
project in the area would be one that encompasses all Palestinians
and Israeli Jews as equal citizens in it, whatever "peace plan"
they offer to the Palestinians will be nothing short of a war plan."
I
would add that Edward Said stated exactly the same thing in "The
Mirage of Peace", October 16, 1995 in The Nation: "These
two communities must be seen as equal to each other in rights and
expectations;"
The
fact that JM has to repeat it 15 years later and the reality on the
ground is orders of magnitude worse only indicts the "N"
among the Palestinians themselves. The "C" are rather
constant in their nature, since time immemorial.
First,
here is an Excerpt from Said:
"The
deep tragedy of Palestine is that a whole people, their history and
aspirations have been under comprehensive assault–not only by
Israel (with the United States) but also by the Arab governments and,
since Oslo, by Arafat….
I
do not pretend to have any quick solutions for the situation now
referred to as "the peace process," but I do know that for
the vast majority of Palestinian refugees, day laborers, peasants and
town and camp dwellers, those who cannot make a quick deal and those
whose voices are never heard, for them the process has made matters
far worse. Above all, they may have lost hope….
I
have been particularly disheartened by the role played in all this by
liberal Americans, Jewish and non-Jewish alike. Silence is not a
response, and neither is some fairly tepid endorsement of a
Palestinian state, with Israeli settlements and the army more or less
still there, still in charge. The peace process must be demystified
and spoken about plainly. Palestine/Israel is no ordinary bit of
geography; it is more saturated in religious, historical and cultural
significance than any place on earth. It is also now the place where
two peoples, whether they like it or not, live together tied by
history, war, daily contact and suffering. To speak only in
geopolitical clichés (as the Clinton Administration does) or
to speak about "separating" them (as Rabin does) is to call
forth more violence and degradation. These two communities must be
seen as equal to each other in rights and expectations; only from
such a beginning can justice then proceed."
-
### -
On
the central theme of the article, I would contend that Hitler had
exactly the same language semantics of Zionism for his Nazism; and
that the language of Zionism today is not any different from
America's own language of "American Peace" employed by both
PNAC in "Rebuilding America's Defenses" and by Brzezinski
in "American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives".
Here
are some pertinent excerpts:
“Hegemony
is as old as mankind. … The earlier empires were built by
aristocratic political elites and were in most cases ruled by
essentially authoritarian or absolutist regimes. The bulk of the
populations of the imperial states were either politically
indifferent, … or infected by imperialist emotions …a
quest for national glory, 'the white man's burden', 'la mission
civilisatrice', not to speak of the opportunities for personal profit
– all served to mobilize support for imperial adventures to
sustain essentially hierarchical imperial power pyramids. The
attitude of American public toward the external projection of
American power has been more ambivalent. … Public opinion
polls conducted in 1995 – 1996 indicated a general public
preference for 'sharing' power with others, rather than for its
monopolistic exercise. … It is also a fact that America is too
democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of
America's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. …
Public opinion polls suggest that only a small minority (13 percent)
of Americans favor the proposition that 'as the sole remaining
superpower, the US should continue to be the preeminent world leader
in solving international problems'. … Moreover, as America
becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more
difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in
the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct
external threat. …. More generally, cultural change in America
may also be uncongenial to the sustained exercise abroad of genuinely
imperial power. That exercise requires a high degree of doctrinal
motivation, intellectual commitment, and patriotic gratification. …
In brief, the U.S. Policy goals must be un-apologetically twofold: to
perpetuate America's own dominant position for at least a generation
and preferably longer, … the ultimate objective of American
policy should be benign and visionary: to shape a truly cooperative
global community.” (Brzezinski in The Grand Chessboard)
“As
long as wars and other military operations derive their logic from
political purposes, land power will remain the truly decisive form of
military power. … In sum the ability to preserve American
military preeminence in the future will rest in increasing measure on
the ability to operate in space militarily. … But over the
long term, maintaining control of space will inevitably require the
application of force both in space and from space, including but not
limited to antimissile defenses … Cyberspace, or 'Net-War' If
outerspace represents an emerging medium of warfare, then
“cyberspace”, and in particular the internet hold similar
promise and threat. And as with space, access to and use of
cyberspace and the internet are emerging elements of global commerce,
politics and powerplay. Any nation wishing to assert itself globally
must take account of this other new “global commons”. …
there nonetheless will remain an imperative to be able to deny
America and its allies' enemies the ability to disrupt or paralyze
either the military's or the commercial sector's computer networks.
