Copyright
© 2010, 2012 by Zahir Ebrahim.
All
rights reserved.
For
non-profit Gratis Distribution Only under Fair-Use Doctrine
Words:
38361 |
Pages: 118 |
Printed on Nov 16, 2012
Published
by Project HumanbeingsfirstTM
First
Edition May 15, 2010
2nd
Edition November 2012
DOWNLOAD
PDF
http://tinyurl.com/how-to-return-to-palestine
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
The
author, an ordinary researcher and writer on contemporary
geopolitics, a minor justice activist, grew up in Pakistan, studied
EECS at MIT, engineered for a while in high-tech Silicon Valley
(patents here), and retired early to pursue other responsible
interests. His maiden 2003 book was rejected by six publishers and
can be read on the web at http://PrisonersoftheCave.org. He may be
reached at http://Humanbeingsfirst.org.
The
Brilliant Architecture Behind The Theft of Palestine
Palestine:
The Illusion of Power and the Calculus of Dispossession
Response
to Alan Hart's: 'Palestinian people power - could it be a
game-changer?'
July
08, 2011
I
First
of all, thanks to Alan Hart for his article
which I read on Salem-News[1]. It
takes a brave man to see, and even braver one to speak. And
especially to speak out against the genocidal crimes of a state whose
own “mother” called Alan Hart her “good
friend”[2]:
Caption
Photograph of Golda Meir, autographed to Alan Hart as her 'good
friend'
Zionism
is indeed the Jews' worst enemy. It tends to make the world's Jewry
the natural enemy of the entire world regardless of which country
they live in. As
was examined in another riposte
to Alan Hart, January 17, 2009 titled “No No – Not the
‘New Nazis’”[3],
Jews can become the seditious enemies of their home nations where
they were born and whose citizenship they
enjoy, when matters come into conflict with supporting their Jewish
state in Palestine.
The
foundation of this sociopathy was laid very
carefully in the precise wording of the Balfour Declaration
itself. It had sanctioned the Jewish state in Palestine without
jeopardizing the Jews' political rights in
their own home countries: “It being clearly understood that
nothing shall be done which may prejudice
the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities
in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in
any other country.”
Caption
The Balfour Declaration: Dear Lord Rothschild, 'His Majesty's
Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a
national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavor
to facilitate the achievement of this object. it being clearly
understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil
and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,
or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other
country.'
The
Balfour Declaration permitted the Jews, solely by the fiat of
imperial power, to live in any country in the world while
simultaneously making the Jewish state in Palestine their new home
without jeopardizing their “rights
and political status” in
their home country of birth or citizenship. Notice that the wording
of the Balfour Declaration does not even mention the indigenous
peoples of Palestine by name, only referring
to them as “non-Jewish communities in Palestine”.
It further does not mention their general “rights and
political status” as a
people as it does for the Jews, but only refers to some narrower
“civil and religious rights” as
“non-Jewish communities”.
While on first glance these might appear equivalent to the layman, on
careful examination with the eyes of a shrewd lawyer, the local
“non-Jewish communities”
are not accorded the same general unspecified “rights
and political status”, as
are the transplanted Jewish people in the land of another granted to
the Jews.
While
bearing only a few short imperial proclamations, the Balfour
Declaration is the most treacherously worded document of its kind in
the history of colonization. Observe the magic of its linguistics,
wherein, the Palestinian peoples are not referred
to as a “people”, but only as “non-Jewish
communities”. Whereas, the
same document refers to the Jews as “the Jewish
people”. The simple,
largely agrarian, indigenous
Palestinian population, uninformed of the vagaries of deceit and the
Machiavellian use of legalisms and linguistics, from day one were
deprived of political status by the very wording of the Balfour
Declaration.
The
British empire making the surprising land grant to the Jews whom they
professed no inordinate love for throughout their history, only
villainous hatred, suddenly didn't even recognize the indigenous
peoples of Palestine continuously living for thousands of years in
their own ancestral lands as one people. But the Jews in Diaspora,
hailing from almost every country and culture on earth, but primarily
the Ashkenazi from Europe, are acknowledged
as one, “the Jewish People”. Thus, the Machiavellian
logic was to naturally follow, that how can a non-existent people
have the general “rights and political status”
which the “Jewish
People” enjoy as a people
regardless of where they live? That logic, once diabolically seeded
into the consciousness of the world Jewry by the fiat of Zionism as
their divine right, has been articulated by almost every prime
minister and statesman of the Jewish state of Israel ever
since. Suffice it to reproduce here as the harvest of this crafty
logic, the famous Jewish epitaph for Palestine: land without a
people for a people without a land!
Based
principally on that self-serving axiom which wiped out the very
existence of a people with a single stroke of imperial pen, that
Golda Meir, the “Mother Israel” who autographed
her photograph to Alan Hart with the inscription: “To
my good friend” as
reproduced above, was quoted in Le Monde[4] as
proclaiming: “This country exists as the fulfillment
of a promise made by God Himself. It would be ridiculous to ask it to
account for its legitimacy”. Since
the Jewish God cannot be unjust even to the goyem (in the Jews
proclamations before the goy), so Palestinian peoples must not exist
if Israel “exists as the fulfillment of a promise
made by God Himself.” (Other
intriguing Jewish convolutions on the God logic in which god suddenly
died after giving the Palestine land grant to the Jews, is in Leo
Strauss, The Early Writings 1921-1932, pg.
202, quoted in my February 08, 2009 letter to editor, Dalit Voice[5].
The 2010 Pamphlet on Palestine cited below exhaustively lists all
convolutions on Zionism, unarguably demonstrating their one singular
common purpose.)
Books
upon books have been meticulously compiled on Zionism dissecting the
conquest of Palestine from all directions. The Jews have themselves
written major treatise admitting their
crime, Israeli historian Benny Morris' Righteous Victims,
among them. And the Palestinians have narrated of their dispossession
and genocide with an eloquence which
remains unsurpassed for any oppressed peoples. Compelled by an inner
drive to side with a beleaguered peoples, I
have cited dozens of such compelling narratives in my 28 February
2007 article
“The endless trail of red herrings”[6].
However,
when we solely focus on Zionism, we somehow seem to overlook that it
was constructed by someone. Who? What for? Who aids and abets it? Who
is its primemover? How has it lasted that long? Which forces drive it
so that it has endured for almost 200 years? AIPAC? Chabad? The
Knesset? Washington?
Most
significantly, who
crafted such a diabolical document like the Balfour Declaration? And
what power did they exercise over the mighty British empire to
prevail with such an unjust demand? What is the nature of that
seemingly infinite and inexhaustible power
that even today, no statesman of the entire Western Hemisphere can
utter an effective word or take an effective action against the
Jewish state?
Such
magic doesn't just happen without a primemover force – like the
force of gravity whose effects all can see but not the force itself.
It took several thousand years of observing its effects by all and
sundry that someone came up with an accurate explanation for gravity,
and with nothing more than just a falling apple. It was right there,
apples have fallen from trees since the day Adam and Eve took the
proverbial bite from the tree of knowledge, but the mind wasn't ready
to see it until Isaac Newton.
II
My
critique of Alan Hart, and of most of the conscionable Western
witnesses to the genocidal crimes against humanity being purveyed
upon an indigenous peoples in Palestine during our own lifetime (not
something we just read about in history books and for which we can do
nothing about today), is that they only speak of what they see,
rather eloquently too, but almost always superficially. Yes we all
can see the dead bodies, doesn't take a Nostradamus to perceive
what's already before one's eyes. But they don't speak of what they
don't see. Like the iceberg, 90% is hidden from sight. And like the
iceberg, it is also known to exist, and to lurk just beneath the
surface. It is not secret or esoteric knowledge, nor is it a
classified state-secret. And just like it is for the iceberg, most
descriptions of it only describe the visible 10% above the surface. I
am not sure what profound wisdom is gleaned from reading such
narratives. I am sure studying and documenting crimes against
humanity is necessary. If eruditely documenting is the main purpose,
than I believe people are doing a terrific job of it. Even the senior
Bush White House advisor proclaimed this to the New York Times in
2004[7]:
‘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, quoting Senior
Bush Advisor, The New York Times, October 17, 2004
But
if changing what the “history's actors” are doing before
they accomplish all their goals in incremental stages, is the main
goal of dissent, then these erudite documentations
etc. are as meaningless as boasted above by the history's actors
themselves. This is an empirical fact. Not a matter of opinion.
If
no thinker and lauded exponent of Palestine will see the 90% which
gives the entire foundational substance to the visible 10%, then
their articulation of the problem is only as deep (or shallow) as the
10% visible iceberg. It is forever relegated to studying the “new
realities” being daily created by the “history's
actors”. As they like to put it with considerable chutzpah
and hubris, “to just study what we do.”
So,
in my moments of stupidity (since no brilliant
peoples like all the Nobel peace prize winners and academic
professors and scholars ever seem to think of this, I must be the
stupid one to do so), I have to wonder that while how easy it is to
see the 10% of the visible iceberg mass for dissent-chiefs, why is it
so hard to see the remaining 90% for those who do see the 10%?
Virtually
without exception, all famous and lauded narrators of Palestine in
the dissent-space keep coming up with faulty frameworks to explain
what they do see in Palestine. The rare exception which links it to
the larger global agenda in the world, is either immediately
marginalized, or ignored. Or, the oddballs inexplicably marginalize
themselves in the eyes of rational people who might otherwise pay
attention to them, by simultaneously uttering some outlandish
gibberish.
This
blindsight amidst the learned simply drives me up the wall,
especially when peoples, far more knowledgeable and experienced than
I, indulge in it.
Why
do they do that? Are they blind? Or, are they stupid? Or, am I really
really brilliant? I would safely strike out
the last item self-servingly put there if I were you, because I don't
believe it myself. Nothing I have said in the zillion words on my
website is rocket science. Then, is there some other reason for these
stupidities which ought to remain unspeakable?
For
what little my opinion is worth, I have still tried to address this
very question in my May 15, 2010 Pamphlet
“How to Return to Palestine”[8].
And
in my view, I am sorry to say that the heartfelt narratives of Alan
Hart, as truly heart warming as they always are, seldom do any
analytical justice to unraveling the core issues which pertain to the
invisible 90%.
I
am really sorry to say this of peoples' heroes. But I have to say it
because that's the only way to lick this totem pole of hero worship
of dissent-chiefs. To boldly challenge the lauded and brand-name
narrators and give them the opportunity to think afresh. None of us
are god, prophet, or all knowing and all seeing. And unless we begin
to acknowledge that fact, that we aren't, that our understanding of
reality must always remain tentative and continually subject to
correction, that we can actually stand to gain new insights into the
problem-space only if we stop pretending that we already understand
it all, no freaking sunshine is ever gonna enter the dark-matter
between our ears.
People
throng to Alan Hart, just like to the other dissent-chiefs. He is
respected, widely published, and wins many accolades for his
narratives (and also the ire of his Zionist antagonists of course).
But
is it rocket science that he actually misses by a mile on the hidden
but only in plainsight 90% of the iceberg?
If
I can see it, why can't Alan Hart? He is, I wholly admit just by
looking at his imposing credentials, far more experienced,
accomplished, and politically astute, than a lowly plebeian.
Omissions
are a serious offence. So serious in fact, that Aldous Huxley stated
it thusly:
‘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
If
curious about how an ordinary plebeian thinks bluntly on the 90% that
no Westerner who is famous as an academic, a journalist, or a
scholar, will touch with a ten-foot pole in their erudite
scholarship, see the first three parts of My Confusion Series[9].
Part-2
and Part-3
are perhaps directly pertinent as a response to Alan Hart's most
significant omission of his narratives.
Unless
Alan Hart goes there, my going there is ineffective and wasted effort
- because, I don't carry an imposing resume like Alan Hart. No one
ever listens to a plebeian. But people pay much attention to someone
like Alan Hart. When I sent my maiden 2003 manuscript to 30
publishers via Fedex at considerable cost, only six bothered to say
no thanks. Twenty four didn't reply. I don't even know if they ever
got to the right person. The publisher who published John Perkins'
Confessions of Economic Hitman in 2004, on Perkins' kind referral
(since I had requested him to refer me to his publisher after
learning that his book too had been turned down dozens of times),
talked to me by phone only to let me know that publishing is not
about a cause, but about profits. An unknown first of all is hard to
publish because he does not have readership. Secondly, as the
Berrett-Koehler representative had put it, and this was the most
disconcerting to me, one with a Middle Eastern name will be presumed
to be biased by the American readers since his own peoples are being
killed, hence no one will buy my book - so sorry.
In
those days, I still greatly admired Noam Chomsky as he had been one
of my most inspiring professors at college. My maiden manuscript sat
in Chomsky's in-basket for review for months, as it did on almost all
brand-name dissent-chiefs I had ever met in my life (including names
like Daniel Ellsberg and Tariq Ali –
to both of these prominent chiefs I had hand-delivered my manuscript,
in those days I was still a bit green behind the ears), before
Chomsky let me know that he will likely never get to it. He said he
was too busy and there were just way too many things in his
in-basket, which I interpreted as there were too many important
peoples ahead of me in his in-basket.
Howard
Zinn, what a remarkable teacher that late historian was, on a cold
call from me to his home in Boston, immediately agreed to review my
manuscript after we chatted a bit about his own million copy
bestseller. In fact, Howard Zinn reviewed two drafts for me. And when
I was unsuccessful in lining up any prominent publisher, Zinn even
wrote me a short but stellar commendation
letter to send to publishers. Despite all that, I got zero interest
from any mainstream publisher. Seven Stories Press who had published
Chomsky's 911 booklet (see Noam Chomsky below) also talked to me,
said my book was interesting, but that they liked first-hand research
(whatever that meant). In fact the title for my essay “They
Dared to Knock on my door” which was the first part of my
manuscript[10], if I recall correctly, was suggested by
Greg at Seven Stories Press. As I now recall, he had also noted that
as an unknown in this crowded field where mainly brand-names are
magnets, and others have to have some unique hook, my narrative as a
Muslim complaining about Islamophobia in America and America's
fictitious war on terror just won't sell. I should look into
self-publishing. Sorry.
I
am not sure that Alan Hart has had such problems.
All
those publisher turndowns back in 2003, at least in my case, were
partly symptomatic of what is empirically obvious.
We,
as part of our human nature, naturally tend to listen to those in
positions of power, those with titles, those with published
accolades, those who have met kings and queens, prime
ministers and presidents, those who look sharp and talk sharp,
and tend to accept from them, on the slenderest evidence, that which
already meets with the presuppositions of our own worldview. And we
concomitantly reject that which doesn't,
despite preponderance of evidence, continually demanding more, more,
more. It's as if cognitive dissonance prevents us from giving up our
old beliefs, even reaffirming them to make
them even more strongly held when shown to be wrong.
If
we are in the mainstream, our heroes are the mainstream heroes. We
don't hear dissent. And if we are in the dissentstream, our heroes
are invariably the dissent-chiefs and we applaud
ourselves for our brilliance that we are not sheep. But empirically,
we are each beholden to our natural inclinations, to our worldviews
howsoever we may have acquired them, whether by inheritance, or
vicariously implanted by the Mighty
Wurlitzer[11].
And
each of us have our own heroes and storytellers we generally
gravitate toward. And it is they, our heroes, people whom we respect
and admire, who invariably inform us what is the matter with whatever
they might be interested in. This aspect of our natural propensity
was partly captured by Bertrand Russell thusly:
'What
a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index to his
desires – desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If
a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts [or
worldview], he will scrutinize it closely, and unless [and at times
even when] the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe
it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a
reason for acting in accordance with his instincts [or worldview], he
will accept it even on the slenderest evidence.' — Bertrand
Russell, Proposed Roads to Freedom, 1919, page 147
What
Bertrand Russell neglected to mention is that we tend to accept such
narratives on “the slenderest evidence” more
easily when it is brought to us by our respective heroes. But Adolph
Hitler didn't. He not only recognized, but also capitalized on such
shrewd understanding of human psychology (see below).
Therefore,
having become acutely aware of all this through my own successive
failures to convince anyone of anything (unless I am preaching to the
choir - and what's the great benefit of that), I began tackling
peoples' heroes directly, beginning with my own hero in my earlier
life, Noam Chomsky. In the slenderest hope that if I can get
someone's hero to interlocute with a
plebeian, and can miraculously change his mind, his flock will
naturally follow. It hasn't happened yet, but I keep trying.
To
you, the reader, what I say will be dismissed trivially. But have the
same thing be stated by the pundit/scholar/chief you admire –
well, try your own experiments. I know
someone who even did the following experiment:
sent one of his rejected articles again, by doing some simple word
substitution, mainly replaced his own name and put “Thomas
Friedman” and mailed it back. The same article which had been
rejected on specious grounds of racism earlier, was accepted with
that made up authorship of a Jewish brand-name,
and substituting two words identifying one
people with another people. I think the reader can well guess what
those might have been. Later the person let the publication know that
he had only done that experiment to prove to them the natural
perception bias, not to mention vile prejudice which had gone into
rejecting his first submission.
Therefore,
through this response to Alan Hart's article, I once again try to
interlocute with a brand-name chief. I invite Alan Hart, the narrator
of Palestinian travails, to offer a response to an ordinary
plebeian's missive by examining what's argued in Part-2 and Part-3 of
my confusion series referenced above. If I am shown the errors in my
thinking, I will humbly bow my head in shame and quietly slink away
to rethink and relearn from the master.
Obviously,
no two people agree on anything. So, the reader might well ask,
what's wrong with everyone having their own point of view in dissent?
It is, after all, dissent. Dissent means to disagree – don't
it? The most powerful description of dissent I ever saw is this one
by Vaclav
Havel[12]:
'I
too think the intellectual should constantly disturb, should bear
witness to the misery of the world, should be provocative by being
independent, should rebel against all hidden and open pressure and
manipulations, should be the chief doubter of systems, of power and
its incantations, should be a witness to their mendacity. For this
very reason, an intellectual cannot fit into any role that might be
assigned to him, nor can he ever be made to fit into any of the
histories written by the victors. An intellectual essentially doesn't
belong anywhere; he stands out as an irritant wherever he is; he does
not fit into any pigeonhole completely.' — Vaclav Havel, cited
in Zahir Ebrahim, Responsibility of Intellectuals – Redux,
March 03, 2007
So,
what's wrong with each one of us standing alone, in our own little
Hyde Park screaming corner, blaring our own irritants into the ears
of power? Okay, some have more prominent perches than others, but
that's just capitalism, egalitarianism, meritocratism.
What's wrong with that? You are just upset that the NYT does not
publish you or pays any attention to your submissions – why
don't you go back to engineering where you still have some earned
credibility, and evidently were also quite
successful? What do you have to show for ten years of activism
anyway? By your own admission, you haven't changed a single mind!
Such cynicism is what I constantly hear from both my trusted friends,
as well as my antagonists (those who were formerly
my friends but today I suspect just hate my guts because I refuse to
suffer fools any longer).
In
fact, I was even informed by one of my very wise colleagues in
Pakistan when I had offered him a copy of my unpublished manuscript
as keepsake, that I was wasting my time if I expected it to make any
difference even if it was published by Simon & Schuster and
became a bestseller on the New York Times list. His opinion was that
people don't change their mind by reading a book. (At that time I of
course didn't want to believe it, but now I am convinced of that fact
myself.) My uncle too had reliably informed me that I will be
“disappeared” the moment I came into notice of the
intelligence apparatus – and since the FBI had already visited
me twice, my days were surely numbered. (That I did believe,
and still do fear – but seek refuge in none except in my own
faith.) All that was back in 2003 when I first started opening my
mouth, and that was after I had already been exercising my legs and
my lungs in anti-war protest marches since 2002-2003.
So
what difference does dissent make? What has the bold courage of a
handful really changed? Whether it be of those much sought after
brand-named dissent-chiefs, or of the unknown tens of thousands of
other individuals who feel an inner compulsion to not accept
villainous matters as they are?
I
sincerely believe the following: that those who principally side with
truth, those who bear witness, those who seek fair justice for their
fellow man, and take personal risks in doing so when they don't need
to – when they could just as easily be pursuing their own
'American Dream' like the rest of silent bystanders – are all
principally holding the same book (the book of justice,
metaphorically speaking).
But
we are not all on the same page. Obviously. That is our undoing. Why?
Why do all of us have to be on the same page?
Because,
we are often unable to separate the myriad obfuscating issues into
their proper causal relationships of cause and effect. The causality
is also hierarchical, and often obfuscated by lower order less
significant bits masquerading themselves as the higher order bits. We
also often seem to confuse dependent variables of a complex system
with its independent variables which are often calculatingly masked
by the dependent variables for obvious reason.
In
other words, the subject of hegemony in modern times is very complex
- even though it may be as old as mankind - far more complex than
simply the dead bodies strewn from Palestine to Iraq to Afghanistan
to Pakistan which all can see.
To
separate out the causal relationships which are often highly nuanced,
and almost always cloaked in deception, is not easy. It requires a
great deal of commonsense - a commodity which appears to be less
common than the name might suggest.
So,
here is a test of commonsense for the reader whose moral compulsion
drives him or her to no longer remain a silent bystander: all see the
power of AIPAC and Chabad, some write major treatise on how they
influence the United States to favor Israel. From Paul Findley in
1985 (They Dare to Speak Out) to Mearsheimer and Walt in 2007 ( The
Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy), and in the ten thousand
articles across the Israel-Palestine landscape, these Zionist lobby
groups are indicted for their unelected power-wielding upon the
elected representatives of the people. Can
you suggest what makes these Zionist Lobby groups so powerful? The
brand-named academics and former elected officials who write those
narratives haven't. Can you, dear reader? It isn't rocket science.
My
own limited thinking on this matter is argued in the cited Pamphlet.
I am sure others with more wherewithal can do much better. The
problem is – all whom one imagines as having more wherewithal
don't want to go there! This unspeakable iron wall no one desires to
breach.
When
it comes to Zionism and Palestine, a land that was taken over by
deception and treachery, and whose narratives are replete with both
“beneficial cognitive diversity” (ala Cass Sunstein[13])
and Trojan Horses (ala fifth columnists from among the
Palestinians[14]
themselves), all effectively lead the
struggle away from focussing on what and who are Zionistan's real
primemovers.