Conversely, an offensive capability could offer America's military
and political leaders an invaluable tool in disabling an adversary in
a decisive manner. Taken together, the prospects for space and
“cyberspace war” represent the truly revolutionary
potential inherent in the notion of military transformation. These
future forms of warfare are technologically immature, to be sure.
But, it is also clear that for the U.S. Armed forces to remain
preeminent and avoid an Achilles Heel in the exercise of its power
they must be sure that these potential future forms of warfare favor
America just as today's air, land and sea warfare reflect United
States military dominance. Until the process of transformation is
treated as an enduring military mission – worthy of constant
allocation of dollars and forces – it will remain stillborn. …
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings
revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor”
(PNAC Rebuilding America's Defenses pages 51-61)
“The
Price of American Preeminence: The program we advocate – one
that would provide America with forces to meet the strategic demands
of the world's sole superpower – requires budget levels to be
increased to 3.5 to 3.8 percent of the GDP… We believe it is
necessary to increase slightly the personnel strength of U.S. Forces
– many of the missions associated with patrolling the expanding
American security perimeter are manpower-intensive, and planning for
major theater wars must include for politically decisive campaigns …
Also this expanding perimeter argues for new overseas bases and
forward operating locations to facilitate American political and
military operations around the world. … Keeping the American
peace requires the U.S. Military to undertake a broad array of
missions today and rise to very different challenges tomorrow, but
there can be no retreat from these missions without compromising
American leadership and the benevolent order it secures.” (PNAC
Rebuilding America's Defenses pages 74-76)
“[...]
We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the
challenge. We are living off the capital — both the military
investments and the foreign policy achievements — built up by
past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending,
inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are
making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around
the world.
[...]
We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan
Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet
both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and
purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national
leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.
[...]
we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in
preserving and extending an international order friendly to our
security, our prosperity, and our principles. Such a Reaganite policy
of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today.
But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes
of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in
the next.”
[...]
we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom
abroad;” (PNAC Statement of Principles)
Just
look at the last sentences of the passages, and words like 'moral
clarity' and 'political and economic freedom abroad', to reflect the
benevolence of hegemony in the language of 'American peace' and the
'benevolent order it secures.':
"the
ultimate objective of American policy should be benign and visionary:
to shape a truly cooperative global community"
"Keeping
the American peace requires the U.S. Military to undertake a broad
array of missions today and rise to very different challenges
tomorrow, but there can be no retreat from these missions without
compromising American leadership and the benevolent order it
secures."
Are
they much different from the language of Zionism?
I
am too lazy to dig out my William Shirer or the Nuremberg
transcripts. It is too well known that Hitler perfected the mantra of
"preemptive war" for maintaining the "German peace"
in his extended Lebensraum.
I
contend that the Palestinain elite's psychological cataracts cannot
be due to mere language mis-translation of the "language of
Zionism" – that language resemantification is quite
standard fare, and "as old as mankind". And
"Colonialism is peace; anti-colonialism is war" has
been the language of all ubermensch since time immemorial.
Zionism didn't invent it. I find the following unraveling of it which
is almost 1600 years old and surely none is unfamiliar with it,
revealing:
“When
the King asked him what he meant by infesting the sea, the pirate
defiantly replied: 'the same as you do when you infest the whole
world; but because I do it with a little ship I am called a robber,
and because you do it with a great fleet, you are an emperor.' ”
(The City of God against the Pagans, Page 148).
What
the commonality in the aforementioned excerpts also show is that the
struggle against Zionism is futile by itself. The struggle against
the ubermenschen's penchance for Lebensraum needs to be both
understood and waged in the context of the singular noun "Hectoring
Hegemon" to be effective. If people can only comprehend
that, then the hectoring hegemon's common shared agenda, and
common prime-movers: the common financiers and common thinkers,
automatically come into focus.
The
Zionist enemy is aided and abetted by an "invisible force"
today as a crucial link in a chain of the quest for "full
spectrum dominance" for a "Zion that will light up
all the world", and that's the real problem of beleagured
Palestine.
A
problem of accurate diagnosis.
Not
a problem of mis-translating a language that is as old as empire.
A
problem not even touched upon by JM.
Nor
by any of the other prominent Palestinian intellectuals.
Why?
Zahir
Ebrahim
Project
Humanbeingsfirst.org
DOWNLOAD
Pamphlet: The Invisible House of Rothschild
Read
Online URL:
http://humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/p/rothschild.html
My
Confusion Series (MIRROR): Part-1
, Part-2
, Part-2-Balfour
, Part-3
, Part-4
, Part-5
, Part-6
, Part-7
Pamphlet
The Invisible House of Rothschild By Zahir Ebrahim 70/70