The
struggle for Palestine has been replete with red herrings (a smelly
fish that a fugitive drags across the path in order to put the
pursuing dogs off the trail). Every single one of these, as far as
one can tell, is either been planted by, or aided and abetted by,
lauded dissent-chiefs with brand-names. Don't believe it? See it for
yourself in the already cited article “The endless trail of red
herrings”.
Thus,
the direct addressing of the behind the scene powers which can
potentially add some efficacy to the otherwise sterile pursuit of
justice in Palestine, is made impossible when no one will go there.
Either deliberately as fabricated or controlled dissent, or out of
sheer ignorance, or out of self-preservation.
What
I fail to grasp is why should the Palestinians in Diaspora refuse to
go there? They have everything to gain, and only their good 'American
Dreams' to lose? Is that even a fraction of what their brethren brave
daily in their existential struggle on ground zero, still refusing to
give in despite burying their dead daily,
like the un-identified child in the photograph[15]
in Alan Hart's article? But we equally see such omissions in the
Palestinians' own narratives as well. This is amply demonstrated
in my responses to Salman
Abu Sitta[16],
Antoine
Raffoul[17],
Ismail
Zayid[18],
Khalil
Nakhleh[19],
Shadi
Nassar[20],
Mustafa
Barghouti and Anna Baltzer[21],
Jeff
Gates[22],
Jeff
Blankfort[23],
et.
al[24].
Our
collective inability to analyze causality has been deliberately made
prodigious. Either through co-option, or through dumbing us down
while letting us pretend that we are super-smart! I call it the “IVY
League Morons Syndrome” and there is an article with that title
on my website[25]. The upshot of it all is that it
ultimately succeeds in keeping us from opening the book of justice
which we all evidently care about, on its most significant page
simultaneously. That, is the real purpose of introducing "beneficial
cognitive diversity" through "cognitive infiltration"
(sic!).
III
Let's
change that calculus of subterfuge and energetic runs on treadmills
to soothe the conscience, which have been in any case crafted for us
by the “history's actors” themselves.
Caption
A Palestinian child's indomitable courage on Ground Zero in
Palestine (Photographer unknown). In order to be effective in
dealing with such a multifaceted and unique adversary, a division of
labor between those compelled to face the live ammunition and
checkpoints on Ground Zero, and those in Diaspora living in the
comforts of the West with the luxury of time and liberty to
effectively focus on the prime-movers, is the rational demand of the
hour. But evidently, none suffering the excruciating weekend pains
of Diaspora can muster even the courage of a tiny child of
Palestine!
The
day a brave Palestinian narrator in Diaspora is willing to risk an
iota of hair on his balding head, or underneath the fashionable
headscarf, that will surely be the first day of reclaiming Palestine
for their progeny. No dissent-chief, East or West, is going to do it
for them. The only way they ever get to become dissent-chiefs in the
first place is by not going there.
Every
child of Palestinian Diaspora must learn to throw the comparable
intellectual stone and be willing to risk being shot dead like the
child of Palestine on Ground Zero, if they ever want to reclaim
their home. The grandiose prize-winning narratives fired while
resting one's mighty pen safely upon the tiny shoulders of the
uncompromising child of Palestine - one who is risking it all in
throwing a tiny pebble at a Goliath which can annihilate him even
before the pebble leaves his tiny palm - is the grotesque caricature
of the Palestinian struggle in the relative safety of Diaspora.
But
firstly, one can't change anything by patting oneself on the back for
one's efforts in the pursuit of justice. Which is unfortunately
largely the tenor and character of modern day dissent-chiefs as well
as their flock. Not everyone is like that, but many appear to be on
ego trips for their own narrow self-interests, their shrill laments
on behalf of the poor victims notwithstanding.
Secondly,
the rank and file of dissent, when we are conscionable peoples who do
lend our consciences to our moral endeavors as an inner compulsion,
primarily do so to soothe our own consciences. This should be
self-evident, but isn't. We, generally speaking, haven't the capacity
nor the wherewithal to shrewdly employ both mind and hand to ENGINEER
a struggle.
I
really don't understand that when we easily see the crimes against
humanity are diabolically engineered, that both consent and dissent
is Machiavellianly manufactured – the engineering of consent –
why we persist in feeling that we can counter villainous tyranny
un-engineered?
That,
by just randomly, and largely symbolically, exercising our
consciences, our lungs, and our pens, for whatever strikes our
immediate fancy, we can make a difference whatsoever? Today that
fancy is the BDS and Sailing to Gaza. Yesterday it was the endless
weekend-only protest marches of a few hours before people returned to
the pursuits of their 'American Dreams' on weekdays.
Not
to take anything away from the courageous people who are
participating in these exercises – even the optimists will have
to admit they are largely symbolic. BDS[26] is
deconstructed here.
And
I will openly admit that if I had a tenth of the courage and a
hundredth of conscience of these moral activists who are putting
their precious lives on the line sailing to GAZA, even if
symbolically, for symbols of resistance are equally important to any
struggle, I would have joined them. Since I am thus far unwilling to
brave Israeli bullets whizzing by my head, I am unwilling to say
anything further[27]
on the subject except to reiterate that these symbols of resistance
are indeed entirely symbolic. Ten million sailing to GAZA from all
directions however, would surely alter that calculus. That requires
engineering. Hope and wishful thinking don't create engineering, nor
do moral compulsions. The actual exercise of engineering does. That
requires enormous focus, enormous resources, and more than some iota
of brains to orchestrate it.
A
prerequisite to engineering an effective struggle for change which
doesn't solely run on the treadmill, is to understand the myriad
forces which maintain the status quo. Many of these forces are masked
and layered in deception. They almost always stay behind the scenes
leaving their henchmen to be visible. So we neither know ourselves
very well, nor unfortunately our enemy. Sun Tzu's following wisdom on
the Art of War makes our shortcomings rather apparent:
'If
you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of
a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every
victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the
enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.'
The
main harbingers of engineering any change against villainous tyranny,
I have lamentably come to realize, are not going to be ordinary
peoples like us plebeians. Typically, we are just the crowd who
follow our leaders. I am sure you reading this is an exception. But
most of dissent falls into this category.
The
unfortunate reality is that very few people think independently. I
have found so much truth in the oft quoted statistic by poets and
sociologists alike, that "less then 2% people in any population
actually think, 8% think they think, and 90% wont be caught dead
thinking". Bertrand Russell too made the observation that "most
people rather die than think, and they do." Hitler capitalized
on that observation in Mein Kampf and in constructing the Third
Reich. The same is being capitalized in constructing the Global
Fourth. I have deconstructed the manufacturing of both consent and
dissent, an engineered product of latter day hectoring hegemons that
is entirely based on that sociological empiricism, in my report
"Manufacturing Dissent" available on my website. Here is a
short extract from Hitler's Mein Kampf:
Begin
excerpt
In
journalistic circles it is a pleasing custom to speak of the Press as
a 'Great Power' within the State. As a matter of fact its importance
is immense. One cannot easily overestimate it, for the Press
continues the work of education even in adult life. Generally,
readers of the Press can be classified into three groups:
First,
those who believe everything they read;
Second,
those who no longer believe anything;
Third,
those who critically examine what they read and form their judgments
accordingly.
Numerically,
the first group is by far the strongest, being composed of the broad
masses of the people. Intellectually, it forms the simplest portion
of the nation. It cannot be classified according to occupation but
only into grades of intelligence. Under this category come all those
who have not been born to think for themselves or who have not learnt
to do so and who, partly through incompetence and partly through
ignorance, believe everything that is set before them in print. To
these we must add that type of lazy individual who, although capable
of thinking for himself out of sheer laziness gratefully absorbs
everything that others had thought over, modestly believing this to
have been thoroughly done. The influence which the Press has on all
these people is therefore enormous; for after all they constitute the
broad masses of a nation. But, somehow they are not in a position or
are not willing personally to sift what is being served up to them;
so that their whole attitude towards daily problems is almost solely
the result of extraneous influence. All this can be advantageous
where public enlightenment is of a serious and truthful character,
but great harm is done when scoundrels and liars take a hand at this
work.
The
second group is numerically smaller, being partly composed of those
who were formerly in the first group and after a series of bitter
disappointments are now prepared to believe nothing of what they see
in print. They hate all newspapers. Either they do not read them at
all or they become exceptionally annoyed at their contents, which
they hold to be nothing but a congeries of lies and misstatements.
These people are difficult to handle; for they will always be
sceptical of the truth. Consequently, they are useless for any form
of positive work.
The
third group is easily the smallest, being composed of real
intellectuals whom natural aptitude and education have taught to
think for themselves and who in all things try to form their own
judgments, while at the same time carefully sifting what they read.
They will not read any newspaper without using their own intelligence
to collaborate with that of the writer and naturally this does not
set writers an easy task. Journalists appreciate this type of reader
only with a certain amount of reservation.
Hence
the trash that newspapers are capable of serving up is of little
danger--much less of importance--to the members of the third group of
readers. In the majority of cases these readers have learnt to regard
every journalist as fundamentally a rogue who sometimes speaks the
truth. Most unfortunately, the value of these readers lies in their
intelligence and not in their numerical strength, an unhappy state of
affairs in a period where wisdom counts for nothing and majorities
for everything. Nowadays when the voting papers of the masses are the
deciding factor; the decision lies in the hands of the numerically
strongest group; that is to say the first group, the crowd of
simpletons and the credulous. — Mein Kampf, Adolph Hitler, Vol.
1, Chapter X (page numbers vary by edition and translation)
End
excerpt
Empiricism
suggests that the main harbingers of change throughout history have
always been chiefs, inspiring leaders who head their own flock who
invariably follow them blindly. And unless these leaders are patsies
standing in for the puppetmasters, one presumes that they are the
third category of people who “have learnt to regard every
journalist as fundamentally a rogue who sometimes speaks the truth.”
Such
people, often the opinion makers for their own flock, by opening the
book on the same most significant page simultaneously, and genuinely
pursuing the logic which naturally falls out on that page, can surely
engineer a focussed struggle for real efficacy rather than as a
commodity to soothe one's conscience, or line one's pocketbooks, as
it lamentably is today.
The
unpleasant reality today is that narratives in favor of the
'untermenschen' (German word for 'the lesser peoples'), showing dead
children and dead bodies, be they in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq,
Pakistan, or elsewhere along the 'arc of crisis' in the
'global zone of percolating violence' (both those terms[28]
are due to the architect of The Grand Chessboard, Dr. Zbigniew
Brzezinski),
have become a commodity. It spans the full gamut of narrow
self-interests.
If
valid cynicism be allowed to air for a minute (I am sure I will incur
the wrath of the pious), gallant people playing dissent with empire
are often funded by the instruments of empire itself. Mercenaries and
useful idiots alike – imperial military strategy documents
refer to the latter as “surrogates”, civilians who act on
the military's behalf without realizing it themselves (greed, false
patriotism, being a “house nigger”, and being “tickled”,
equally make convenient stooges) – willingly go on
reconstruction projects from Iraq to Afghanistan
in the name of bringing the bombed out peoples a taste of Western
“democracy”. Witness where they draw their paychecks
from? The very same Military-Industrial-Academe-Media-Nonprofit-UN
complex which ab initio creates the furor and “legal
legitimacy” for aggressive war under various pretexts, and
which directly benefits from bombing the “poor devils”
out in the first place! The manifest absurdity of this scam of
destroy-build-destroy-build cycle when one
is reaping its benefits, becomes rocket science to comprehend even
for people with Ph.D.
The
rising monetary cost of war (see costofwar.com) is a great method of
creating unpayable national debt, no matter who spends the money or
how it is spent. Cui bono national debt? The relationship
between rising national debt, the strangulation of the United States
itself as a sovereign nation-state, and the
construction of one-world government of the
financial oligarchy, has been explored and documented in
considerable depth on my website. One can read a succinct
summary in Chapter 3 of my 2011 book:
“The Poor-man's guide to modernity”[29].
Suffice it to simply state the obvious here that dissent –
controlled or self-serving doesn't matter – benefits from the
hegelian dialectic of their venture in many tangible as well as
intangible ways.
Narratives
purporting to favor the 'untermensch' often make their authors quite
rich and famous. Even win them prizes for their eloquence, and
sometimes accolades from the very instruments of those whom they
seemingly oppose in their dissent. The absurdity of this too, of
course, is entirely lost on their gullible flock who in point of
fact, cheer wildly for their heroes on such
occasions and carry them even more proudly
upon their shoulders. They fail to take notice of the distemper that
their gallant heroes of mankind themselves covet these prizes and
honors, and proudly display them on their resumes. But I am sure that
these gallant dissent-heroes donate every penny of their windfall
proceeds back to the Palestinians, to the very victims whose
narratives make them wealthy and famous.
Here[30]
is Noam Chomsky, “arguably the most important intellectual
alive” as anointed by the New York Times – the
accolade proudly adorning many a backcover of his books which of
course does not hurt in selling the brand-name of Noam
Chomsky to the public – gallantly giving away the proceeds of
his books. And here[31]
is a Palestinian lawyer in the West Bank doing it for the Orwell
prize he gladly accepted for his narrative from the very people who
instrumented the cataclysm upon his peoples which he narrated
thereof.
It
is very straightforward to recognize specious opinion-makers. They
generally tend to share the one common trait: they all see the sun
after it shines and hear the thunder after it roars. That is,
they see the 10% visible iceberg, after the fact, and describe it
with great eloquence. Sun Tzu captured the obviousness of it with
remarkable eloquence when defining the characteristics of a true
warrior in the Art of War 2500 years ago:
'8.
To see victory only when it is within the ken of the common herd is
not the acme of excellence.
9.
Neither is it the acme of excellence if you fight and conquer and the
whole Empire says, "Well done!"
10.
To lift an autumn hair is no sign of great strength; to see the sun
and moon is no sign of sharp sight; to hear the noise of thunder is
no sign of a quick ear.' — The
Three Political Dialogs[32], compiled by Project
Humanbeingsfirst, pg. 7
I
hope dissent-chiefs like Mr. Alan Hart, because of their vast
celebrity appeal and consequent flock, might be of the third type
mentioned by Hitler in Mein Kampf, and not just self-policing,
self-serving, controlled dissent. That, they might in fact be more
like the skilled warrior described by Sun Tzu. That he, Alan Hart, is
able to evaluate what he reads not based on which of his own heroes
might have written it, or his own natural proclivity to favor his own
a priori worldview as Bertrand Russell effectively described it, but
what it's actually saying. If Alan is that man, then by reading
part-2 and part-3 of my confusion series mentioned in this article,
he will either be persuaded by it and will logically open that mighty
book of justice on the right page himself. Or, he will refute it.
Short
of any of that transpiring, to just respond to Alan Hart's largely
rhetorical question embedded in the title
of his article, there is no real Palestinian power – people or
otherwise. Disenfranchised masses, the wretched of the earth,
like any other mob, are only power in the
hands of Machiavelli. This is self-evident. It is even a truism. In
the case of Palestinians on ground zero, they stand at the threshold
of annihilation while those in Diaspora
look on. The only recourse for Palestinians today to overturn that
dismal existential state of affairs they have been brought to, is to
clean their own house first of their house negroes and fifth
columnists[33].
I
could be wrong about everything in this article – judge for
yourself. Don't let someone else do the thinking for you. If you, Jew
or Gentile, are frustrated by the inefficacy of your labors while
“history's actors” continue to create new
realities boldly inviting you “to just study what we do”
to your good heart's content, look into opening the book on its most
significant page.
Thank
you for reading the words of a plebeian.
Zahir
Ebrahim
Project
Humanbeingsfirst.org
Footnotes
[1]
http://salem-news.com/articles/july062011/palestine-chanve.php
[2]
http://www.alanhart.net/about-alan-hart/
[3]
http://bloghumanbeingsfirst.wordpress.com/2011/07/09/no-no-not-the-new-nazis-by-zahir-ebrahim/
[4]
Golda Meir, Le Monde, 15 October 1971
[5]
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/02/letterto-dalitvoice-which-god.html
[6]
print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2007/12/endless-red-herrings.html
[7]
Ron Suskind, Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush,
New York Times, October 17, 2004,
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?_r=4&ex=1255665600
[8]
http://humanbeingsfirst.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/pamphlet-how-to-return-to-palestine-this-day-forward-5-15-2010-by-zahirebrahim.pdf
[9]
Part-1
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-many-jews-does-it-take-to-confuse.html
Part-2
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-confusion-invisible-rothschild-usa.html
Part-3
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-confusion-pt3-omnipotent-rothschilds.html
[10]
http://prisonersofthecave.blogspot.com/2007/04/part-1-they-dared-to-knock-on-my-door.html
[11]
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/05/note-on-mighty-wurlitzer.html
[12]
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2007/12/responsibility-of-intellectuals-redux.html
[13]
Cass R. Sunstein & Adrian Vermeule, Conspiracy Theories, January
15, 2008, Social Science Research Network,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585&
(cached
pdf)
[14]
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2011/07/palestine-enemy-within-by-zahirebrahim.html
[15]
http://humanbeingsfirst.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/image-of-an-unidentified-dead-palestinian-child-in-the-field-via-alan-hart-salem-news.jpg
[16]
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/04/resp-abusitta-rothschild-not-zabara.html
[17]
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/04/resp-antoine-raffoulwhat-is-iron-wall.html
[18]
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/04/resp-ismail-zayid-breaching-iron-wall.html
[19]
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/04/resp-palestine-contested-histories.html
[20]
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/03/secretking-rothschild-roman-jerusalem.html
[21]
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/11/rescuing-thestruggle-for-palestine.html
[22]
http://humanbeingsfirst.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/zahirs-letter-to-jeff-gates-of-criminalstate-com-in-response-to-anti-semitism-what-is-it-march182010.pdf
[23]
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/07/let-jeffblankfort-rothschilds-palestine.html
[24]
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/11/genesis-to-genocide-golem-not-jewish.html
[25]
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2011/01/ivy-league-morons-syndrome-zahirebrahim.html
[26]
http://bloghumanbeingsfirst.wordpress.com/2011/04/15/response-to-leaked-zionist-strategy-paper-to-counter-bds-by-zahir-ebrahim/
[27]
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/12/zahirs-response-mary-rizzo-ken-okeefe.html
[28]
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2011/01/unlayering-middle-east-war-agenda.html
[29]
http://humanbeingsfirst.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/the-poor-mans-guide-to-modernity-ze-ebook-print.pdf
[30]
Peter Schweizer, Noam Chomsky, Closet Capitalist, Hoover Institution
Stanford University, January 30, 2006,
http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/6222
[31]
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/05/letter-toguardian-2008-orwellprize.html
[32]
http://tinyurl.com/political-dialogs
http://humanbeingsfirst.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/cacheof-three-political-dialogs-to-screw-your-enemy-via-gutenberg-and-aztlan.pdf
[33]
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2011/07/palestine-enemy-within-by-zahirebrahim.html
Source
URL:
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2011/07/response-to-alan-hart-by-zahir-ebrahim.html
The
Architecture Of An Effective Struggle
Preamble
to Palestine: The Struggle Forward
From
Genocide to ReGenesis in ZERO Compromise: Just One Goal in the 62nd
Year of Al-Nakba
Not
Onestate; One Palestine
Saturday
May 15, 2010
This
article is the Preamble to my paper Palestine: The Struggle
Forward, which can be read here
[1]. That paper looked at the battle of two fundamentalisms,
between indoctrination borne of self-interests on the one hand, and
the sense of fairness and justice among those in mankind who share a
common moral compass regardless of their race, cast, color, or creed,
on the other. A moral compass which is straightforwardly
based on the Biblical Golden Rule “Do unto others as you have
others do unto you”, and is one which is innately recognized by
all ordinary sentient humanity as the touchstone of moral
commonsense. It is the primal differentiator which separates us from
animals without their capacity for abstract thought. Even the most
heinous of criminals among mankind, do not
fail to recognize the applicability of this Golden Rule to their
ownselves in their godfather's quest for primacy. Their
exercise of hegemony is not based on not having the moral
commonsense, but rather, despite knowing it all too well, being
flushed with the unassailable hubris natural to the distemper of
absolute power, getting away with it – as demonstrated in this
famous proclamation of Adolf Hitler, reported by William Shirer, the
American war correspondent in Berlin, in his diary on the eve of
World War II:
“Hitler
knew the answer well. Had he not the week before on his Bavarian
mountaintop promised the generals that he would 'give a
propagandist reason for starting the war' and admonished them not to
'mind whether it was plausible or not'? 'The victor', he had told
them, 'will not be asked afterward whether he told the truth or
not. In starting and waging a war it is not the right that matters,
but victory.'”
The
Struggle Forward argues that the only rational way to carry the
struggle for Palestine forward is in a strategic division of labor.
Those on ground zero having no choice in the matter, to continue-on
with waging that battle of their lives by the existential necessity
of survival against the incessant onslaughts of the indoctrinated
political robots and trigger-pulling foot-soldiers of Zionism
exercising their fanatical jihad for Jewish
Lebensraum. Those in the Diaspora having
all the choice and freedom of action in the comforts of the West,
rather than waste their time bemoaning Al Nakba
every year, to instead, go straight for the jugular of the real
prime-movers behind that Zionist quest for Lebensraum. That, their
to-date 62 years of ineffective struggle can only acquire potency,
some measure of efficacy, if the Palestinians shrewdly recognized
that the Israel Project is intimately tied to the globalists'
agenda for the primacy of a “Zion that will light up all the
world” in a one-world government. And they harnessed that
brazen fact to reframe their struggle as the common global struggle
of mankind directed principally against not the errand boys in
Zionistan, but against the common global enemy of all mankind, the
prime-movers.
This
article, From Genocide to ReGenesis in
ZERO Compromise, penetrates deeper into the psychology, and the
limitations, to The Way Forward. It is not that the aforementioned
approach is a very profound discovery, or is classified top secret
and I just accidentally stumbled upon it. It has been as open as any
butcher's knife in front of sheep. Yet, the sheep have never been
able to revolt against the habit of the
butcher to provide mutton to its paying-patrons. It obviously is
incapable of thought. But we are human beings. What prevents us? What
ab initio creates sheeples among mankind so
democratically, that perfectly reasonable people, quite capable of
thought, equally fall prey to the limitations of their respective
world-views, follow pied-pipers, instead of doing their own
independent thinking? Apart from the real fear that being labeled a
rebel may now be deemed a terrorist, or at least a mental disorder in
psychiatry, that is? [2]
As
reported in the Washington Post, if “there might be a legal
entitlement to be a jerk”, most assuredly there will be legal
entitlement to be a non-conformist, i.e., an independent thinker:
'Today's
DSM defines "oppositional defiant disorder" as a pattern of
"negativistic, defiant, disobedient and hostile behavior toward
authority figures." Symptoms include "often loses temper,"
"often deliberately annoys people" or "is often
touchy." DSM omits this symptom: "is a teenager."
This
DSM defines as "personality disorders" attributes that once
were considered character flaws. "Antisocial personality
disorder" is "a pervasive pattern of disregard for . . .
the rights of others . . . callous, cynical . . . an inflated and
arrogant self-appraisal." "Histrionic personality disorder"
is "excessive emotionality and attention-seeking."
"Narcissistic personality disorder" involves "grandiosity,
need for admiration . . . boastful and pretentious." And so on.
If
every character blemish or emotional turbulence is a "disorder"
akin to a physical disability, legal accommodations are mandatory.
Under federal law, "disabilities" include any "mental
impairment that substantially limits one or more major life
activities"; "mental impairments" include "emotional
or mental illness." So there might be a legal entitlement to be
a jerk. (See above, "antisocial personality disorder.")' --
George F. Will, The Washington Post, February 28, 2010, Handbook
suggests that deviations from 'normality' are disorders
Well,
we already know that Orwellian conformance and Orwellian
re-semantification of language is on-going,
as also examined in Joseph Massad's Al-Ahram Weekly article 'The
Language of Zionism' here,
and in this scribe's response to The Israel Lobby's Global Propaganda
Manual here.
[3] The aforementioned diabolics to label
non-conformists as suffering from “disorders” is merely
the next phase of it. Soon, all un-favorableness towards Zion, just
like all critical questioning of Holocaust already is in many parts
of the world, might be illegal, or as the above portends, be deemed a
mental illness. In either case, a good reason to be enjoying state
hospitality, perhaps even in Room
101.
[4]
Let's
begin by looking at the maps of Palestine and the end result of 62
years of compromises while peering down the triple-barrel
gun of Zionism: massive money, massive power, and continuous massive
control of imperial superpowers. The effect of this triple-barrel gun
of Zionism is is empirically depicted in the following maps of ground
realities:
Maps
of 62 Years of Al Nakba, of deal making, peace processes, and Nobel
Peace prizes
(The
latest Palestinian Uncle Tom for the Nobel Peace Prize:
Dr.
Mustafa Barghouti
Click
on this navigable map of One Palestine,
courtesy of Plands.org
I
commence this exploration by framing the question forensically:
today as a Muslim in the world, I am a reviled entity in the West. I
bear the brunt of the same anti-Semitic fulminations
from the pulpits, thrones, and pedestals of “our
Judeo-Christian heritage, our secular present, and the worldwide
expansion of both” – in the potent words of the mighty
Zionist Svengali, the “leading Western
scholar of Islam”, Bernard Lewis – as the Jews
absorbed for two millennia in Christendom
up to as late as 62 years ago, the day of
Al Nakba. But look at my dire predicament: I can't get in to see
anyone in power to plead to them to give me back my Palestine, and my
Iraq, and to stop the military and covert assaults on my Pakistan,
and on my Iran, and to stop inducing the “birth-pangs of a New
Middle East”.
How
could the Jews have done it: got the imperial powers to grant them
the Balfour Declaration from a severely weakened
imperial power upon whom the sun had never set at the end of World
War I after it had simultaneously defeated two other rival powers in
Europe, the German Wiermach Republic which
was the legatee of the mighty Austria-Hungarian
empire, and the Ottoman Empire which was the legatee of over 13
centuries of Muslim empires; followed by the bipartisan vote from the
two most Cold Warring factions at the end of World War II, the United
States and the USSR, in the United Nations; unless the Jews had
already acquired the triple-barrel gun of Zionism?
Who acquired it and wielded it on behalf of Zionism? After every
major World War, Zionistan came a step closer to realization. Who
participated in the peace talks at the end of each world war which
gave Zionistan its piece meal recognition? Who created the entity of
the United Nations to create legal sanction by an arbitrary
supra-national global authority pushed by the victors of World War
II, and whose very first acts were to sanction partitions,
specifically of Palestine and Pakistan? After World War III, the
Global Cold War of yesteryear, the Zionist state even emerged as the
top three among the world's superpowers. How could that have possibly
happened? And after World War IV, this Global War on Terror
inferno that we, the generation Caught Between Two Ages, are being
privileged to live through without any significant comprehension of
the forces which drive it, will surely culminate in the “Zion
that will light up all the world.”
As
a practicing engineer – used to examining complex systems in
order to build them – turned social scientist, puzzled by this
bizarre empiricism of the slaughter of the goy in massive numbers and
the systematic destruction of their power-base, with the Jews
successively coming out on top after each slaughter-cycle in such a
short span, I decided to probe deeper. This paper is the result of my
progressively refined research into this question since that very day
of infamy, September 11, 2001. Since the day when I had decided to
dump all a priori pre-suppositions, and all pied-pipers, and had
curled up with William Shirer's Rise and
Fall of The Third Reich, and Hitler's Mein Kampf, to attempt to
comprehend the Nazi's self-inflicted Operation Canned
Goods as a pretext for their war of German Lebensraum. I have, by
now, studied countless historical narratives to understand current
affairs and empirical matters always cloaked in deception. My
comprehension today is layered upon facts uncovered by many a
rational, un-afraid detectives who has
tread this path before me.
But
it is not mere facts which create perspectives. Although, no doubt,
facts must be built upon in order to be empirical in one's analysis.
In an age when “deception is the state of mind and the mind of
state” (James Jesus Ingleton, former
Director of counter intelligence in the CIA
during whose watch all the momentous political assassinations
of 1960s transpired); when power decides what is fact and what is
recorded as fact in its primary documentation and the popular Press,
which are subsequently used by others down the chain of narrators
echoing what was by fiat deemed to be fact, as absolute fact, without
being cognizant of that very fact of fiat; when the enactment
of puppetshows is construed as displaying “facts”, and
recorded as such by historians; facts by themselves are meaningless
in such a landscape when “waging war by way of deception”
upon the public is the norm rather than the exception.
So,
for instance, is it a fact that '19 Muslim Jihadis'
rammed hijacked airplanes into two tall
buildings bringing both of them down into their own footprint (watch
wtc1,
wtc2),
bringing a third tall building down into its own footprint a few
hours later without even hitting it (watch wtc7)?
[6] In this example, the scientific observation that three very tall
buildings comprising millions of tons of steel exploded into powder
and/or collapsed into their own footprint at near free-fall speed, is
an unarguable empirical fact. And the only fact. The rest, who
dunnit, how it was done, and
why it was done, as officially recorded in the current affairs books
and the Press, are assertions by the fiat of power using its control
of the narrative, i.e., the Mighty Wurlitzer, as examined here.
[7] The official narratives of today are the absolute facts of the
historians of tomorrow with no minority report on the official
record. Popular dissenting voices of course are 'conspiracy
theories', examined here,
[8] shortly to be medically diagnosed as victims of delusions
suffering from mental
illnesses for which medical and legal groundwork is now being laid.
As
George Orwell shrewdly but accurately
observed in the opening of his seminal
prognostications in “1984”:
“Who
controls the past, controls the future; who controls the present,
controls the past”
Therefore,
empirically, control of the narrative of history, as of current
affairs, has been the imperative of all empires. It is a tool as old
as hegemony, as old as mankind. Only fools, and imperial scholars in
the service of empire, regardless of their garb, ignore it.
Ergo,
it follows that the purported facts of history, as well as of current
affairs, have to be treated as being more akin to clues, at times
false clues and red herrings as in a crime scene, rather than as
statements of facts. Therefore, the most rational model for
understanding history and its linkages to current affairs, is the
forensic one. Like the forensic eye of a crime detective, such as
Agatha Christie's famous character Hercule
Poirot, pondering upon the interconnections
of clues, statements of purported eyewitnesses, drawing deductions,
making logical inferences, and using new methods for uncovering
unknown clues not visible to the naked eye in the visible light
spectrum, such as employing ultraviolet and infrared regions of the
spectrum to see what the naked eye can't perceive
– all part and parcel of the forensics employed for
apprehending a convoluted crime, solving a puzzle.
Thus,
studying history and current affairs is like studying a crime scene
or solving a puzzle. Its path is almost like the weaving of
the many horizontal and vertical threads on a loom to fashion a
carpet, or knit a Jacquard. That fashions a
perspective from the underlying clues borne of empiricism.
Weaving many perspectives from the same empirical
elements, just like weaving many carpets from the same colored
threads, is possible. And just like some detectives are plain wrong,
and one right in identifying the real criminal, the same challenges
beset the study of history. To find that right one master criminal,
or the right perspective which explains the engagement of power and
its narrative, surrounded tous azimuth
by an endless trail of false clues, patsies taking the fall, and lies
turned into sacred truths.
To
the extent that a perspective is empirical, cohesive, is able to
coherently resolve the riddles of power and its infestations of the
mind, it cannot be refuted by mere assertions, threats, and calumny.
It can stand in a court of law on its own merit, provided of course,
it isn't a kangaroo court administering the sovereign's justice, a
Military Tribunal administering the victor's justice, or a tournament
of justice run by the Queen of Hearts from Alice in Wonderland. The
definition of a crime, is always the fiat of sovereigns, such as one
day a terrorist, the next day a Noble Peace Prize winner (like
Israel's late prime minister Menachem
Begin). As even argued by Justice Vinson of the U.S. Supreme Court in
1951:
“Nothing
is more certain in modern society than the principle that there are
no absolutes, that a name, a phrases, a standard has meaning only
when associated with the considerations which give birth to
nomenclature. To those who would paralyze our Government in the face
of impending threat by encasing it in a semantic strait-jacket, we
must reply that all concepts are relative.” (Cited in
Palestine: The Struggle Forward, op. cit.)
Still,
the vestiges of the “semantic strait-jacket” have left a
few crucial loop holes in modernity. Before they all disappear
altogether from the uber-moral landscape of secular humanism, one can
harness the same cracks and lacunae used by power to oppress the
world to its diktats: legalism. Afterwards, of course, when there is
no recourse left from absolute tyranny, it
is always either perpetual slavery, or perpetual revolt and warfare,
for no peace processes can ever lead to freeing sheep from the
hectoring hegemons' habit of mutton eating!
One
such legal crack still existent in the dusty old law books, is,
interestingly, this definition of “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, quoted in: Some Dare Call it Conspiracy! Are
you among them? here
[9])
My
contribution to creating the forensic perspective on current affairs
cannot be deemed very original, because, in the light of clear
knowledge and forming the clear picture of the elephant
shitting-trumpeting in broad daylight, it is only unveiling what is
already in broad daylight. The blind of course can't ever see,
daylight or not being moot. What can the blind ever perceive of an
elephant, by feeling its deadly stomp upon them? Only something very
large, and very heavy.
I
do not intend to bring sight to the blind – not a Jesus, nor a
miracle worker am I. I intend however, to lay the seeds to
effectively counter this grotesque elephant using its own primary
tool – political science, which it wields through its
triple-barrel gun. To germinate, to
cultivate, and to harvest, however is no more one man's job than
executing on the Zionist's plan has been a one-man job. Using the
same political science being used against us, we must fashion our own
antidote to their triple-barrel gun. That fashioning does not require
the majority of the public to be sighted, nor for them to believe
what I believe, as Morpheus gallantly put
it to the Council in the underground “Zion” in the
Hollywood production: Matrix, the Revolution.
This
paper is addressed to the tiny minority of thinking and
morally-motivated peoples on planet earth, who still harbor the moral
commonsense of The Golden Rule as a categorical imperative, who do
not hold themselves to be uber alles, but who, almost all of them
with only few notable exceptions, are inadvertently being led by
their own emotionalism, by glamorous fools and false-leaders among
them, and who have become the victims of their own myopic world-view
which they haven't put to the forensic test of empiricism.
Thinking
is a difficult business. Even those who can think, are often either
too lazy to indulge in its luxury of
actually exercising their grey-matter,
often imagining that some other prominent
stalwart with “scholar” stamped on his or her forehead
has done due diligence on the matter on their behalf, or, are plagued
by the following truism:
“Man
is naturally competitive, acquisitive, and,
in a greater or less degree, pugnacious. When the Press tells him
that so-and-so is his enemy, a whole set of instincts in him responds
to the suggestion. It is natural to most men to suppose that they
have enemies and to find a certain fulfillment of their nature when
they embark upon a contest. What a man believes upon grossly
insufficient evidence is an index to his desires – desires of
which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact
which goes against his instincts [or worldview], he will scrutinize
it closely, and unless [and at times even when] the evidence is
overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he
is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance
with his instincts [or worldview], he will accept it even on the
slenderest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way,
and much of what is currently believed in international affairs is no
better then myth.” (Bertrand Russell, Proposed Roads to
Freedom, 1919, page 147)
The
construction of these myths and false beliefs in international
affairs, as further explained by Philip D.
Zelikow in the 1997-98 report of the
“Terrorism Study Group” which accurately predicted the
chain reaction of reaction-response cycle to any ‘Catastrophic
Terrorism’, is predicated entirely upon the 'Public
Assumptions' which Shape Views of History:
“Such
presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not
necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in
common within the relevant political community. The sources for such
presumptions are both personal (from direct experience) and vicarious
(from books, movies, and myths).” (Cited in: A Note on the
Mighty Wurlitzer, op. cit.)
This
tremendous insight into the mind of man was also not lost on Adolf
Hitler. In Mein Kampf, Hitler accurately recognized it:
“Journalistic
circles in particular like to describe the press as a 'great power'
in the state. As a matter of fact, its importance really is immense.
It cannot be overestimated, for the press really continues education
in adulthood. Its readers, by and large, can be divided into three
groups:
First,
into those who believe everything they read; second, into those who
have ceased to believe anything; third, into the minds which
critically examine what they read, and judge accordingly.
Numerically,
the first group is by far the largest. It consists of the great mass
of the people and consequently represents the simplest-minded part of
the nation. It cannot be listed in terms of professions, but at most
in general degrees of intelligence.
To
it belong all those who have neither been born nor trained to think
independently, and who partly from incapacity and partly from
incompetence believe everything that is set before them in black and
white. To them also belongs the type of lazybones who could perfectly
well think, but from sheer mental laziness seizes gratefully on
everything that someone else has thought, with the modest assumption
that the someone else has exerted himself considerably.
Now,
with all these types, who constitute the great masses, the influence
of the press will be enormous.
They
are not able or willing themselves to examine what is set before
them, and as a result their whole attitude toward all the problems of
the day can be reduced almost exclusively to the outside influence of
others. ...
Today,
when the ballot of the masses decides, the chief weight lies with the
most numerous group, and this is the first: the mob of the simple or
credulous.” (Mein Kampf, pages 240-242)
Hitler
credited the Anglophiles for their propaganda lessons:
“On
the other hand, British and American war propaganda was
psychologically efficient. By picturing the Germans to their own
people as Barbarians and Huns, they were preparing their soldiers for
the horrors of war and safeguarding them against illusions. ...
From
the enemy, however, a fund of valuable knowledge could be gained by
those who kept their eyes open, whose powers of perception had not
yet become sclerotic, and who during four-and-a-half years had to
experience the perpetual flood of enemy propaganda.
The
worst of all was that our people did not understand the very first
condition which has to be fulfilled in every kind of propaganda;
namely, a systematically one-sided attitude towards every problem
that has to be dealt with. ...
The
great majority of a nation is so feminine in its character and
outlook that its thought and conduct are ruled by sentiment rather
than by sober reasoning. This sentiment, however, is not complex, but
simple and consistent. It is not highly differentiated, but has only
the negative and positive notions of love and hatred, right and
wrong, truth and falsehood. Its notions are never partly this and
partly that. English propaganda especially understood this in a
marvellous way and put what they understood
into practice. They allowed no half-measures which might have given
rise to some doubt.
Proof
of how brilliantly they understood that the feeling of the masses is
something primitive was shown in their policy of publishing tales of
horror and outrages which fitted in with the real horrors of the
time, thereby cleverly and ruthlessly preparing the ground for moral
solidarity at the front, even in times of great defeats. Further, the
way in which they pilloried the German enemy as solely responsible
for the war--which was a brutal and absolute falsehood--and the way
in which they proclaimed his guilt was excellently calculated to
reach the masses, realizing that these are always extremist in their
feelings. And thus it was that this atrocious lie was positively
believed. ...
The
success of any advertisement, whether of a business or political
nature, depends on the consistency and perseverance with which it is
employed.
In
this respect also the propaganda organized by our enemies set us an
excellent example. It confined itself to a few themes, which were
meant exclusively for mass consumption, and it repeated these themes
with untiring perseverance. Once these fundamental themes and the
manner of placing them before the world were recognized as effective,
they adhered to them without the slightest alteration for the whole
duration of the War. At first all of it appeared to be idiotic in its
impudent assertiveness. Later on it was looked upon as disturbing,
but finally it was believed.
But
in England they came to understand something further: namely, that
the possibility of success in the use of this spiritual weapon
consists in the mass employment of it, and that when employed in this
way it brings full returns for the large expenses incurred.
In
England propaganda was regarded as a weapon of the first order,
whereas with us it represented the last hope of a livelihood for our
unemployed politicians and a snug job for shirkers of the modest hero
type. ...
I
learned something that was important at that time, namely, to snatch
from the hands of the enemy the weapons which he was using in his
reply. I soon noticed that our adversaries, especially in the persons
of those who led the discussion against us, were furnished with a
definite repertoire of arguments out of which they took points
against our claims which were being constantly repeated. The uniform
character of this mode of procedure pointed to a systematic and
unified training. And so we were able to recognize the incredible way
in which the enemy's propagandists had been disciplined, and I am
proud to-day that I discovered a means not only of making this
propaganda ineffective but of beating the artificers of it at their
own work. Two years later I was master of that art.” (Mein
Kampf, Vol. 2, Chapter VI)
Hitler's
teacher of course, inter alia, was Edward Bernays, the founder of
“Public Relations”, who opened his own seminal 1928 book,
Propaganda, which described the subliminal control of man and his
behavior through manipulation of the subconscious, the 'irrational
mind', with these portentous words:
“The
conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and
opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society.
Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an
invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”
(Edward Bernays, Propaganda, page 1, also see A Note on the
Mighty Wurlitzer, op. cit.)
The
necessity of maintaining and manipulating a public's ignorance and
perceptions through self-indulgences, through deliberately dumbing
them down with bread and circuses, though wholly self-evident today,
was already well thought out at the very dawn of the industrial age
in the early eighteenth century.
Bernard de Mandeville in his famous
classic,The Fable of the Bees, observed:
“The
economic well-being of the nation depends on the presence of a large
number of men who are content to labor hard all day long. Because men
are naturally lazy they will not work unless forced by necessity to
do so.” (Bernard de Mandeville, The Fable of the Bees)
The
philosophy espoused in The Fable of the Bees inspired Adam Smith to
propose the pursuit of selfish industriousness for the overall common
good – of course primarily of the ruling class with
trickle-down economics, but that's just buried
in the definition of common good. Patterned upon the bees
collectively making that marvellous tasting honey, by each bee
myopically staying busy in its own specialized micro-task, lies the
entire edifice of modern civilization. This philosophy of selfish
myopic industriousness for common good has been adopted to the
high-tech age of modernity which requires rather specialized
worker-bees, with the commensurate twist of creating educated morons
with advanced university degrees who can very patriotically
“United We Stand” for the common good while staying
productively engaged in narrow specializations in
the economy. Kept perpetually too busy, to either think
independently even when capable of doing so, or to pursue knowledge
outside of their narrow specializations by the sheer demands of
having to pay their endless debt-bills in pursuit of their endless
“American Dreams”, statecraft today relies on inflicting
The Fable of the Bees upon man for its own proper functioning.
Information today has been recast as knowledge, and parrots have been
turned into learned savants.
A
state of modern affairs which afflicts modern man quite
democratically. We are, despite all the vast data on our fingertips
in this Information Age, and all the sophistication of modern
gadgetry, still living in the age of Jahiliya
(ignorance)! This ignorance is by careful design in the industrious
West, especially in the sole superpower, United States of America –
as already examined by this scribe in Prisoners of the Cave
here.
[10] It is not just by the happenstance of knowledge explosion in
modernity, as Zbigniew Brzezinski would have one believe. That, “the
threat of intellectual fragmentation, posed by the gap between the
pace in the expansion of knowledge and the rate of its assimilation”,
is what causes general myopia in the Technetronic Era, leaving
industrialized people, including the Palestinians in Diaspora who
have moved to the West, quite ignorant of what matters to statecraft:
“The
science explosion – the most rapidly expanding aspect of our
entire reality, growing more rapidly than population, industry, and
cities – intensifies, rather than reduces, these feelings of
insecurity. It is simply impossible for the average citizen and even
for men of intellect to assimilate and meaningfully organize the flow
of knowledge for themselves. In every scientific field complaints are
mounting that the torrential outpouring of published reports,
scientific papers, and scholarly articles and the proliferation of
professional journals make it impossible for individuals to avoid
becoming either narrow gauged specialists or superficial generalists.
... The threat of intellectual fragmentation, posed by the gap
between the pace in the expansion of knowledge and the rate of its
assimilation, raises a perplexing question concerning the prospects
for mankind's intellectual unity.” (Zbigniew Brzezinski,
Between Two Ages, page 15)
This
paper assiduously endeavors to overcome those uncanny innate
tendencies, and the hidden manipulations which exploit those innate
tendencies, of projecting it “simply
[being] impossible for the average citizen and even for men of
intellect to assimilate and meaningfully organize the flow of
knowledge for themselves”; of requiring experts to do it
for the public; of learned people partaking in vicariously
constructed myths and propaganda even to the point of condoning
extreme violence when faced with any threat to one's world-view,
whether real or imagined; as brilliantly captured by all the
preceding empire builders, and amply in evidence since 911 when the
most brilliant peoples gathered “United We Stand” just as
in the Third Reich!
This
paper consciously endeavors to overcome that deadly myopia against
which Martin Luther King Jr., offered the following, and only
prescription:
“In
international conflicts the truth is hard to come by, because most
nations are deceived about themselves. Rationalizations and the
incessant search for scapegoats, are the psychological cataracts that
blind us to our sins. But the day has passed for our superficial
patriotism. He who lives with untruth lives in spiritual slavery.
Freedom is still the bonus we receive for knowing the truth. 'Yee
shall know the truth', says Jesus, 'and the truth shall set you
free.'” (Martin Luther King Jr., 1967 speech at the
Ebenezer Baptist Church)
And
this paper does indeed overcome those “psychological cataracts”
so diabolically cultivated and harvested by power, through its
creation of multi-faceted Hegelian dialectics in order to seed the
“high degree of doctrinal motivation, intellectual commitment,
and patriotic gratification” that forms the core-underpinnings
of “imperial mobilization”. This was coldly attested by
Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1996 The Grand Chessboard, and upon which
is devilishly erected the entire house of
cards of this Global War on Terror since the “Catastrophic
Terrorism” of 911 – America's most longed for “new
Pearl Harbor” to finally catalyze the process for the long
planned transformation to Global Governance in a one-world
government. A Catastrophic Terrorism for which the sole superpower
had ostensibly prepared to protect itself against so assiduously
throughout the post Cold War epoch which preceded
it, just as it is now spending the post 911 epoch ostensibly
protecting the Americans and its Western allies from the terrorists
who did 911:
“But
the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion,
except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's
sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is
defense spending), and the human sacrifice (casualties even among
professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to
democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization.
... 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.”
(Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard,
pages 36, 211-212)
Commensurately,
in order to benefit from this paper and The Way Forward, or
even to challenge it with any value added, the reader too must do the
same. Understand that one is naturally beholden to one's world-view,
no matter how profound or virtuous, which, one will naturally defend
no matter what exposition with what evidence is set before one.
Unless one consciously endeavors to
overcome these “psychological cataracts” which tend to
induce severe myopia, self-righteousness, and pathetic ignorance in
the garb of lofty education, prestige, wealth, degrees, and applause,
nothing new which is contrary to one's world-view, can ever seep in.
Incestuous self-reinforcement is a state of normalcy not just at the
White House in its Zionist decision making! This is entirely
self-evident, but most tend to apply it to only others, not to
oneself. It is always that other fellow! Know thy self in
order to know the world, is more than just a cliché of the
Sufis. It is a necessity for genuine learning in a modernity which
subjects the public to immense forces of social engineering.
Not an easy task to accomplish, for it's an on-going process to
unlearn what has been spent a lifetime being taught and which has
calcified in one's world-view.
Nevertheless,
it is an essential process for genuine seekers of truth, for the
moral harbingers of real change, including the Palestinian rebels
themselves, in order for one to not go through life as a gullible
patsy of power, as a virtuous moron rehearsing mainly the
incantations of power while calling it dissent, as a programmed robot
celebrating the scholarship of others, or as a likkha-parrha
jahil (pretentious ignoramus
with advanced academic degrees from IVY Leagues) leading other
morons. Having suffered is not an automatic qualification for knowing
what to do next. It requires careful thought, like any engineering
project. And the test of thought is daily, constant, like morality,
and one can't claim that Oh, I had thought in the 1960s, or “I
was born with that thought”, and coast on that mileage! Saying
that out loud sounds so bizarre, but it unfortunately captures the
mindset of many a rebel today who prides himself on dissent –
and follows the pied-pipers without analysis. The most thoughtful
among this lot, in fact, have come up with a great excuse to not
think: too much analysis leads to paralysis – “Just Do
It”!
Do
what? That's right, run on the treadmill laid
out in front of one.
And
one can see the results of exercises in “Just Do It” in
the preceding maps of 62 years of
dispossession, and where that's headed.
In
my view, apart from all the other arguably good reasons, the primary
reason the maps of Palestine presently look like this has been the
failure to out-think and out-smart a far superior nemesis which
primarily wages an uber-sophisticated war by way of deception strewn
with crafty red herrings! See my analysis in Rescuing a Failed
Struggle From Its Narratives – Response to Witness in
Palestine, here.
[11] And persisting in that way will only lead to the predicted
outcome also shown in the maps!
It
is a fallacy to look at the Jewish state in
isolation to what's happening in the rest of the world, ignoring the
unparalleled impetus towards Global
Governance and global tyranny. The Zion has a singular role to play
in this world, a role never enjoyed by Apartheid South Africa during
the epoch in which it existed. The Jewish State will be able to
maintain its Apartheid status indefinitely
in the same measure as the world government will be able to maintain
itself. In the words of Bertrand Russell:
“There
is, it must be confessed, a psychological difficulty about a single
world government. The chief source of social cohesion in the past, I
repeat, has been war: the passions that inspire a feeling of unity
are hate and fear. These depend upon the existence of an enemy,
actual or potential. It seems to follow that a world government could
only be kept in being by force, not by the spontaneous loyalty that
now inspires a nation at war.” (Bertrand Russell, Impact of
Science on Society,1951, page 37)
And
we do empirically observe such a global display of monolithic force,
police-states of common vintage rapidly descending like an “iron
curtain” around the West. [12] If police-states can enslave
billions of freedom loving Western peoples into the straight-jacket
of tyranny, what's to practicably deter
Zion to do it over several million? It is even far more experienced
in its practice and is in fact, the teacher of others. World
government and Zion share the same common prime-movers. Whereas, the
cunning fallacy that an equitable binational state will be the
natural outcome of the “onestate”, now that “two-state”
is dead by the fiat of Zionist conquest, is being pushed by the new
lauded scholarships to take over the critique of Israel from where
Noam Chomsky left off in his now stale repertoire. As only an
illustrative example, here
[13] is the distinguished Professor John Mearsheimer,
the author of the famous red herring critique of the ugly bulldog,
The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, without identifying the
prime-mover owners which empower its rabid bite:
“In
the long run, however, Israel will not be able to maintain itself as
an apartheid state. Like racist South Africa, it will eventually
evolve into a democratic bi-national state
whose politics will be dominated by the more numerous Palestinians.
Of course, this means that Israel faces a bleak future as a Jewish
state. Let me explain why. ....” (John Mearsheimer,
The Future of Palestine: Righteous Jews vs. the New Afrikaners,
speaking at The Palestine Center, Washington, D.C., 29 April
2010)
Bunch
of bogus but believable explanations
follow, starting with the first one: “For starters, the
discrimination and repression that is the essence of apartheid will
be increasingly visible to people all around the world” –
as if, all the horrendous bombings and burning of Palestinian
children haven't been visible to the world a plenty? Is Apartheid
more atrocious than what the entire world
witnessed in January 2009 in Gaza? See the absurdity of Mearsheimer's
implied conjecture in that statement, that the people of the world in
a pang of conscience will rush to Palestine's rescue, in From
Genesis to Genocide in Palestine January 16, 2009 here.
[14]
John
Mearsheimer's main conjecture above, “In
the long run, however, Israel will not be able to maintain itself as
an apartheid state”, is sheer wishful thinking, if not outright
nonsense, in no less a measure than Noam Chomsky's two-state solution
has been a sheer red herring – and which mainly contributed in
sewing the fait accompli for “onestate”, all-state, a
mini Eretz Yisrael, today. The latter is now obvious to all and
sundry by the grotesque realities on the ground. The former too will
be just as obvious to celebrated pundits tomorrow, when it will sew
the new fait accompli – no return of the Palestinian refugees
to their home, and any Palestinians fortunate enough to survive
expulsions and oppressions at ground zero,
becoming the slumlords of the twenty-first
century.
It
is not a measure of thought to be able rehearse history like a parrot
and draw shallow parallels to the present. It is, rather, in astutely
preempting future history, in nullifying the acts of vile “history's
actors” before they sew fait accompli, in shrewdly overcoming
the diabolical war on public waged by way of deception by a
thousand sayanim, as aptly captured in the pithy statement of George
Bernard Shaw:
“We
are made wise not by the recollections of our past, but by the
responsibility for our future.”
Being
independently thinking is a lonely business. None applauded Socrates,
as one ought to remember while celebrating
one's own truth tellers receiving awards, fat paychecks, and
lucrative book sales. Gathering truly independent minded Socrates to
focus on a common goal can only happen organically – not by
celebrity appointment, or vote by democracy, or by book sales –
when they each arrive at the same conclusion themselves.
In
this interconnected world in which the prime-movers seek its primacy
through its many incantations of visible power while staying safely
hidden behind its errand boys, like Theodor Herzl's Der Judenstatd
which rallied the Jews around Zionism, this paper endeavors to
replace emotional sloganeering of the patriots of humanity, with
political acumen rallied against the prime-movers. It replaces
endless runs on the treadmills of inefficacy chasing a thousand
different effects, with a focussed political goal to be measured in
practicable results of actual baby-step achievements chasing the
first cause, the prime-movers. The measurement is incremental success
towards that goal, not wishful thinking, not applause of the mutton
eaters, and not the shepherding of the
butchers priming its flock for supporting the habit of mutton eaters.
Just look at the preceding maps to realize
the self-evident truth of this. Give me a lever long enough, and a
place to rest it, and I can move the earth – that is an
engineering problem, not a philosophical one. This is what the
Zionist prime-movers accomplished through their triple-barrel gun –
to give the devil its due – and this is what a new generation
of fearless rebels among the beleaguered
humanity must accomplish in order to rid ourselves of the deadly
menace of the shitting-trumpeting-elephant
trampling with impunity upon the entire world in broad daylight.
To
remain afraid of the grotesque elephant is to court its shit in
perpetual ignominy. To remain boldly unafraid of it with the moral
courage and ingenuity of 'Mens et Manus' that no ubermensch
can match despite their triple-barrel gun, is to avert future infamy
for our progeny.
When
those on ground Zero in Palestine daily exhibit this courage in a
stride of existentialism, their brethren elsewhere bring only shame
to themselves in their empty sloganeering
and empty chest-thumping which puts to risk not an iota of hair on
their head, never mind their waging a struggle of any measure of
efficacy. This captures almost 99% of Palestinians in Diaspora, the
majority among them being anguished bystanders like the rest of the
world, too relieved to be out of the hell hole, too caught up in
their daily grind to do anything but weep in silence; and a vocal
minority among that lot remaining ineffectual narrators of the works
of “history's actors”. This aspect of assiduously
studying the shit left behind by “history's actors” as
the perfect Machiavelli, is explained here.
[15] Among the tiny exception of the remaining one percent
Palestinians in Diaspora – like their counterpart among the
tiny handful of the Jews who attended Herzl's
first Zionist Congress in Basel Switzerland harboring a new vision
for their Lebensraum – at least some among them must surely
rise to that challenge to daily assert to themselves:
On
this day I have reclaimed Palestine. If I were to proclaim it out
loud, I'd be greeted with universal laughter. But in five years,
surely in less than fifty, everyone will be able to return home. If
only I knew how!
Well,
as per the tautological promise of a Grander Power which surpasses
the triple-gun of the Zionists, and which even Patrick Henry clearly
understood,
“...
Verily never will Allah change the condition of a people until they
change it themselves.” (Holy Qur'an, 13:11)
Patrick
Henry echoed that very belief when he laid the bold foundations of
breaking-away from the chains of servitude:
“...
Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just
God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up
friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the
strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.”
(Patrick Henry, Speech March 23, 1775)
And
so must the handful today, resoundingly echo the same sentiments:
“Gentlemen
may cry, "Peace! Peace!" -- but there is no peace. ...
Our
brethren are already in the field!
Why
stand we here idle?
What
is it that gentlemen wish?
What
would they have?
Is
life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of
chains and slavery?
Forbid
it, Almighty God!
I
know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty,
or give me death!” (Ibid.)
Here
is my little take on how. I am afraid this is only the outline. In a
nut-shell, First, conclusively identify the real enemy, the Golem
which hides behind the Jews' momentous weight of 3000 years of
history, but is no more a Jew of Moses than any other self-proclaimed
Ashkenazi. Second, rip-out its heavily protected heart; or,
administer a thousand lethal cuts and prevent each one from
coagulating. Let's proceed to The
Way Forward.
Footnotes
[1]
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/05/palestine-theway-forward.html
[2]
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/03/war-on-terror-not-about-islamofascism.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/028803_psychiatry_disease.html
http://waronyou.com/topics/sheeple-signs-that-you-might-be-part-of-the-herd/
[3]
http://palestinethinktank.com/2010/05/08/joseph-massad-the-language-of-zionism/
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/12/israel-lobby-2009-propaganda-manual.html
[4]
George Orwell, “1984”
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5464625623984168940
[5]
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/11/rescuing-thestruggle-for-palestine.html
http://humanbeingsfirst.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/zahirs-letter-to-wendy-campbell-on-mustafa-barghouti-and-psychological-cataracts-may-09-2010.pdf
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/04/palestinian-house-of-negroe-postscript.html
[6]
http://sites.google.com/site/humanbeingsfirst/download-pdf/north_tower_collapse.mpeg
http://sites.google.com/site/humanbeingsfirst/download-pdf/south_tower_collapse.mpeg
http://sites.google.com/site/humanbeingsfirst/download-pdf/wtc_7_cbs.mpg
[7]
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/05/note-on-mighty-wurlitzer.html
[8]
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/03/anatomy-of-conspiracy-theory.html
Also
see Sunstein, Cass R., Conspiracy Theories (January 15, 2008).
Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 08-03; U of Chicago, Public Law
Working Paper No. 199; U of Chicago Law & Economics, Olin Working
Paper No. 387. PDF download from:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585
[9]
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/04/some-dare-call-it-conspiracy-garyallen.html
[10]
http://prisonersofthecave.blogspot.com/2007/04/introduction.html
Also
see Amusing Ourselves to Death by
Neil Postman, 1985; and article: The Destruction of American
Education by Norman Livergood
http://www.hermes-press.com/education_index.htm
[11]
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/11/rescuing-thestruggle-for-palestine.html
[12]
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/03/war-on-terror-not-about-islamofascism.html
Judge
Andrew Napolitano Natural Rights and The
Patriot Act Part 1 of 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1P53wMbnsw
Judge
Andrew Napolitano Natural Rights and The Patriot Act Part 2 of 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjhNZjanX9k
Judge
Andrew Napolitano Natural Rights and The Patriot Act Part 3 of 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n2m-X7OIuY
Hal
G. P. Colebatch, Thought police muscle up
in Britain, April 21, 2009
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/thought-police-muscle-up-in-britain/story-e6frg6zo-1225700363959
[13]
John Mearsheimer, The Future of Palestine: Righteous Jews vs. the New
Afrikaners
http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/ht/display/ContentDetails/i/10418
[14]
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/01/from-genesis-to-genocide-in-palestine.html
[15]
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/04/enduring-power-of-machiavellian-polysci.html
Source
URL:
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/05/from-genocide-to-regenesis-62alnakba.html
Palestine:
The Struggle Forward
May
12, 2010
I
have realized over my many years of interaction with Zionists, that
many among them genuinely believe what this anonymous person under
the nom de plume “Ahmad Yaqeen”, has stated in his
comment to Joseph Massad's Al-Ahram Weekly article 'The Language of
Zionism' here.
[1]
|
'The
Arabs not only rejected partition, but attacked Israel from all
sides. On the day that Israel declared its independence, the Arab
League Secretary, General Azzam Pasha declared “jihad”,
a holy war. He said, “This will be a war of extermination
and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the
Mongolian massacres and the Crusades”.The Mufti of
Jerusalem, Haj Amin Al Husseini stated, “I declare a holy
war, my Moslem brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!”
... The fact remains that Israel is a nation state that existed
2400 years before Islam where a Nation referred to as Palestine
and the Palestinian people never existed. ... When the State of
Israel was reborn in 1948 c.e., the “Palestinians”
did not exist yet, the Arabs had still not discovered that
"ancient" people. They were too busy with the purpose
of annihilating the new Sovereign State and did not intend to
create any Palestinian entity, but only to distribute the land
among the already existing Arab states. They were defeated. They
attempted again to destroy Israel in 1967, and were humiliated in
only six days, in which they lost the lands that they had usurped
in 1948. In those 19 years of Arab occupation of Jerusalem,
Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, neither Jordan nor Egypt
suggested to create a “Palestinian” state, since the
still non-existing Palestinians would have never claimed their
alleged right to have their own state… Paradoxically,
during the British Mandate, it was not any Arab group but the
Jews that were known as “Palestinians”! ' (Comment By
Zionist robot “Ahmad Yaqeen”)
|
When
strident young Jews imbued with the spirit of Zionism make their
“Aliyah” to reclaim their lost paradise from those
'untermensch' occupying their Promised Holy Lands, they are not just
playing frivolous word games, or indulging in weekend protest marches
shouting at the top of their lungs for justice to prevail in the Holy
Lands only to go back to their own “bread and circuses”
the next day. These young Zionists are actually quite dedicated,
willing to sacrifice themselves for the categorical imperative
inculcated into them since birth. To their mind, Israel Project is a
moral self-defense to simply reclaim what has been theirs for 3000
years – as Shimon Peres remarked on the occasion of the 60th
birthday celebration of Israel to George W. Bush: “Welcome to
the new Israel: Three thousand years old, and going on sixty”.
The underpinnings of the zealotry behind that celebration is examined
here.
[2]
As
seen by these Zionist zealots, mankind throughout the ages had only
usurped what was granted to the Jews by their god as a sacred gift –
and the modern Zionists are merely reclaiming their own properties
from the bad Goy, from the evil Amelekites divinely ordained to
perdition at their hands anyway, and none shall stand in the holy way
of their jihad. I personally know of no Palestinian in Diaspora who
can match that zealotry and commitment to cause of the Zionists. Most
Palestinians I know or have met in my life are content with shedding
tears in silent remembrance, which of course breaks out in boisterous
sloganeering every now and then, but ultimately take their Nakba
“whose parallel may only be the one of Sinai when something was
revealed to mankind”, as a divine test.
“Hasbi-Allahu-wa-nai'mul-wakeel” is a common prayer on
many a quivering Muslim lip. But I have seen many Jewish younglings
in Zionists garb who have scared me by their Zionist fervor in no
less a measure than perhaps any mind-controlled suicide bomber would
scare me.
The
fact that Zionism also killed off their god after he had made them
his 'chosen peoples' and issued them Holy Land grants, is not
insignificant, nor a nonsequitur. It is a real philosophy! It forms
the real impetus behind the self-empowerment and self-reliance of the
Jews in the precise tradition of Talmudic Judaism. This phenomenon
has to be comprehended at many complex levels in order to understand
the unusual and unmatched power of Zionistan in the world today. A
tiny minority's minority which can ride a sole superpower with just
the flick of a wick, as well as all the mighty European powers who
just 70 to 100 years ago were purportedly so very antagonistic to
them, with such brazen impunity! What's the source of such
inexplicable power? Is the Jewish State comparable to South Africa?
We only see the effects in common – which leads some to believe
that the same sort of tactics as were used to end Apartheid in South
Africa can also work on the Jewish State. Most fail to recognize that
the Jewish State of modernity is unlike any other. It has the
protection of an “Iron Wall” which never mind breach, few
can even see. It is a singularity, an inexplicability whose parallel
does not exist in the non-mythical annals of history.
Acquiring
this comprehension appears to be a limiting challenge for victims of
Zionism. This is empirically in evidence even as I write this. For
instance, take these conscionable peoples clamoring for BDS against
Israel. I am sorry to suggest that they are being taken for the same
sort of ride on a treadmill as I was when I answered the moral call
of International ANSWER and participated in the protest marches in
2002-2003 hoping to avert the horrendously criminal invasion of Iraq.
Since I am also an engineer by training, and performing postmortem of
why things work and don't work is part of my analytical profession
which itself relies on the intelligent use of “Mens et Manus”
(i.e., mind and hand) to understand real world problems and engineer
real world solutions that must work in order to continue collecting a
paycheck, I applied that propensity borne of training to understand
why the protests had not worked. How could millions of protesting
peoples have been so trivially dismissed as a “focus group”?
The same way that BDS will be dismissed. It was examined here.
[3]
The
postmortems were revealing to me. And that's when I stopped attending
protest marches as a means to bringing change, and more as a means to
meeting other activists, and perhaps venting my lungs off its burden.
Just a little bit of independent thinking, away from the influence
peddling of all the lauded dissent chiefs of the West, had showed me
what had been staring me in the face all my life and I just hadn't
seen it. It had indeed taken a catalyzing event like the “new
pearl harbor”, not just for Brzezinski's “imperial
mobilization”, but also for me to finally grasp that as a
matter of Machiavellian statecraft in free societies, opposition to
the exercise of hegemony by its conscionable peoples must be put on
treadmills of inefficacy as a matter of governance. And this can only
be accomplished by systematically instrumenting false leaders, false
scholars, false dissent-chiefs, and glamorizing them enough for their
public stances against hegemony, that energetic people of conscience
rebelling against the tyranny of status quo will naturally gravitate
towards them for moral guidance. When a pied piper leads you, how do
you know where he or she is really taking you? How do you know what
he really means by the words he uses to inform you? How do you know
her motivation? This was explored here
by this scribe, and here
by Peter Schweizer, research fellow at the Hoover Institution. [4]
The
Language of Zionism described by Joseph Massad, as are my examples
drawn from PNAC and Brzezinski – such as “American
peace”, “moral clarity”, “benevolent order”
– quoted in my earlier comment to Massad's article on the same
website, are only the most egregious but rather transparent examples.
There are far more sophisticated mechanisms of deception, such as
calculated omissions, half-truths, echoing the axioms of empire while
appearing to critique its effects, and “neuro-linguistic
programming”. This latter mechanism relies on subliminal
manipulation and is explained here.
[5]
Calculated
omission is perhaps the most crafty tool of persuasion as it relies
on ignorance – for who can have complete knowledge of every
subject? Aldous Huxley aptly called it the “iron curtain”:
'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.' (Aldous
Huxley, 1946 Preface to Brave New World, 1931)
Keeping
thinking peoples plausibly occupied lest they discover the real
levers of power is much more complicated than mere manufacturing
consent among the masses who are rather easily amenable to simple
propaganda. That science of mass persuasion is already well
understood, thanks to the pioneering work of Edward Bernays and the
Mighty Wurlitzer, not to overlook Goebbels and Hitler, as the
engineering of consent from the majority. The minority of thoughtful
peoples however, also often the people of conscience, pose a
different problem. They can actually think and not easily prone to
the mass propaganda. If not craftily waylaid, they stand to acquire
some real comprehension of the otherwise carefully hidden from the
masses in plainsight, conspiratorial forces which actually shape
their world. The rebels can also potentially figure out that the
visible rulers whom they elect with such gravitas every four years,
to presumably run their country on their behalf in a celebration of
democracy which affords them the choice of twiddledee and twiddledum
in a carefully choreographed Hegelian Dialectic, are actually not
their public servants. To hide the fact that these psychopaths –
at least on the prima facie evidence of their bizarre penchant for
incessant war-mongering upon innocent peoples – whom they elect
with such fanfare, are really the errand boys of an invisible
oligarchy, manufacturing dissent is a necessary instrument of
statecraft. It can be studied here
and here.
[6]
With
that necessary detour to illustrate how the Western peoples are
manipulated between the manufacturing of consent and manufacturing of
dissent – the social engineering of obedience – so that
it can become really difficult to comprehend the choices one is
making when one follows the pied pipers, trends, and popular
movements, let's return to our main topic of understanding the forces
which drive Zionism.
While
some think that Zionism is the invention of Theodor Herzl, it isn't.
Hardly anyone among the Palestinians I know has ever heard of Rabbi
Moses Hess, who was in fact the first modern Zionist. He invented the
'Roman Jerusalem' in 1828 with Rothschild's blessings, some suggest
also fundings. The fact that the Balfour Declaration was addressed to
a Rothschild elder, is very significant for understanding the uncanny
power of Zionism. Read Zionism's own Moses' divine tablet Rome and
Jerusalem here.
[7]
Both
Moses Hess' Zionism, as well as its offspring, the Jewish State,
trace its theology of “will to normalize the existence of the
Jewish people”, as Leo Strauss put it, to the Talmudic
Rabbinical Judaism. Israel Shahak examined it in his book: Jewish
History, Jewish Religion The Weight of Three Thousand Years. It can
be read here.
[8]
And
here is Leo Strauss explaining a primacy which in reality is more
than 2000 years old, rather than having only just invented it himself
in the prominent atheism of the twentieth century after god was
declared dead by Nietzsche in the previous century:
'Political
Zionism has repeatedly characterized itself as the will to normalize
the existence of the Jewish people, to normalize the Jewish people.
By this self-definition it has exposed itself to a grave
misunderstanding, namely, the misunderstanding that the will to
normality was the first word of political Zionism; the most effective
criticism of political Zionism rests on this misunderstanding. In
truth, the presupposition of the Zionist will to normalization, that
is, of the Zionist negation of galut [exile], is the conviction that
“the power of religion has been broken”. Because the
break with religion has been resolutely effected by many individual
Jews, and only because of this reason, it is possible for these
individuals to raise the question on behalf of their people, how the
people is to live from now on. Not that they prostrate themselves
before the idol of normality; on the contrary: they no longer see any
reason for the lack of normality. And this is decisive: 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. ...' (page 202, Leo Strauss, The Early Writings 1921-1932)
Look
at that last sentence: “And this is decisive: 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. ...”
With
the negation of god in the above narratives, where did the Jewish
people get its land, and its state?
So
most thinking people tend to dismiss all this illogic of Zionism as
gibberish of some sick minds, as double standards, and as hypocrisy.
In my view, it is none of that, unless evil can be defined as “sick”.
I don't a priori. A philosophy or an idea is only evil in relation to
an absolute standard of good. Otherwise, like Justice Vinson of the
U.S. Supreme Court had stated in 1951: “Nothing is more certain
in modern society than the principle that there are no absolutes,
that a name, a phrases, a standard has meaning only when associated
with the considerations which give birth to nomenclature. To those
who would paralyze our Government in the face of impending threat by
encasing it in a semantic strait-jacket, we must reply that all
concepts are relative.” In other words, Zionism in the modern
context is just another relative concept beyond the purview of
absolute definitions of good and evil. It is whatever the reigning
power wants it to be. If it says it's moral, then it's moral. In
fact, it is seeded in respectable philosophy by Western standards. It
is the philosophy of Spinoza and Nietzsche in modern times, and of
Plato in ancient times. It is the philosophy of the ubermensch who by
the very nature of being uber alles, are licensed to define their own
standards of morality (and this is how the Straussian's read Plato's
virtuous divine philosopher-king: since divine is dead, so
philosopher is king, and therefore can create his own definition of
virtue – which is effectively what you see Leo Strauss writing
above). And this is also precisely how Vladimir Jabotinsky defined
the morality of Zionism in his seminal 1923 article The Iron Wall. It
can be read here.
[9]
“Two
brief remarks: In the first place, if anyone objects that this point
of view is immoral, I answer: It is not true; either Zionism is moral
and just or it is immoral and unjust. But that is a question that we
should have settled before we became Zionists. Actually we have
settled that question, and in the affirmative. We hold that Zionism
is moral and just. And since it is moral and just, justice must be
done, no matter whether Joseph or Simon or Ivan or Achmet agree with
it or not. There is no other morality.” (Vladimir Jabotinsky,
The Iron Wall).
This
attitude of defining morality by one's own ubermensch definition is a
very profoundly banal philosophy with direct Talmudic roots. It is
banal because it's the philosophy of any godfather. It is profound
because it has been turned into a respectable philosophy by great
minds. A philosophy which bastardized the Biblical Moses' moral
message to the Semitic Jews of Canaan of an absolute moral Covenant
between God and its “Chosen Peoples” (perhaps for
spreading the divine light among mankind – otherwise why
else?), to an ubermensch 'chosen peoples' created to lord upon the
“goy”. There is simply no other rational and
commonsensical way of semantically capturing the rise and fall of
Judaism from divine to uber alles, whether or not one believes in
divinity. Judaism is empirical, as is Christianity, and so is Islam,
Hinduism, and Bhuddism, the major surviving ancient dogmas and
religions of mankind today. As a philosophy, all great religions of
mankind have some universalistic spiritual and moral underpinnings.
Only the 'ubermensch' Judaism of the three Abrahamic religions
acquired this peculiar character of 'uber alles', meaning, above all
the others, in its self-defined continuously evolving morality “to
normalize the Jewish people”. While Leo Strauss attributes it
to the age of atheism, empiricism indicates that this has in fact
been the norm of the Rabbis throughout the past 3000 years!
If
the existence of Moses isn't merely a mythology as some modern
skeptics suggest, and the Jews did indeed receive a sensible moral
code from the Prophet like the universalistic Ten Commandments, then,
Judaism's corruption to that perversity of the 'ubermensch' was
entirely the work of the Talmudic Rabbis. And it was this long
historical perversion as the overarching ethos of the Jewish
tradition, which enabled casting Zionism as a moral philosophy, a
moral imperative of the Jews, and a moral pursuit. Hence anything in
opposition to it is by definition immoral. Consequently, it is to be
repulsed by any means possible, including 'Noble Lies' (Leo Strauss),
and mercilessly killing any goy who might interfere with the
existence of the Jewish State, or interfere with its imperatives.
This lofty morality of Zionism can be seen in the recent Law Book of
Israel, “The King's Torah” (or “The King’s
Teaching”) for instance, written by a settler Rabbi occupying
the West Bank, Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira: “In any situation in
which a non-Jew’s presence endangers Jewish lives, the non-Jew
may be killed even if he is a righteous Gentile and not at all guilty
for the situation that has been created”. Read more about it
here
or here.
[10]
This
sort of perverse ethos ingrained among the 'chosen peoples' against
the 'goy' has endured the vicissitudes of time for over two thousand
of years. That's a lot of historical and cultural baggage in ancient
to modern books to be carrying upon one's cultural, religious and
philosophical back. Such entrenched ethos is the primal motivation
for “Aliyah” which none but the Jews who espouse Zionism
can appreciate. One cannot underestimate this motivation. It forms
the fundamental basis among world's Jewry for supporting the Jewish
State no matter where they live. It enables recruiting agents, assets
and sayanim from among them as described by Victor Ostrovsky in By
Way of Deception. It can be read here.
[11]
As
formidable and incomparable as that ethos is, it is still mere
motivation. Not its enactment, and not its harvesting. Without a
harnessing force, the motivation remains still-born. The only way
Zionism could find empirical expression globally was with massive
funding, massive political power, and massive alignment with ruling
imperial powers. Where did all that magically come from? If the
Western world was so anti-Semitic, how did the most hated and reviled
people in Europe convince their own oppressors? The Zionist
narrations tell us of this and that magical powers of persuasion of
this or that Zionist leader. Without a prime-moving force backing
them, and it being known that they represent that power, such magic
is only for bed-time fiction. In the two hundred years since Moses
Hess, Zionism's global expression is entirely manufactured with those
three instruments mentioned above. Before that, the aspiration for
Zion existed mainly in books and in prayers. Its ubermensch Talmudic
philosophy only found expression in the Jews' local life among the
goyem in various ad hoc forms, primarily as the underpinning of a
battle of survival of the minority among an inimical majority who
blamed that minority for having killed their lord Jesus. And the
Jewish minority under the leadership of their dictatorial Rabbis,
holding itself off as superior to all others and refusing integration
with the majority. That dynamics was always local until the Zionism
of the globalists made it global.
Be
it left-wing Zionism or right-wing Zionism, be it diplomatic Zionism
or fighting Zionism, be it political Zionism, synthetic Zionism,
military Zionism, friendly Zionism, tough-Zionism, gentle-Zionism,
hard Zionism, soft Zionism, nihilist Zionism, spiritual Zionism,
Labor Zionism, Likud Zionism, pre-Jewish State Zionism, or
post-Jewish State Zionism, all remain expressions of tactics for
translating motivational Zionism into empirical Zionism.
Without
the continuity of an immensely powerful financial prime-mover –
from which all else follows – motivational Zionism would remain
a theoretical idea in dusty old books to primarily torture young
orthodox Jewish seminary students and secular atheists in Western
universities with. Who'd ever pursue it as a categorical imperative
in the enlightened modernity du jour where Jews can hardly draw on
any empirical evidence of their oppression to motivate their flock?
Before two hundred years ago, most Jews were not the Zionist of
today, even though, they did harbor these same ubermensch
underpinnings. The translation of a tortuous philosophy from ancient
books to existential global enactment is entirely the premeditated
act of fabrication. That requires a prime-moving force. It is the
willful act of money, and the willful act of conniving power, a power
which can systematically mold, manipulate, corrupt, and indoctrinate
across generations, across countries, and across the barriers of time
and space. This is not an organic natural spread of a plague –
for it could not be sustained for 200 years un-abated! It is more
akin to the deliberate spread of a biowarfare agent of maximum
penetration. The Zionist robot commenter mentioned in the beginning
of this article is a tragic victim of this plague.
That
is the only reasonable explanation for how Zionism can simultaneously
combine so many opposites without their turning on each other –
from vehemently orthodox right-wing Zionist settlers bobbing at the
wailing wall praying to their god with guns slung over their
shoulders, to the secular atheist left-wing Zionist ideologue
fanatics who still believe that being Jew means something divine,
uber alles, a race with their own categorical imperatives of primacy.
Whereas
antagonists within other religiosities of far less theological
dispersion tend to turn their guns upon each other first! Why does
that not happen among the Jews? We can have Protestants and Catholics
on each others throat, we can have Sunni and Shia on each others
throat, but I have never heard of the many different polarities of
Zionists in the past 100 years on each others throat. Within just
that epoch, we had a 100 million Christians barbarically kill each
other, and many million Muslims barbarically kill each other! Not to
forget the 6 million Jews of course, mercilessly HolocaustedTM
by the Christians, but for which the Muslims are being compelled to
pay the price by the Jews and the Christians now inexplicably and
suddenly teaming up. If we simply examine the recorded facts of who
were the major war-mongers who created and supported all the wars of
the twentieth century – the Century of Wars – and who
participated in the peace-conferences after each one and what was
systematically achieved, a perspective which can finally begin to see
the outlines of the trumpeting but apparently invisible elephant in
the bedroom quickly emerges. In every single instance, there is only
one common prime-mover without which, these synthetic clashes could
not have materialized. The owners of the private central banks. As
the pithy saying goes: “give me control of a nation's money
supply and I care not who makes its laws”. That's because all
else follows by simply controlling the instruments of money. Which is
why, such a fundamental power is called the prime-mover. It is
examined here
and here.
[12] Suffice it to say, the prime-mover force behind Zionism brings a
lot more diabolicalness, and a lot more internal cohesion from its
apparent random diversity, to the realization of the physical Jewish
State in Palestine than meets the superficial eye. And they are even
able to legalize it without causing any internecine bloodshed!
According
to Lasse Wilhelmson, there was a law passed in Israel in the mid
1980s which made it illegal to challenge the character of the state
of Israel. The nature of the Jewish State cannot be questioned. It is
an axiom of Zionism, as well as an axiom of law by the fiat of
legality. There can be no political party with a platform which seeks
any transformation to the Jewish character of Israel, taking part in
its political process. There can be no transformation by the way the
axioms of the Jewish state are constructed – some articulated,
such as Jabotinsky's assertion that Zionism is moral, and others not.
Therefore, realistically, there can be no transformation so long as
the prime-movers behind Israel wield the force of Zionism. The
visible Zionists, whether in Israel or in the rest of the world,
would be powerless without the prime-mover which unites them. Putting
it another way, the many colored Zionist robots are merely the
replaceable foot-soldiers fabricated in a 'Sony' factory and enacting
the diabolical interests of the prime-movers. Perhaps they too are
being made a patsy, as a Hegelian Dialectic, just as they routinely
make the goyem a patsy. This was explored here.
[13] While many reformed Jews who have weaned themselves away from
Zionism will freely describe the real abhorrent character of the
Jewish State in great honesty, few will dare to address the real
prime-mover force behind Zionism. It is almost like a religion of
pretense that such a prime-mover force does not exist. See for
instance, Lasse Wilhelmson who does a good job on the former, but is
inexplicably silent on the latter, in Zionism – more than
traditional colonialism and apartheid here.
[14]
The
Zionist Jews, among all the other peoples on earth, are the ones
being criminally forced to most closely live their own baggage of
history by these prime-movers. That is an empirical fact which is
often not considered by the victims of Zionism in understanding the
uncanny forces which drive their formidable enemy. To liberate the
Jews from the clutches of Zionism will be a major service to the Jews
themselves – they can thank us later. But until that
transpires, the motivations which drive Zionism have been made
ubiquitous, and its power to mold primary loyalties is empirical and
cannot be underestimated. And therefore, must be taken into account
by dissecting it both up and down into its precise hierarchy of
constituents in order for the struggle for the liberation of the
Jews, and the Palestinians, from the clutches of the Zionists, to
succeed.
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!
While
many betray that they are aware of the motto “wage war by way
of deception”, I am sorely disappointed that very few in the
West, never mind among the victimized beleaguered Palestinians,
actually betray what it means when it comes to understanding
front-men and front-organizations representing a powerful oligarchy.
Only as the representatives of some mighty force not in the public
eye, do the foot-soldiers in the public eye acquire the immense power
that we see them wielding. When the White House and the Congress pays
obeisance to AIPAC for instance, they are paying homage to the king
behind them. If unfamiliar with this state of affairs, see Colonel
Edward Mandell House's depiction in Philip Dru: Administrator. Rather
than betray the acuity of having forensically recognized this modern
mechanism of statecraft, of wielding power from behind the scenes,
recording ex post facto narratives is the epitome of Western
scholarship. Not all of it manufactured of course – but much of
it suffering from psychological cataracts which enable seeding the
faits accomplis of these front-men as “history's actors”:
'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.' (Senior Bush
Advisor, The New York Times, October 17, 2004)
This
is why neither protest marches, nor BDS, nor tea-parties, nor sailing
to Gaza, nor the ISM's taking bullets to their head in the holy land
of oppression, nor bearing witness, nor attempts at reforms, nor end
the fed campaign, etceteras, can ever work. Because, these address
the symptoms, the mere incantations and projections of power, and not
the prime-mover forces behind them. To the extent that these
symptomatic motivators are able to rally conscionable
well-intentioned thinking peoples behind them, is the extent of the
success of fabricated dissent, of putting people on the treadmills of
inefficacy. As an engineer, a systems architect bringing a systems
analysis perspective to deconstructing political science and social
engineering, this is my commonsensical, technical, and empirical
assessment. One has to go straight for the jugular of the tiny
misanthropic coterie wielding the immense prime-mover force to be
effective in overcoming all the abhorrences being seeded by their
numerous psychopathic errand boys across the planet, including in
Zionistan. See for instance, Who is more guilty of monumental war
crimes – the prime-movers or trigger pullers?, here.
[15]
It
is important to reemphasize: it is not their thoughts or their
motivations which are a crime. People are free to have any thoughts,
and entitled to believe any crap they want. It is only their acts, or
when their motivations lead to, or sustain, or otherwise in any way
interfere in redressing the crimes perpetuated against an innocent
peoples, which are a crime. The Nuremberg Military Tribunals aptly
emphasized that core principle before hanging the old Nazis, military
men, civilians, propagandists and philosophers alike (while setting
free the principal financial architect of the Third Reich, Dr.
Hjalmar Schacht, explored here
[16]).
“The
intellectual bankruptcy and moral perversion of the Nazi regime might
have been no concern of international law had it not been utilized to
goosestep the Herrenvolk across international frontiers. It is not
their thoughts, it is their overt acts which we charge to be crimes.”
(Robert H. Jackson, Last Day Closing Speech, Nuremberg).
But
as Bernard Lewis also convincingly argues in “Crisis of Islam –
Holy War and Unholy Terror”:
“Terrorism
requires only a few. Obviously the West must defend itself by
whatever means will be effective. But in devising means to fight the
terrorist, it would surely be useful to understand the forces that
drive them.” (page xxxii)
That's
one shrewd empirical wisdom I have never contended with Bernard Lewis
on. And I apply it myself to understand the motivations of the
superterrorists. And not just Zionists, but all hectoring hegemons.
For truly, “in devising means to fight the [super]terrorists,
it would surely be useful to understand the forces that drive them.”
However, it is not just the examination of motivational forces of
history and philosophy, but also the dynamic contemporary prime-mover
forces which empirically wield such an immense power that none can
interfere with Zionistan in its genocide of the Palestinians, and yet
themselves remain practically invisible to the victims.
Exactly
like an invisible “Iron Wall”, which the victims simply
cannot breach! These words of Jabotinsky have far more import than
has been accorded them:
“This
colonization can, therefore, continue and develop only under the
protection of a force independent of the local population – an
iron wall which the native population cannot break through.”
What
is that “force independent of the local population”?
Hitherto. almost all students of the “Iron Wall” have
described it as the Jewish military power. I perceive that “Iron
Wall” is referring to something far more fundamental than
merely an effect. It can only be referring to a prime-mover. Only
that empirically explains the inscrutable and indomitable power of
Zionism. This understanding also enables looking for that prime-mover
and to elevate the battle where it can actually have some efficacy.
And this has been the power of the prime-mover – it's ability
to stay hidden from the public eye and leave the people merely
grappling with the effects!
When
a people believe something, whatever may be the merits of the belief,
and acquire the power to enact that belief, what is the primary enemy
to address in order to effectively counter it: 1) the visible
expression of that power; 2) the hidden motivations that drive that
visible expression of power; 3) the hidden prime-movers who ab initio
fabricate and harness that motivation into a political goal and
orchestrates it with all their financial and political might through
those errand boys we see in the visible expressions of power while
they themselves remain hidden from public view?
I
leave it for the reader to explore those simple questions for
themselves. A reasoned determination of causality, the forensic
distinction between cause and effect, and an understanding that
people have deliberately been led to focus on the effects, then
logically ought to define their next pursuits. I wager that following
logic and rationalism, as opposed to religion, feel-goods, and other
emotionalisms, the reader will come to the same logical conclusions
as reached by this scribe. Either kill the golem with a thousand
cuts, but that does require administering a thousand cuts and
preventing each wound from coagulating, or, directly reach for its
heavily protected heart and yank it out. All else is touchy-feely
spiritualism.
Returning
to focus on Zionism and the forces which drive it, initially, as a
young man tremendously angered by the horrendous Zionist oppression
of Palestinians, I didn't comprehend this motivational mindset. And
over a period of three decades of earnest interlocution with Zionists
of all shades, both friendly, and not so friendly, even including
with my own teacher Noam Chomsky, I still haven't figured out how to
address such ingrained zealotry borne of systematic indoctrination
that commences from the time when they are in their mother's womb,
with any measure of efficacy. Wait just a minute you might well ask
at this point if you haven't been entirely dozing off, Noam Chomsky
indoctrinated? Well, I am just giving him a non-criminal way out for
his support of Zionism, because I can't see why would he otherwise,
as a left-wing atheist, even be a self-proclaimed Zionist? He is not
of Semitic Middle Eastern origin, and like his ancestors, he was not
born in Palestine. In most likelihood, he is a Khazar in origin. Why
would he even aspire to be an idealist Zionist of the “1940s'”
variety, even if only seeking its expression in a “binational
state”? There is simply no explanation for this irrationality
coming from an uber-rational scholar who is even anointed “arguably
the most important intellectual alive”.
To
make the absurdity of this manifest, it is somewhat like my aspiring
to be Semitic like the Arabs when I am from the Indian sub-continent,
and arguing that the Arabs should gratuitously live with me in a
binational state on their own land! Isn't that absurd? What makes
Chomsky a Zionist aspiring for a binational state for himself in
someone else's Semitic homeland? There is simply no rational basis
for such an aspiration – except, either being a colonizer, or
being indoctrinated since birth, and in either case arguing the
legitimacy of power and the reality on the ground, instead of moral
right, to back it up. The fact that this criminal absurdity of
validating the legitimacy of force to create unjust rights which do
not naturally belong to one, is not visible to a scholar like
Chomsky, can only be attributed to the psychological cataracts due to
indoctrination. I can't really believe that a teacher of morality
otherwise, like the Golden Rule, and always demonstrating a
repugnance for hypocrites time and again in public talks, can also be
a hypocrite colonizer himself. To his credit, he did not live in
Israel, and moved back to the United States after being there in the
1950s and recognizing the injustices that had been purveyed upon the
indigenous peoples in order to create a homeland for the Jews. But
having profoundly recognized that reality, why justify it as an act
of “international” agreement among nations endorsed by
the United Nations? Why not principally call for Israel's outright
dismantling as an Apartheid state, for permitting the Palestinian
refugees to return, for paying restitution and compensation in the
same measure as the Jews are extracting for Nazi crimes?
See
my essay which has already deconstructed the convoluted theologies of
the so called “soft Zionists” who ostensibly support the
Palestinians for an hypothetical severely emasculated “Palestinian
state” carved out of their own vast indigenous homeland
gratuitously gifted away to the Jews; who boldly speak-out against
the Israeli aggression; who at times even longingly speak of an
hypothetical binational state, which some progressive Zionists today
also pitch as “onestate” without fully explaining the
semantics of what they actually mean by it – and it invariably
does not include Palestinian refugees returning home; but all the
while making continuous fools of the victims with red herrings a
plenty in the best mold of “beneficial cognitive diversity”
to buy time until realities on the ground become impractical to
reverse. Then, they glibly claim that the realities on the ground are
impractical to reverse! The analysis can be read here
and here.
[17]
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.
Surely
the following reaction is not absurd. It is understandable
psychologically: Now my beleaguered family members are overjoyed by
that statement of the robber, who is thus far forcibly living in my
house, that yaaay, we can all finally live together in the house in
relief because now we will have the same rights to go to our own
bathrooms and roam inside our own entire house without having to
first beg permission from the invaders occupying my house!
Yes,
I can well imagine my children saying that to me excitedly, but in
hushed whispers if I was in that position and Shlomo Sand's proposal
was about to become a political reality. Then, the reconciliation
would become the new mantra to legitimize the conquest. And I can
also well imagine just being grateful for that bit of relief –
that, I will now, finally, be able to roam in my own house without
checkpoints and a suffocating wall, even if I might be still stuck
with the invader and his oppressive alien culture and civilization,
his hijacking of my culture, and his decimation of my previous
history, culture, civilization, records, libraries, books, artifacts,
and most of all, my ancestors and some of my children.
Apart
from the fact that this strategy of temporary relief after enormous
stress being the obvious Jabotinsky's “Iron Wall” method
of getting the victims to acquiesce to their predicament when they
have no other choice, and then the “compromise” even
comes as a relief to them, the reconciliation will also be only as
advantageous for the Palestinians as it has been for the Blacks in
South Africa. They can vote and travel anywhere they want, while
still living in their slums, and that's a good enough start –
better than staring down the gun-turrets 24x7, not to mention being
daily showered in Shoah. And in that reconciliation, there will be,
practicably, no Right of Return. Take careful note of it – any
compensations will be with only funny-accounting and funny-money. The
Palestinians in Diaspora will remain holding the keys to their homes
forever, outside Israel in this new Israeli open society. That's what
I suspect Shlomo Sands means by his “establish an open society
here of all Israeli citizens”. He could also have
straightforwardly stated that in his new open Israeli society, all
displaced Palestinians would be permitted to return home, and all
victims of Zionism would be compensated by the same measure as the
Jews have sought from the Nazis! And the Diasporans celebrate his
book? Absurd!
I
am making only an argument here of sensibly what's morally right and
what's morally Just. I am not arguing what a Palestinian ought to
settle for to make peace at any price. They will first and foremost,
be sold out by their own House Negro leadership, perhaps under the
sound of the white man's trumpets and Hallelujah-Arabic songs singing
during Nobel Peace Prize ceremonies. In that latter space, of
resignation to fate and gratefully receiving whatever charity the
oppressor hands them out of the generosity of its cold-blooded
calculating heart, the victims are suffering from their own natural
victimhood. To understand that side of the picture, of the victims
echoing their victimizers' message in long-running traumas of mental
colonization, I refer the reader to the writings and speeches of MLK
and Malcolm X. It can also be gleaned in the FAQ here.
[23] My letter to documentary-maker Wendy Campbell highlights the
most recent aspect of it, the case of Dr. Mustafa Barghouti basking
in the glory as the 2010 Nobel Peace nominee. This chap shows not an
ounce of dignity and self-respect in adopting the language of Zionism
and happily receiving the victimizer's applause – and yet, he
too is a victimized Palestinian who has bravely suffered the Israeli
occupation. Putting such co-opted learned peoples in-charge of the
Palestinian leadership is part and parcel of the colonization
process. The letter can be read here.
[24]
This
article is not about the cracks and lacunae among the beleaguered
victims and their lack of wherewithal in dealing with an infinitely
more sophisticated enemy who appears to be light-years ahead of them
in Machiavelli, all of which has been addressed elsewhere.
This
article is entirely about understanding the forces behind the
oppressors, cued off from the comment of a Zionist robot, to find a
way forward through the maze of Zionist robots of different types,
shapes, and lethality that are sent by the prime-mover forces to
implement the colonization process by means so deceptive, that it can
only be accurately described in the diction of their own intelligence
motto: Waging war by way of Deception!
Conversations
with indoctrinated robots of all types, Evangelical Christians, to
Zionists, to also Muslims, even atheists, once upon a time as an
energetic young student, used to consume enormous amounts of my time.
I could never quite comprehend the inability of “others”
to see what's right in front of their nose. Until I realized that
indoctrination and socialization into a world view is part of the
general human condition and plagues people quite democratically. It
creates the “psychological cataracts” (borrowing MLK's
terminology) which cannot be seen by the afflicted if they think
there is no problems with their sight!
Therefore,
I no longer indulge in such futility of dialog when it's obvious that
the conversation is merely a power-play and not a genuine quest for
knowledge or discovering truth. Indoctrination cannot be argued nor
debated with. In point of fact, in political Machiavelli, such
interlocutions become a clever tactic for keeping the Goy busy in
idle pursuits, sort of the “bread and circuses”
equivalent for those among the Goyem who like to think. It is used to
defocus attention of the genuine truth-seekers; the real moral
activists who seek to learn; who discuss not to orchestrate an a
priori agenda, but to know for themselves and by knowing, to affect
the cause of justice and fairness. And that's why “cognitive
infiltration” is used to distract the real truth-seekers.
That's what “beneficial cognitive diversity” is for, and
it permeates the Israel-Palestine discourses in the West. The word
“beneficial” is in the language of Zionism, like
“American Peace”. See for instance, its exposition
in President Obama's Information Czar, Harvard's Cass Sunstein's 2008
paper on “Conspiracy Theories”. The official dictionary
for the Language of Zionism, titled: Israel Project’s 2009
Global Language Dictionary, is here.
[25]
Nowadays
when faced with indoctrinated zombies, which is most of the time, I
pertinently point to what their own ilk have written in counterpoint,
and remain silent. Let all indoctrinated peoples play with each other
and with themselves in the cesspool of their own endless academic
theses, which in this instance of Palestine, is whether the
Palestinian peoples are an invention or not, whether they are even
human or not, and whether they are actually from another planet or
not.
Palestinians
do not have to partake in the immanent orgies of imbeciles being used
as foot soldiers and canon fodder by their elite. Their battle for
survival is not with the robotic indoctrinated foot soldiers of
Zionism, but with its prime-movers – the common financiers of
all hectoring hegemons who are primarily responsible for translating
political philosophies from the realm of immanence, tortuous or not,
into the realm of empiricism. Those first-cause enablers of
translation from theory into practice are thus culpable before any of
their indoctrinated foot-soldiers can be held culpable.
Thus
while one must understand the motivation which drive these robots of
Zionism, to counter them effectively, one must counter their
prime-movers! That is the only way. And so long as the prime-movers
remain hidden, how can they ever be countered? The role of the House
of Rothschild in fabricating Zionism, and also being the prime-mover
force behind one-world government, is introduced here,
here,
and here.
[26]
Interestingly,
that rule of ascribing culpability is also the message of Islam to
create amity among mankind that is despoiled by the corrupt and the
war-mongers among us who set the entire society ablaze with their
matches and fuel. It is also the basis of an enduring inner-peace for
the Palestinians – they will not suffer from the psychological
scars past their suffering-generations like the Jews have endured the
baggage of 2000-3000 years. Islam is a very spiritually-cleansing
force as both a psychology, and a philosophy. And I do believe so is
Christianity, minus the mumbo-jumbo of its church's officialdom. And
through both of them, the Jews can reclaim their own lofty teachings
of the real Prophet Moses – the universal Ten Commandments
which is a proper subset of both the teachings of Christianity and
the teachings of Islam. As Edward Said had stated in the The Mirage
of Peace:
“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.”
(Edward Said, The Nation, October 16, 1995)
Was
Edward Said kidding that: “These two communities must be seen
as equal to each other in rights and expectations; only from such a
beginning can justice then proceed”? Am I kidding when I
suggest that all the fundamental seeds for sowing such a fair Justice
already exist among the peoples?
Let
me just show it from the religion of Islam's teachings to imagine
what can transpire in the presently aggrieved Arab-Muslim ethos
within the passage of a single generation or less if the calamity
that has befallen us is lifted with actual fairness and equity, and
not merely in the Language of Zionism:
“It
was We who revealed the Torah (to Moses); therein was guidance and
light. By its standard have been judged the Jews, by the Prophet who
bowed (as in Islam) to Allah's will, by the Rabbis and the Doctors of
Law: for to them was entrusted the protection of Allah's Book, and
they were witnesses thereto: therefore fear not men, but fear Me, and
sell not My Signs for a miserable price. If any do fail to judge by
(the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than)
Unbelievers. (44) We ordained therein for them: "Life for life,
eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds
equal for equal." But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of
charity, it is an act of atonement for himself. And if any fail to
judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better
than) wrong-doers. (45) And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son
of Mary, confirming the law that had come before him: We sent him the
Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the law
that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who
fear Allah. (46) Let the people of the Gospel Judge by what Allah
hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what
Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel. (47)
To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that
came before it, and guarding it in safety; so judge between them by
what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires,
diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you
have We prescribed a Law and an Open Way. If Allah had so willed, He
would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in
what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The
goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of
the matters in which ye dispute. (48)” (Holy Qur'an, Surah
Al-Maeda 5:44-48)
The
above verses also unequivocally prove that: a) there is no “clash
of civilizations” in Islam; b) Islam is not Triumphalist even
as it is Universalist. This is analyzed here.
[27] Returning back to the hard realities of the present but with an
acute eye to the future direction, we do have a rational way forward
to defang the snake of Zionism and its prime-mover harbingers. It is
the calculated division of labor. A division which unfortunately has
not transpired as yet.
While
it is obviously necessary to withstand the incessant onslaught of the
aggressive foot-soldiers of the hectoring hegemons by the
straightforward existential demands of daily survival – whether
they come wielding their mighty guns and their soulless Drones and
F-16s to exterminate us; or they come wielding their favorite
everyday signatured torpedo, their Hasbara, i.e., their phenomenal
endless argumentative skills of introducing “beneficial
cognitive diversity” in endless narratives to exterminate the
moral commonsense of the world's public that as much as it grieves
the Zionists to inform the spectating world, Palestinians really do
deserve to extinguish themselves from the Land of the Jews without
the slightest hint of protest as the moral right belong to the Jews –
some still have to concentrate on the prime-movers who are behind
this robotic machine of the Jewish Lebensraum.
In
order to be effective in dealing with such a multifaceted and unique
adversary, a division of labor between those compelled to face the
live ammunitions and checkpoints on Ground Zero, and those in
Diaspora living in the comforts of the West with the luxury of time
and liberty to effectively focus on the prime-movers, is the rational
demand of the hour.
Furthermore,
by reframing the struggle for Palestine, from the struggle against
the European Jewry's quest for Lebensraum on Arab soil for its Roman
Jerusalem, to the struggle against the common enemy, the hectoring
hegemon seeking one-world government, the Palestinians can harness
the entire world's 'untermenschen' struggles against the primal
global enemy of mankind.
Unless
that reframing is done quickly, beginning in the intellectual space
and rapidly moving into the courts and public relations space as a
prelude to the political space, the struggle for Palestine will
remain boxed within the unbreachable invisible “Iron Wall”
until acquisition of the entire Promised Land of Eretz Yisrael
depicted in Herzl's plan for the Jewish State is completed. [28] It
isn't obvious to me however, that when motivational Zionism required
an indomitable prime-mover force to transform it from an idea into
empirical Zionism, that without an equivalent prime-mover force on
the side of the Palestinians, how can such a reframing practicably
ever transpire? Serendipitously though, this very realization that
without a backing prime-mover force it is next to impossible to wage
an effective global struggle, also reinforces the idea that Zionism
too could not have possibly flourished without it, and that the only
way to dismantle Zionism is to effectively disable its prime-mover.
Zionism would have remained moribund in the immanent spaces of the
mind without the owners of central banks driving it!
(Map
of Herzl's plan for the Jewish State: Eretz Yisrael)
With
all the preceding as the backdrop highlighting the realpolitik
challenges to the way forward, let's return to the robot “Ahmad
Yaqeen” so that we can keep it busy playing with itself while
thinking peoples can get focussed on figuring out the challenges of
elevating the struggle directly up to the prime-movers who created
the robots. First, on the issue of indoctrination, that many a
Zionist is indeed a robot programmed at birth, by their own
admission:
“The
state of Israel founded in 1948 following a war which the Israelis
call the War of Independence, and the Palestinians call the Nakba –
the catastrophe. A haunted, persecuted people sought to find a
shelter and a state for itself, and did so at a horrible price to
another people. During the war of 1948, more than half of the
Palestinian population at the time – 1,380,000 people –
were driven off their homeland by the Israeli army. Though Israel
officially claimed that a majority of refugees fled and were not
expelled, it still refused to allow them to return, as a UN
resolution demanded shortly after 1948 war. Thus, the Israeli land
was obtained through ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Palestinian
inhabitants. This is not a process unfamiliar in history. Israel's
actions remain incomparable to the massive ethnic cleansing of Native
Americans by the settlers and government of the United states. Had
Israel stopped there, in 1948, I could probably live with it. As an
Israeli, I grew up believing that this primal sin our state was
founded on may be forgiven one day, because the founder's generation
was driven by the faith that this was the only way to save the Jewish
people from the danger of another holocaust.” (Tanya Reinhart:
“Israel/Palestine – How to End the War of 1948”)
As
for the robot's other question of Why did Arabs reject the proposed
UN GA partition plan which split Palestine into Jewish and Arab
states, here is what Avi Shlaim says in the Prologue of his book The
Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World.
Begin
Excerpt:
THE
STRUGGLE FOR STATEHOOD
The
struggle for statehood was accompanied by many disagreements, but
these were more about tactics than about the long-term goal.
Ben-Gurion's own commitment to statehood did no waver in the face of
the Arab opposition or British prevarications. Having taken the
initiative in proposing partition in 1937, the British government
began to retreat from partition with the approach of World War II.
The support of the Arab states and the Muslim world generally was
much more crucial for Britain in the conflict with the Axis powers
than the support of the Jews. A white paper of 17 May 1939 abruptly
reversed British support for Zionism and for a Jewish state. It
condemned the Jews to a status of permanent minority in a future
independent Palestinian state. So the Zionist movement was driven to
develop its own military power, through the paramilitary organization
called Haganah (which in Hebrew means defense), in order to combat
Arab resistance. Having subscribed to a defensive ethos that had
served it so well on the public relations front, it adopted a policy
based on force in order to counter the use and the threat of force by
its Arab opponents. The offensive ethos that had always been embedded
in the defensive ethos had in any case become more prominent
following the outbreak of the Arab Revolt.
At
the same time that Yishuv mounted its own active resistance to the
policy of the white paper that restricted Jewish land purchase and
Jewish immigration to Palestine. The outbreak of World War II in
September 1939 placed the Yishuv in an acute dilemma: it was behind
Britain in the struggle against Nazi Germany but at loggerheads with
Britain in the struggle for Palestine. A way out of the dilemma was
found, however, succinctly summed up in Ben-Gurion's slogan: “We
will fight with the British against Hitler as if there were no white
paper; we will fight the white paper as if there were no war.”
During
the war Ben-Gurion became ever more assertive about the Jewish right
to political sovereignty, while denying this right to the Arab
majority in Palestine. His solution to the Yishuv's demographic
problem involved the migration to Palestine of two to three million
Jews immediately following the end of the war. The Arab problem, he
claimed, paled in significance compared with the Jewish problem
because the Arabs had vast spaces outside Palestine, whereas for the
Jews, who were being persecuted in Europe, Palestine constituted the
only possible haven. He thus came to treat the Arab problem as merely
one of status for the Arab minority within a state with a large
Jewish majority.
The
new concept of a Jewish state over the whole of Palestine found
expression in the so-called Biltmore Program. At an extraordinary
meeting of the American Zionists, attended by both Weizmann and
Ben-Gurion, in the Biltmore Hotel in New York in May 1942, a
resolution was adopted urging “that Palestine be constituted as
a Jewish Commonwealth integrated in the structure of the new
democratic world” after World War II. With this resolution the
Zionist movement for the first time openly staked a claim to the
whole of mandatory Palestine. The goal of a Jewish Arab agreement was
not abandoned, but it was now clearly expected to follow rather than
to precede the establishment of a Jewish state or commonwealth.
The
Biltmore Program was adopted before the full scale and the horror of
the Nazi campaign for the extermination of European Jewry became
known. Zionist leaders assumed that at the end of the war there would
be millions of Jewish refugees in Europe whose plight would
strengthen the case for a large Jewish state in Palestine. None of
them foresaw the Holocaust, the most calamitous event in the annals
of Jewish history, in which six million Jews would perish. In the
end, however, the tragedy of European Jewry became the source of
strength for Zionism. The moral case for a home for the Jewish people
in Palestine was widely accepted from the beginning; after the
Holocaust it became unassailable. The poet Robert Frost defined a
home as the place where, if you have to go there, they have to let
you in. Few people disputed the right of the Jew to a home after the
trauma to which they had been subjected in Central Europe.
A
much tougher kind of Zionism was forged in the course of World War
II, and the commitment to Jewish statehood became deeper and more
desperate in the shadow of the Holocaust. On the one hand, the
Holocaust confirmed the conviction of the Zionists that they had
justice on their side in the struggle for Palestine; on the other, it
converted international public opinion to the idea of an independent
Jewish state.
Ben-Gurion
embodied the “fighting Zionism” that rose out of the
ashes of World War II, and he wrested the leadership from the hands
of Weizmann, who still adhered to “diplomatic Zionism”
and to the alliance with Britain. Against Weizmann's advice the
Zionist conference of August 1945 decided on a policy of active
opposition to British rule, and in October an armed uprising was
launched. The Haganah was instructed to cooperate with the dissident
groups spawned by the Revisionist movement. The main group was the
National Military Organization (the Irgun), which began to direct its
operations against the British administration in Palestine after the
publication of the white paper in 1939. Later that year, when the
Irgun called off its campaign against the British, a split took
place. The more militant wing, led by Avraham Stern, seceded from the
Irgun to form Lohamei Herut Yisrael (Fighters for the Freedom of
Israel), better known as Lehi, after its Hebrew acronym, or the Stern
Gang. The Stern Gang was so hostile to the British that it sought to
contact with the Axis powers in order to drive the British out of
Palestine. Although its members never exceeded three hundred, the
Stern Gang was a considerable thorn in the flesh of the British.
Between November 1945 and July 1946, the three underground
organizations joined arms in what became known as “the movement
of the Hebrew revolt.”
A
massive British military crackdown forced the Zionist leaders to call
off the Hebrew revolt, and they instead tried to drive a wedge
between Britain and the United States on the diplomatic front.
Britain sought American support for its plan for self-governing
Jewish and Arab cantons, a plan categorically rejected by the
Zionists. To get America on their side, members of the Jewish Agency
Executive decided in August 1946 to agree to consider the
establishment of a Jewish state on an adequate part of Palestine.
This decision signified the abandonment of the Biltmore Program and a
return to the principle of partition. The decision was viewed not as
a concession to the Arabs but as a mean of gaining American support
for the idea of a Jewish state. In February 1947 the British
government, unable to come up with a solution on which both sides
could agree, referred the Palestine problem to the United Nations.
On
29 November 1947 the General Assembly of the United Nations passed
its historic Resolution 181 in favor of the partition of Palestine.
In a rare instance of agreement during the Cold War, the United
States and the Soviet Union voted for the resolution while Britain
abstained. The resolution laid down a timetable for the establishment
of a Jewish state and an Arab state linked by economic union, and an
international regime for Jerusalem. Exceptionally long and winding
borders separated the Jewish state from the Arab one, with vulnerable
crossing points to link its isolated areas in the eastern Galilee,
the coastal plain, and the Negev. The borders of these two oddly
shaped states, resembling two fighting serpents, were a strategic
nightmare (see map 3). No less anomalous and scarcely more visible
was the demographic structure of the proposed Jewish state,
consisting as it did of roughly 500,000 Jews and 400,000 Arabs.
Despite
all its limitations and anomalies, the UN resolution represented a
major triumph for Zionist diplomacy. While failing far short of the
full-blown Zionist aspiration for a state comprising the whole of
Palestine and Jerusalem, it provided an invaluable charter of
international legitimacy for the creation of an independent Jewish
state. News of the UN vote was greeted by Jews everywhere with
jubilation and rejoicing. But the followers of Ze'ev Jabotinsky in
the Irgun and the Stern Gang did not join in the general
celebrations. A day after the UN vote, Menachem Begin, the commander
of Irgun, proclaimed the credo of the underground fighters: “The
partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized. ...
Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be
restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for ever.”
The
Jewish Agency officially accepted the UN partition plan, but most of
its leaders did so with a heavy heart. They did not like the idea of
an independent Palestinian state, they were disappointed with the
exclusion of Jerusalem, and they had grave doubts about the viability
of the Jewish state within the UN borders. Nevertheless, the UN
resolution represented a tremendous gain of international support for
the establishment of a Jewish state – hence their decision to
go along with it.
The
Palestine Arabs, who unlike the Jews had done very little to prepare
themselves for statehood, rejected the UN partition plan out of hand.
The Arab Higher Committee, which represented them, denounced the plan
as “absurd, impracticable, and unjust.” The Arab states,
loosely organized since 1945 in the Arab League, also claimed that
the UN plan was illegal and threatened to resist its implementation
by force. On 1 December the Arab Higher Committee proclaimed a
three-day strike, which was accompanied by violent attacks on the
Jewish civilians. The UN vote in favor of partition thus provided not
just international legitimacy for creating Jewish and Arab states
but, unintentionally, the signal for a savage for between the two
communities in Palestine. (Avi Shlaim The Iron Wall: Israel and the
Arab World, pages 22-27)
End
Excerpt
Further
elaboration upon that exposition of Avi Shlaim, with copious
references in the Zionists' own eloquence, is here.
[29]
Begin
Excerpt: (typos are in the original)
As
it will be demonstrated below, the decision by the Zionist leadership
to accept the 1947 proposed UN GA Partition plan was nothing but a
smoke screen, which was done solely to gain international recognition
and support. This deception was a political ploy to gain initial
international legitimacy for the existence of the "Jewish
state", and this was well known to the Palestinian people. The
reader is urged to contemplate the following Zionist leaders' quotes
in an open mind. Note that most, if not all, of the quotes below are
dated before the entry of any single Arab Army into British Mandated
Palestine:
*
In a letter Chaim Weizmann sent to the Palestine-British high
Commissioner, while the Peel Commission was convening in 1937, he
stated:
"We
shall spread in the whole country in the course of time ..... this is
only an arrangement for the next 25 to 30 years." (Expulsion Of
The Palestinians, p. 66)
*
Ben-Gurion emphasized that the acceptance of the Peel Commission
would not imply static borders for the future "Jewish state".
In a letter Ben-Gurion sent to his son in 1937, he wrote:
"No
Zionist can forgo the smallest portion of the Land Of Israel. [A]
Jewish state in part [of Palestine] is not an end, but a beginning
..... Our possession is important not only for itself ... through
this we increase our power, and every increase in power facilitates
getting hold of the country in its entirety. Establishing a [small]
state .... will serve as a very potent lever in our historical effort
to redeem the whole country." (Righteous Victims, p. 138)
*
In 1938, Ben-Gurion made it clear of his support for the "Jewish
state" on part of Palestine was only as a stepping ground for a
complete conquest. He wrote:
"[I
am] satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the
assumption that after we build up a strong force following the
establishment of the state--we will abolish the partition of the
country and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel."
(Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 107 & One Palestine Complete,
p. 403)
*
One day after the UN vote to partition Palestine, Menachem Begin, the
commander of the Irgun gang and Israel's future Prime Minister
between 1977-1983, proclaimed:
"The
Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized ....
Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be
restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever."
(Iron Wall p. 25)
*
Ben-Gurion was happy and sad when the U.N. voted to partition
Palestine into two states, Palestinian and Jewish. He was happy
because "finally" Jews could have a "country" of
their own. On the other hand, he was sad because they have "lost"
almost half of Palestine, and because they would have to contend with
a sizable Palestinian minority, well over 45% of the total
population. In the following few quotes, you will see how he also
stated that a "Jewish state" cannot survive being 60%
Jewish; implying that something aught to be done to remedy the so
called "Arab demographic problem". He stated on November
30, 1947:
"In
my heart, there was joy mixed with sadness: joy that the nations at
last acknowledged that we are a nation with a state, and sadness that
we lost half of the country, Judea and Samaria, and , in addition,
that we [would] have [in our state] 400,000 [Palestinian] Arabs."
(Righteous Victims, p. 190)
*
While addressing the Central Committee of the Histadrut on December
30, 1947, Ben-Gurion stated:
"In
the area allocated to the Jewish State there are not more than
520,000 Jews and about 350,000 non-Jews, mostly Arabs. Together with
the Jews of Jerusalem, the total population of the Jewish State at
the time of its establishment, will be about one million, including
almost 40% non-Jews. such a [population] composition does not provide
a stable basis for a Jewish State. This [demographic] fact must be
viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a [population]
composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control
will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority .... There can be no
stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of
only 60%." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 176)
*
Ben-Gurion commented on the proposed Peel Commission Partition plan
as follows in 1937:
"We
must EXPEL ARABS and take their places .... and, if we have to use
force-not to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev and Transjordan, but
to guarantee our own right to settle in those places-then we have
force at our disposal." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 66).
Note the premeditated plan to ethnically cleanse the Negev and
Transjordan which were not allocated to the Jewish State by the Peel
Commission, click here to view a map illustrating the areas allocated
to the "Jewish State" by the Peel Commission in 1937.
*
Moshe Sharett, director of the Jewish Agency's Political Department
who later became Israel's first foreign minister, declared:
"[W]hen
the Jewish state is established--it is very possible that the result
will be [population] transfer of [the Palestinian] Arabs."
(Righteous Victims, p. 254)
*
While addressing the Central Committee of the Histadrut on December
30th, 1947, Ben-Gurion said:
"In
the area allocated to the Jewish State there are not more than
520,000 Jews and about 350,000 non-Jews, mostly Arabs. Together with
the Jews of Jerusalem, the total population of the Jewish State at
the time of its establishment, will be about one million, including
almost 40% non-Jews. such a [population] composition does not provide
a stable basis for a Jewish State. This [demographic] fact must be
viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a [population]
composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control
will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority .... There can be no
stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of
only 60%."(Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 176 & Benny
Morris p. 28)
*
On February 7th, 1948, while addressing the Mapai Council he
responded to a remark that the "Jews have no land in the
Jerusalem corridor" with the following:
"The
war will give us the land. The concept of 'ours' and 'not ours' are
only concepts for peacetime, and during war they lose all their
meaning." (Benny Morris, p. 170 & Expulsion Of The
Palestinians, p. 180)
*
And on February 8th, 1948 Ben-Gurion also stated to the Mapai
Council:
"From
your entry into Jerusalem, through Lifta, Romema [East Jerusalem
Palestinian neighborhood]. . . there are no [Palestinian] Arabs. One
hundred percent Jews. Since Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, it
has not been Jewish as it is now. In many [Palestinian] Arab
neighborhoods in the west one sees not a single [Palestinian] Arab. I
do not assume that this will change. . . . What had happened in
Jerusalem. . . . is likely to happen in many parts of the country. .
. in the six, eight, or ten months of the campaign there will
certainly be great changes in the composition of the population in
the country." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 180-181)
*
In a speech addressing the Zionist Action Committee on April 6, 1948,
Ben-Gurion clearly stated that war could be used as an instrument to
solve the so called "Arab demographic problem". He stated:
"We
will not be able to win the war if we do not, during the war,
populate upper and lower, eastern and western Galilee, the Negev and
Jerusalem area, even if only in an artificial way, in a military way.
. . . I believe that war will also bring in its wake a great change
in the distribution of [Palestinian] Arab population." (Benny
Morris, p. 181 & Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 181)
Note
the premeditated plan to occupy and ethically cleanse areas, such as
Galilee and Jerusalem, which were not allotted to the "Jewish
State" by the 1947 UN GA Partition plan. Click here to view a
map illustrating the areas allocated to the "Jewish State"
by the 1947 UN GA partition plan.
End
Excerpt
Footnotes
[1]
(defunct)
http://palestinethinktank.com/2010/05/08/joseph-massad-the-language-of-zionism
(cached)
http://humanbeingsfirst.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/cacheof-joseph-massads-the-language-of-zionism-ptt-may-8-2010-with-zahirs-comment.pdf
[2]
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/05/celebrating-israels-60th-birthday.html
[3]
(defunct)
http://palestinethinktank.com/2010/03/11/leaked-zionist-strategy-paper-to-counter-bds-must-read/#comment-15402
(cached)
http://bloghumanbeingsfirst.wordpress.com/2011/04/15/response-to-leaked-zionist-strategy-paper-to-counter-bds-by-zahir-ebrahim/
[4]
http://humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2007/03/responsibility-of-intellectuals-redux.html
http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/2912626.html
[5]
Brian Gerrish, 2009 Lawful Rebellion Conference, UK
http://www.tpuc.org/node/564
[6]
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/06/wmd-master-social-science.html
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/05/note-on-mighty-wurlitzer.html
[7]
http://www.jewishracism.com/Moses_Hess.pdf
[8]
http://radioislam.org/islam/english/books/jewhis/jewhis1.htm
[9]
http://www.marxists.de/middleast/ironwall/ironwall.htm
[10]
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/the-complete-guide-to-killing-non-jews.html
http://coteret.com/2009/11/09/settler-rabbi-publishes-the-complete-guide-to-killing-non-jews/
[11]
http://portland.indymedia.org/media/media/2008/07/377351.pdf
[12]
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/04/newsflash-financialterrorism-apr2009.html
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/10/monetary-reform-bibliography.html
[13]
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/09/is-zionism-hegelian-dialectic.html
[14]
http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/wilhelmson.htm
[15]
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/04/vanilla-or-chocolate-icing-ondevilscake.html
[16]
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/10/monetary-reform-who-will-bell-thecat.html
[17]
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2007/12/endless-red-herrings.html
http://prisonersofthecave.blogspot.com/2007/04/chapter-3.html#Question-for-Noam-Chomsky-Israel-Palestine
[18]
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/11/rescuing-thestruggle-for-palestine.html
[19]
http://radioislam.org/koestler/index.htm
[20]
http://www.palestineremembered.com/Articles/General/Story9097.html
[21]
http://prisonersofthecave.blogspot.com/2007/04/chapter-3.html
“...
people who do not belong to our continent, to our world, but actually
belong to different galaxy.” (Moshe Katsav)
“We
declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one
centimeter of Eretz Israel ... Force is all they do or ever will
understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians
come crawling to us on all fours.” and “When we have
settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be
to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle.”
(Raphael Eitan)
[22]
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/29/science/scholars-debate-roots-of-yiddish-migration-of-jews.html?pagewanted=3&pagewanted=print
[23]
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/02/what-is-intellectual-negro.html
[24]
http://humanbeingsfirst.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/zahirs-letter-to-wendy-campbell-on-mustafa-barghouti-and-psychological-cataracts-may-09-2010.pdf
[25]
http://humanbeingsfirst.wordpress.com/files/2009/12/cacheof-the-israel-project_s-2009-global-language-dictionary-tip_report-july102009-4mb.pdf
[26]
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/03/secretking-rothschild-roman-jerusalem.html
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/03/davidicke-rothschild-connection-zionism.html
THE
EMPIRE OF "THE CITY" (World Superstate) part 2
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4430543376785758889
Also
see: Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment, where he
lists (pgs. 258-259) the names of both the House of Rothschild
(Nathan Rothschild, Baron Rothschild) and Arthur James Balfour as
being in the “The Society of the Elect” of the Cecil
Rhodes' funded Milner Group, aka The Round Table. It
was merely an in-house exchange of quid pro
quo among the peers of a secret group who want to rule the world as
disclosed in Rhodes' will, that led to the infamous Balfour
Declaration granting Palestine to the Jews
being in the House of Rothschild's name in exchange for the Jews
getting the United States to join World War I on the side of England.
Download PDF Carroll Quigley:
http://archive.org/download/TheAnglo-americanEstablishment/AAE.pdf
See
the detailed deconstruction of the Balfour Declaration by this scribe
in :
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2011/07/response-to-alan-hart-by-zahir-ebrahim.html
See
Antony C. Sutton's AMERICA’S SECRET ESTABLISHMENT, that
connects the common goals of the secret Anglophile group in the
United States and England for one-world government. Download Antony
Sutton PDF:
http://archive.org/download/AmericasSecretEstablishmentOrderOfSkullbones/AmericasSecretEstablishmentOrderOfSkullbones.pdf
See
this scribe's report on the Invisible Power of the House of
Rothschild that none dare take the Rothschild name as being among the
handful of invisible prime-mover's behind the larger than life
history's actors:
http://humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/p/rothschild.html
See
how even Carroll Quigley craftily managed
to keep the name of Rothschild out of his follow-on book to The
Anglo-American Establishment despite openly proclaiming the role of
the House of Rothschild in Cecil Rhodes'
plan for world domination, titled Tragedy and Hope, in which he
subsequently detailed the hidden hand of financial capitalism being
the prime-mover for one-world government under the rule of private
bankers:
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/12/of-ostriches-and-rebels-zahirebrahim.html
See
Eustace Mullins, The World Order, A Study in the Hegemony of
Parasitism, in which he forthrightly connected the dots and did not
spare the Rothschild name. Download Mullins PDF:
http://archive.org/download/EustaceMullins-TheWorldOrderAStudyInTheHegemonyOfParasitism1985/EustaceMullins-TheWorldOrderAStudyInTheHegemonyOfParasitism1985.pdf
[27]
http://prisonersofthecave.blogspot.com/2007/04/chapter-9.html
[28]
http://humanbeingsfirst.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/thepromisedland.gif
Image
source http://radioislam.org/islam/english/toread/kivunim.htm
[29]
http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered/Story448.html
The
Architecture Of Piously Selling-Out
Rescuing
a Failed Struggle From Its Narratives
Response
to Witness in Palestine : A Jewish American Woman in the Occupied
Territories
November
22, 2009
Begin
Transcription:'I am Anna Baltzer.
My first reaction when I heard these things by the way was complete disbelief.
I thought there is no way, there is no way that Israel is anything different from what I believe it to be, and what I know it to be.
When I met people who told me anything different, I thought well these are perfectly nice people, but they have been brain washed. They have been told propaganda. And I set out to sort of try and prove them wrong. To show them that I knew what I was talking about.
And as soon as I began to do some research, I realized very quickly that I was the one who is missing a lot of information on this issue.
And not knowing sort of who to believe anymore, decided to go there and see with my own two eyes what was happening in Palestine.
So that's what I travel around the country telling people about is what I found there.
I hope I can offer people a combination of sort of some of the basics of what's going on there, and then also some ways of going a little bit deeper into the history, and most importantly, where we can go from here.
I like like to start out by clarifying a few different categories that can be very confusing to people in addressing this issue.
I'd like to distinguish between what it means to be Jewish: so I am Jewish what does that mean. Somebody who is Jewish is somebody either of the Jewish religion, obviously, or the Jewish lineage. My mother is Jewish, her mother is Jewish, etceteras. It's a bloodline.
And that to be Jewish is different from what it means to be Israeli: an Israeli is a citizenship, and Israeli is a citizen of the state of Israel.
And that to be Israeli is different from what it means to be a Zionist: Zionism is the political ideology that supports the idea of a Jewish state in historic Palestine, sometimes no matter what that means in reality, and no matter what it does.
Anyway, these are different categories, Jewish, Israeli, Zionist. And sometimes they overlap in the same person, but they are not the same thing.
There are Jews who are not Israeli, like myself.
There are Israelis who aren't Jewish, about 25, about 20 percent of the Israeli population is Palestinian.
There are Jews who are anti-Zionist, who say this land should be for anybody who's been living there for generations regardless of what their religion or their ethnicity is.
And then there are Zionists who aren't Jewish. The increasingly influential Christian Zionist movement, largely based in this country that talks about fueling this conflict to bring about the Armageddon, the return of the Messiah. Again, not at all pro-Jewish, right? You know what happens to Jews in the Armageddon is not about preserving Judeism, it is Zionism.
So we see this distinction and it's very important that we see that distinction and that we express it when we are talking about this issue.
First of all, because there is no reason to associate anything that Israel is doing in terms of occupation, oppression, segregation, things that were pretty sobering that I found when I was over there. These things have nothing to do with Judeism.
And likewise, to speak out when we see people's rights being violated is not anti-Jewish.
It's not anti-Semitic. In fact, it's in line with the tradition of social justice that has been the pride of Jewish people as well as many other communities for a very long time.
So I wanna start out with that, especially because I know that people talking about this issue are often, sort of, these names are called at you, and it's absolutely absurd.
There is nothing Jewish about what Israel's doing, nothing anti-Jewish about speaking out when we see it happening.'
My first reaction when I heard these things by the way was complete disbelief.
I thought there is no way, there is no way that Israel is anything different from what I believe it to be, and what I know it to be.
When I met people who told me anything different, I thought well these are perfectly nice people, but they have been brain washed. They have been told propaganda. And I set out to sort of try and prove them wrong. To show them that I knew what I was talking about.
And as soon as I began to do some research, I realized very quickly that I was the one who is missing a lot of information on this issue.
And not knowing sort of who to believe anymore, decided to go there and see with my own two eyes what was happening in Palestine.
So that's what I travel around the country telling people about is what I found there.
I hope I can offer people a combination of sort of some of the basics of what's going on there, and then also some ways of going a little bit deeper into the history, and most importantly, where we can go from here.
I like like to start out by clarifying a few different categories that can be very confusing to people in addressing this issue.
I'd like to distinguish between what it means to be Jewish: so I am Jewish what does that mean. Somebody who is Jewish is somebody either of the Jewish religion, obviously, or the Jewish lineage. My mother is Jewish, her mother is Jewish, etceteras. It's a bloodline.
And that to be Jewish is different from what it means to be Israeli: an Israeli is a citizenship, and Israeli is a citizen of the state of Israel.
And that to be Israeli is different from what it means to be a Zionist: Zionism is the political ideology that supports the idea of a Jewish state in historic Palestine, sometimes no matter what that means in reality, and no matter what it does.
Anyway, these are different categories, Jewish, Israeli, Zionist. And sometimes they overlap in the same person, but they are not the same thing.
There are Jews who are not Israeli, like myself.
There are Israelis who aren't Jewish, about 25, about 20 percent of the Israeli population is Palestinian.
There are Jews who are anti-Zionist, who say this land should be for anybody who's been living there for generations regardless of what their religion or their ethnicity is.
And then there are Zionists who aren't Jewish. The increasingly influential Christian Zionist movement, largely based in this country that talks about fueling this conflict to bring about the Armageddon, the return of the Messiah. Again, not at all pro-Jewish, right? You know what happens to Jews in the Armageddon is not about preserving Judeism, it is Zionism.
So we see this distinction and it's very important that we see that distinction and that we express it when we are talking about this issue.
First of all, because there is no reason to associate anything that Israel is doing in terms of occupation, oppression, segregation, things that were pretty sobering that I found when I was over there. These things have nothing to do with Judeism.
And likewise, to speak out when we see people's rights being violated is not anti-Jewish.
It's not anti-Semitic. In fact, it's in line with the tradition of social justice that has been the pride of Jewish people as well as many other communities for a very long time.
So I wanna start out with that, especially because I know that people talking about this issue are often, sort of, these names are called at you, and it's absolutely absurd.
There is nothing Jewish about what Israel's doing, nothing anti-Jewish about speaking out when we see it happening.'
It
is not the place of a plebeian living comfortably in California in
the United States of America – where no one is shooting at his
family, nor demolishing his home, nor subjecting him to suffer Jews
only roads nor the dehumanizing checkpoints on every mile – to
critique the monumental struggle of a mighty people barely surviving
a genocidal conquest of their ancestral lands, where, just to exist
daily in dignity after burying one's children shot in the head is to
resist, where, just to not forget without going insane is to resist,
where, to fight the tanks with only stones despite the label of
'terrorist' is to resist.
And
far be it for any mortal to critique the gentle Jew among a
population of 20-60 million world Jewry who dares to courageously
stand up for what is decent and moral, who bears witness for crimes
against humanity against one's own tribe, who resolves to bring to
her people the news of what she saw with her own two eyes in
Palestine.
But
to also not point out the palpably obvious is a travesty of both
thought and justice. For, in order for the monumental struggle of the
Palestinians to result in anything other than glossy book publishing,
and Peace Prizes, one perhaps will have to incur the wrath of both
the moralist as well as the tyrant. And so be it. I ain't writing
this to win a popularity contest, to make a living from narrating
other people's misery, to win elections by seeking representation, or
to ingratiate myself with the victims or their moral champions.
Effort is great – but on a treadmill it is wasting precious
time on endless trail of red herrings.
Anna
Baltzer, a wonderful human being, and Mustafa Barghouti, a courageous
leader of a beleaguered people, are both riding high on platitudes.
It is unfortunate that they exhibit little forensic understanding of
the facts of the matter beyond the Israeli military occupation which
they have lived and witnessed daily. The unvarnished and hidden only
in plain-sight reality which begets the golem, at least in my view,
is this,
this,
this,
and this.
[1] A thorough due diligence of the cited material and some
un-emotional reflection makes the endless
trail of red herrings
apparent. [2] Power only respects power. Not platitudes, not appeals
to morality, and not narratives.
Please
keep making shocking presentations showing the brutality of the
golem, keep appearing on comedy shows amidst the applause of the
partisans and the curse of the zealots, it sure looks good in
America. It also looks good for the Jews – one of their own
angels once again boldly speaks the authentic moral voice in favor of
a beleaguered humanity as “it's in line with the
tradition of social justice that has been the pride of Jewish
people”. Yes indeed, and as my irreverent Palestinian
friend also says “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.” Dismissing
the Palestinian voice as being merely cynical, or irrational and
requiring the Jewish authentication to have legitimacy, it's just
wonderful to make colorful presentations to universities and to
appear on mainstream television in America to attempt to project
Palestine's misery on the American psyche.
The
purpose, one of course presumes, is to inform the ignorant Americans
of what's happening in Palestine so that, one logically ventures to
presume again, the newly informed public with their mighty
democratic vote
will finally rush to alter the destiny of the Palestinian People. [3]
Sadly
so, and contrary to what most people have been led to believe, lack
of knowledge isn't the chain that is anchoring the superbly
conscionable American public down from bringing justice to Palestine,
to Iraq, to Afghanistan, to Lebanon, to Pakistan, and to the Grand
Chessboard being played for the winner takes all high stakes gambit
of one-world
government. [4]
This
truth should be self-evident and is easily demonstrable. Simply
examine what the United States has done to Iraq in the past 8 years
before its own public's eyes. That isn't at all a state-secret, nor
an open secret. We have Abu Garib for instance whose pictures were
splashed even in the mainstream news – far more than Jenin or
Gaza ever were. We have the New
York Times
exposé which gallantly revealed how the Pentagon Generals
created the message machine to fool the American public into
supporting the invasion of Iraq on fabricated pretexts. [5] With all
that knowledge before their eyes, one of course sees Main
Street USA filled with American protesters
demanding the hanging of their leaders after the disclosures of
missing WMD, the horrendous torture of civilians, and the complete
devastation of even the DNA of Mesopotamia for eons to come, right?
[6]
But
wait, why bother to go that far overseas searching for sympathy among
the conscionable peoples of the United States of America for those
untermensch 'unworthy victims' who share the same cultural baggage
with the Palestinians thus automatically extending that
'unworthiness' to each other. How about their ownselves? The American
protesters surely choked their nation's thoroughfares
bringing business as usual to a grinding halt when
the American banksters plundered their own nation
through their own elected representatives before their very eyes last
October,
right? [7]
None
of that is particularly secret as perhaps some feel that the plight
of the Palestinians is from the American public. Those among them who
want to know about the reality of “imperial
mobilization” can easily learn so, it's not a state
secret. And those who do already know, as in the aforementioned
instances, well, they still continue to live on in their own dream
states not only unfazed by the desecrated 'untermensch' humanity, but
the theft of their own nation in plainsight hasn't motivate them a
heck of a lot. Can any sensible analysis deny this grotesque reality?
The
entire premise
of if Americans only knew
then they'd surely bring justice to the world and all will live
happily ever after, has now empirically been proven to be entirely
specious.
[8] An absurdity. For Americans are no more or less moral than the
rest of the spectating world. Including the 8 million Palestinians
living in Diaspora. That is easily demonstrable by how many set sail
with the courageous, courageous, former American Congresswoman
Cynthia
McKinney
to attempt to break the blockade of Gaza with basic medicines and
supplies. [9] Imagine, instead of the lonely Dignity, there were one
million Dignities? In a world's population of almost 7 billion, and
West's own 2 billion comfort seeking zombies and plethora of
philosophers and activists, one couldn't mobilize a civilian force of
conscience of 2-10 million human beings willing to risk their
discomfort in sailing to Gaza to stop the
genocide going on before our very eyes? Administering a medicine
below its recommended dosage for the disease at hand only makes the
body immune to it having no impact on the malady in much the same way
as not applying sufficient imploding force to create critical mass
also does not trigger the chain reaction necessary to set off a
nuclear bomb. Symbolic expression no more initiates a nuclear chain
reaction than gives pause for concern to the hectoring hegemons.
The
shoah of the Palestinians isn't something
in the yesteryear for which the “never again” vows
are repeatedly taken in the halls of the Holocaust Museum. Nor is it
the indescribable genocide of centuries past which colonized the land
of the Native Americans before one living today was ever born. It is
happening right here, right now, in our own time, and so what of it?
High minded people can't be bothered with other people's existential
problems other than at best, some weekend show of bravado of the
conscionable and some whispered prayers of
the pious! If there was efficacy in such acts, then wishes would be
horses and beggars would surely be riding.
But we see that this does not happen. People continue to suffer under
the jackboots of the Nazis, old and new.
What
worthy moralists penning narratives and/or walking the beleaguered
victims safely past checkpoints don't appear to comprehend
is the notion of efficacy: the difference between applying band-aids
to symptoms vs. curing the systemic illness by accurately diagnosing,
and then efficaciously antidoting
the root cause. Perhaps deliberately. Perhaps thoughtlessly. Perhaps
the flock is calculatingly misled by the multitude of priestdoms
who lead them in the feel-good dissipation of their energies
into red herrings and “focus
groups”
while fait
accompli is seeded in its backdrop.
[10] That should be self-evident. But apparently, it isn't to many.
So,
in my view, when offering narratives to the public thinking that
morality, or knowledge equates to action, never mind efficacy, one is
either creating or chasing endless
red herrings.
[11]
It
has certainly worked wonders for “arguably the most
important intellectual alive” in selling his narratives.
[12] And so too for the two hundred other Jewish voices of dissent,
or perhaps the number is two thousand? Or is it twenty thousand? How
many have created tax-exempt foundations, like the nemesis does, to
donate all those proceeds to the Palestinian cause; used it for
purchasing a newsmedia or a mainstream newspaper; set up an AIPAC, a
JINSA, and one hundred think-tanks to create competing policy
proposals to counter AEI's craftsmanship? And it also works great for
everyone who cheers them on – for it's soothing to the
conscience to run safely on the treadmill.
When
peace
prizes are awarded to the victims
for the superlative narratives of their own, or to their exponents
among their oppressor's civilization,
its covetously appreciated and becomes their badge of honor. [13] The
fact that they are sharing it with bloody
murders
doesn't seem to cross their mind, nor the fact that the whiteman is
in fact mocking the 'Negro'.
[14] Victims trip over themselves to welcome the new whiteman as
heroes. Talk show circuits naturally follow, with more narratives to
boot. And the annual Nakba commemoration is of course an event to
look forward to. All the great speeches that get made there, all the
slogans that are raised, and all the lofty assertions that are made.
Amidst
all this energized symbolic weekend run on the treadmill for most
people, and perhaps a lifestyle for a handful of others of
courageously putting band-aids on visible wounds while doing little
for curing the systemic disease, the only people all this wonderful
dissent doesn't work for, and hasn't work for, are the bleeding
Palestinians exhausting themselves out at ground Zero.
The
enemy is simply far superior and far more cunning in waging a full
spectrum overwhelming war by way of deception. Those on the ground
see only the most overt of its instruments – the guns, the
walls, but not the forces which drive them.
With
no hope for any of the armed to the teeth standing armies from around
the world coming to their rescue, they clutch at straws. And the
Internationals, as courageous as they are in putting their own lives
on the line with some like Rachel Corrie, Tom Hurndall, and so many
others, paying for their personal quest for justice with their own
lives, provide that bale of straw to the Palestinians. But no
solutions. Those in Diaspora are already settled someplace while
admittedly still holding onto the keys to their demolished homes now
left behind. And those at ground Zero in Palestine continue to suffer
the privilege of great loquaciousness of their brethren in Diaspora
who do indeed try to serve their former family members well from the
relative safety of their new homes in the West. Their weekend protest
marches, the shouting and venting anger at the Caligula, the symbolic
pins, T-shirts, posters, and colorful flag-waving, etceteras, and
back to the pursuit of their 'American Dream' on Monday morning, 8
am.
If
this depiction offends the pious, well, the reflection in the mirror
is more grotesque than the reality outside. It is our silence, our
apathy, our un-courage, our co-option, our lack of skill to
appreciate the diabolicalness of the enemy, to understand its sources
of power, to fathom its limitless deep pockets and the fount which
replenishes it, to appreciate its long
range Machiavellian planning with red herrings being an integral part
of its vast arsenal of waging wars by way of deception, and finally,
the paucity of a superior intellect to pursue the efficacious instead
of the 'glamourous', all of which entirely enables and emboldens that
evil among mankind.
The
“pastrami sandwich” example
acutely illustrates just one instance of being out-classed in all
dimensions by a far more cunning and sophisticated foe. Ariel Sharon
noted to Winston Churchill III in 1973, six years into Israel's
military occupation of remaining Palestine:
“We'll
make a pastrami sandwich of them. We'll insert a strip of Jewish
settlement, 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.” [15]
And
the truth of those diabolical words is visible in the maps reproduced
below. It is still on-going. But there is no evidence of that
comprehension in anything the Palestinian
leadership, or their moral supporters have proffered up since,
neither at the Oslo Accord, nor at the awarding of the Nobel Peace
Prize to the 'Negro' by the whiteman for his dutiful compliance with
their discourse, and nor in the wonderful rehash of narratives of
Anna Baltzer and Mustafa Barghouti in 2009, 36 years later. They
vacuously talk of peace-peace, justice-justice, rights-rights,
security-security, without betraying, at least in that appearance on
American television, any understanding of the forces which drive
their nemesis.
This
is once again unequivocally demonstrated in
these saintly closing remarks of Mustafa Barghouti, interrupting the
very passionate moral voice of Anna Baltzer making the pair a
fantastic must-see nourishment for the soul on American television's
finest moral hour:
“If
I may say so, Israel has tried for sixty years the language of power,
to achieve security. The only road that was not tried fully, is to
have peace with Palestinians. And I am sure, this is the best
guarantee for security.”
Is
security what Israel wants? Yes, surely, but only after all the
natives have been dispatched to their reservations or transferred out
of the Holy Lands. But before then? For the past 60 years, has
security been the successive Israeli governments primary quest as the
learned Dr. Mustafa Barghouti played to the American audience? Or has
it all along been the conquest of Palestine that every Palestinian on
the ground knows as unarguable fact just as surely as the picture of
their beautiful child now shot dead right through the eyes and burned
alive by phosphorous bombs
that puts all the Jews' hypocritical laments of Shoah
to shame?
[16] While Jon Stewart may be forgiven his inbred American wisdom of
conveniently forgetting the parallels of how America was settled by
the whiteman, all others not peering down the rabbit hole or bleating
their own victimizers' mantras already know that by continually
fueling conflict, taking 10 under the guise of fighting the
'barbarians' in purported self-defense, and returning 1 if the
'terrorists'
behave,
has been the primal modus operandi of the golem for similarly
re-settling
another paradise lost. [17]
The
veracity of that observation too, based on the profound wisdom of
David Ben Gurion: “what is inconceivable in normal times
is possible in revolutionary times”, and the
nonsensicalness of the premise uttered by the respected Dr. Mustafa
Barghouti, are all self-evident in the maps below.
These
maps depict the real unvarnished reality on the ground:
“However
the different party maps have nothing to do with reality, a fact well
known to the people who drafted them. The maps were produced to feed
addiction (a) of the populace. This is virtual reality. The actual
reality on the ground has been created continuously, consistently and
deliberately, since 1967, by all Israeli governments, Labor, Likud
and Kadima.”
[18]
That
is precisely why Palestinians have continually lost their struggle to
wonderful narratives, to chest beating, chest thumping, and
intellectualizing their moral struggle in poetry and songs,
photographs and theater, to Peace processes
and Accords, to maps handed them by their victimizers, and
ultimately, to even using the vocabulary and constructs of the
occupiers themselves to describe their own victimhood, all of which
is dutifully rewarded with more land loss, and more peace prizes for
playing the fool.
One
ventures to predict that Anna Baltzer's
poignant book is slated for a Pulitzer Prize for sure, or at least
the Orwell Prize like native Palestinian Raja
Shehadeh's acute narrative 'Palestinian
Walks'
in 2008. [19] If this chap, Dr. Mustafa Barghouti
keeps up this charade before the West, keeps selling out his own long
suffering people by spewing red herrings crafted for him by the
whiteman, there is surely a peace prize in it for him as well.
Perhaps these accolades have already been issued, just awaiting
public announcement – as the map of Israel in Palestine rapidly
reaches its final completion while Eretz Yisrael continues to be
worked on in parallel.
To
put some real efficacy to the resistance before fait accompli
entirely seals the Palestinians' fate, and it's almost there,
genuinely concerned people are gonna have to bite the bullet even at
this late stage of conquest and go where neither the Palestinians,
nor their moral exponents have shown any inclination to go. To the
very DNA of Der Judenstat's strength.
Because,
as with the secret of Samson's indomitable strength, this
golem's hidden source of power
lies deceptively elsewhere!
[20] Not in Israel. Not in the White House, and not in the U.S.
Congress. We have already seen them all bow together before another
higher power with our very own eyes.
And
that is the real Samson Option! Want to get rid of the golem? You
gonna have to pay in spades by seeking and cutting off its locks. To
do so requires skills, expertise, and resources often un-possessed by
the ordinary plebeians rising to support the beleaguered
victims. All we can do is make speeches, write books, and appear on
talk shows. All the victims can do is to exist to resist. And all
their leadership can do is to find new ways to be co-opted. That's
how they live longer, more willing they are to become the 'Negro'
of Martin Luther King's scorn. [21] Without taking on the DNA with
resources to back up the effort in a full spectrum assault to
overwhelm their senses and their resources just as they do ours, all
this dissent is a wonderful waste of precious time. It only helps the
victimizers.
Time
once seeded to fait accompli, simply becomes impractical to reverse.
Time is Zionism's best friend. Just look at the map and one can see
it. All the while one is wasting it in not effectively addressing the
root of the matter, newer generation of Zionists are born on that
soil claiming birth-right. And newer victims are fed to the golem,
but not just in Palestine. The world has brazenly and complicitly
witnessed Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, the emerging arc
of crisis in the Global Zone of Percolating Violence
as annotated by Zbigniew Brzezinski before any crisis had
materialized way back in 1996. The People of the United States
themselves are the newest victims to behold. They all share the same
common enemy.
Next
time you make your outstanding presentations Anna, Mustafa, go there
– show How Zionistan is the banksters' private baby for which
they diabolically harness both the 'left' and the 'right' from
amongst the Jews. Show how the name to which the Balfour Declaration
is addressed controls the world through their full spectrum control
of world's finance and resources, and what its remaining agenda is.
Show in whose palace the Treaty of Versailles was
signed which spelled the real beginning of end of Palestine for its
indigenous peoples. Show why and how it has not been an idle boast of
the godfathers: “give me control of a nation's money
supply and I care not who makes its laws”.
Unmask their secret role in being the real financiers of Der
Judenstat, and by virtue of their full spectrum control of the West's
politicians, including those in the United
States, of being the real prime-movers behind the primacy of Zionism
and the criminal dispossession and
systematic eradication of the Palestinian populations from their own
ancestral lands.
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. [22]
Go
for the jugular of the Zionists' hidden only in plainsight source of
strength today by seeking the billions, or even the paltry millions
from your wealthy kin and funding multi-spectrum legal assault across
the world and across the board upon the first harbingers of world's
misery – just as the Zionists won Der Judenstat by legal means,
even if only by a sovereign's word.
And
watch your own world crumble around you for taking on the real source
of Samson's power, far quicker than what Israel has done to the
Palestinian people.
That's
why no one of any prominence with anything to lose treads there.
That's why even the heavily protected past American Presidents have
had their brains blown out, or attempted to be blown out, when they
tread too close to that forbidden path. But if enough people of means
and worldly wherewithal go there together
with wit, courage, and play like grandmasters in a team rather than
shocked idealists on a moral mission chasing 1000 red herrings, then,
and only then, an effective battle will finally be waged against the
real power source which fuels the golem. When such an effective
struggle is genuinely waged, the final outcome will surely not be
scripted as it entirely is at the present time.
The
battle goes to those who can best out maneuver their opponent, as in
Jujitsu, as in Muhammad Ali's rope-a-dope against George Forman,
rather than always to the stronger. As Patrick Henry put it:
“Besides,
sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who
presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends
to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong
alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.”
[23]
That
only works for battles with real teeth in them, and before fait
accompli cements the outcome. Today, no native American can do
anything except live on in memory.
Thank
you.
Footnotes
[1]
Zahir Ebrahim, Celebrating Israel's 60th Birthday in the 60th year of
the Nakba May 15, 2008
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/05/celebrating-israels-60th-birthday.html
Zahir
Ebrahim, At What Cost the Israel Lobby? : It's only an 'errand boy'!
Oct. 14, 2009
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/10/respto-what-cost-israel-lobby-jeffgates.html
Zahir
Ebrahim, Is Zionism a sophisticated Hegelian Dialectic? Sept. 06,
2009
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/09/is-zionism-hegelian-dialectic.html
Zahir
Ebrahim, Ebook: Reclaiming Palestine 2008 Omnibus June 04, 2008
http://humanbeingsfirst.wordpress.com/files/2008/06/reclaiming-palestine-2008-omnibus-june042008.pdf
[2]
Zahir Ebrahim, The endless trail of red herrings, Feb. 28, 2007
http://humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2007/03/endless-red-herrings.html
[3]
Zahir Ebrahim, Not-Voting is a 'YES' vote to Reject a Corrupt System
which thrives on the facade of Elections and Democracy! Oct. 22, 2008
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/10/not-voting-is-yes-vote-to-reject-system.html
[4]
Zahir Ebrahim, Response to Financial Times Gideon Rachman's 'And now
for a world government' Dec. 11, 2008
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/12/responseto-ft-gideon-rachman-worldgov.html
[5]
DAVID BARSTOW, NYT, Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand,
April 20, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html?_r=3&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
[6]
Zahir Ebrahim, America’s Shame, Preface to Prisoners of the
Cave, 2003,
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2007/12/americas-shame.html#Peoples-Guilt
[7]
Zahir Ebrahim, Why Not Be An Ostrich? Feb. 13, 2009
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/02/why-not-be-anostrich-feb132009.html
Zahir
Ebrahim, The Wrecked Ship of Fools, April 1 2009
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/04/wrecked-ship-of-fools-apr12009.html
Zahir
Ebrahim, Why Bluff Martial Law? Oct. 03, 2008
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/10/why-bluff-martial-law.html
[8]
Zahir Ebrahim, Prisoners of the Cave, 2003, Chapter 2
http://prisonersofthecave.blogspot.com/2007/04/chapter-2.html#The-Premise-If-Only-the-Americans-Knew
Zahir
Ebrahim, Prisoners of the Cave, 2003, Chapter 3 Is Democracy Inimical
To Empire Building?
http://prisonersofthecave.blogspot.com/2007/04/chapter-3.html
[9]
CNN, Cynthia McKinney on Israel's Ramming of The Dignity, December
30, 2008 Quote: “Well, I wouldn't call it accosting, I
would call it ramming. Let's just call it as it is”,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZeNdIGI8os
[10]
George W. Bush, Quote: “It's like deciding – well
I am going to decide policy based upon a focus group”, cited in
Zahir Ebrahim, Prisoners of the Cave, Chapter 7
http://prisonersofthecave.blogspot.com/2007/04/chapter-7.html
Zahir
Ebrahim, Manufacturing Dissent: Weapons of Mass Deception – The
Master Social Science June 01, 2008
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/06/wmd-master-social-science.html
[11]
Zahir Ebrahim, The endless trail of red herrings, Feb. 28, 2007
http://humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2007/03/endless-red-herrings.html
[12]
Peter Schweizer, Noam Chomsky, Closet Capitalist, 2006
http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/2912626.html
[13]
Zahir Ebrahim, Letter to Editor Guardian: 2008 Orwell Prize for the
Palestinian Narrative of Nakba May 03, 2008
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/05/letter-toguardian-2008-orwellprize.html
Jeff
Halper in Canada Nobel Prize Nominee and Israeli Peace Activist
Speaking on the Siege of Gaza, January 22, 2009
http://www.caiaweb.org/node/1096
[14]
Zahir Ebrahim, The Answer to the Burning Question du jour: Why was
President Obama Gifted the Nobel Peace Prize? How to win the Nobel
Peace Prize October 09, 2009
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/10/how-to-win-nobel-peace-prize.html
A
Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin
Luther King (Jr.), pg. 307
http://books.google.com/books?id=k8uPHtrU8BsC&pg=PA307
Quote:
“The white establishment is skilled in flattering and
cultivating emerging leaders. It presses its own image on them and
finally, from imitation of manners, dress, and style of living, a
deeper strain of corruption develops. This kind of Negro leader
acquires the white man's contempt for the ordinary Negro. He is often
more at home with the middle-class white than he is among his own
people. His language changes, his location changes, his income
changes, and ultimately he changes from the representative of the
Negro to the white man into the white man's representative to the
Negro. The tragedy is that too often he does not recognize what has
happened to him.”
[15]
From George S. Hishmeh, Special to The
Daily Star, July 18, 2002. Cited in 'What for?' by Victoria Buch,
Occupation Magazine, 22 April 2006
http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=34220
Quote:
“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.”
[16]
Zahir Ebrahim, From Genesis to Genocide in Palestine January 16, 2009
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/01/from-genesis-to-genocide-in-palestine.html
Zahir
Ebrahim, Letter to Editor Palestinians' fate worse than Shoah! Jan
09, 2009
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/01/palestinians-fate-worse-than-shoah.html
[17]
Zahir Ebrahim, The endless trail of red herrings, Feb. 28, 2007
http://humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2007/03/endless-red-herrings.html
Zahir
Ebrahim, Celebrating Israel's 60th Birthday in the 60th year of the
Nakba May 15, 2008
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/05/celebrating-israels-60th-birthday.html
[18]
Victoria Buch, Occupation Magazine, 22
April 2006, Op. cit.
[19]
Zahir Ebrahim, Letter to Editor Guardian: 2008 Orwell Prize for the
Palestinian Narrative of Nakba May 03, 2008
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/05/letter-toguardian-2008-orwellprize.html
[20]
From Genesis to Genocide in Palestine : The Golem Is Not Jewish! Nov.
19, 2009
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/11/genesis-to-genocide-golem-not-jewish.html
At
What Cost the Israel Lobby? : It's only an 'errand boy'!, Oct. 14,
2009
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/10/respto-what-cost-israel-lobby-jeffgates.html
[21]
Martin Luther King. Op. cit.
[22]
Zahir Ebrahim, Who is more guilty of monumental war crimes –
the prime-movers or trigger pullers? April 09, 2009
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/04/vanilla-or-chocolate-icing-ondevilscake.html
[23]
Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775,
http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/henry.shtml
Anna
Baltzer's videos embedded at the beginning of this article:
Anna
Baltzer: Life In Occupied Palestine November 02, 2009, in 3 parts
http://essentialdissent.blogspot.com/2009/11/anna-baltzer-life-in-occupied-palestine.html
Anna
Baltzer & Dr. Mustafa Barghouti on The Daily Show with Jon
Stewart -Recorded Wednesday, October 28, 2009
http://www.annainthemiddleeast.com/video/index.html
Source
URL:
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/11/rescuing-thestruggle-for-palestine.html
Annex
Rothschild
Connection to World Government and Zionism : David Icke
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]
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.'
Source
URL:
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/03/davidicke-rothschild-connection-zionism.html
DOWNLOAD
HOW TO RETURN TO PALESTINE:
Mirror
URL: http://humanbeingsfirst.wordpress.com/palestine/
Resources
URL: http://onepalestine.wordpress.com/
Resources
Mirror URL:
http://one-palestine.blogspot.com/p/resources.html
PAMPHLET:
HOW TO RETURN TO PALESTINE THIS DAY FORWARD 5-15-2010 118
/ 118