How To Return to Palestine This Day Forward

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
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 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 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
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, 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 He may be reached at

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


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]:
Photograph of Golda Meir, autographed to Alan Hart as her 'good friend' source
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.”
The Balfour Declaration addressed to Lord Rothschild November 2nd 1917
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.


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, [parenthetical reflections inserted]
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!).


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.
A Palestinian child's indomitable courage on Ground Zero in PalestineCaption 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 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
[4] Golda Meir, Le Monde, 15 October 1971
[7] Ron Suskind, Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush, New York Times, October 17, 2004,
[9] Part-1
[13] Cass R. Sunstein & Adrian Vermeule, Conspiracy Theories, January 15, 2008, Social Science Research Network, (cached pdf)
[30] Peter Schweizer, Noam Chomsky, Closet Capitalist, Hoover Institution Stanford University, January 30, 2006,

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, caste, 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 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
see prediction here, its confirmation here, antidote here [5])
Map UN Partition plan 1947map-of-occupation-palestinian-lands-1946-2008-pttthepromisedland Eretz Yisrael
(Map of Herzl's plan for the Jewish State: Eretz Yisrael)
Click on this navigable map of One Palestine, courtesy of
Click on Map to Enlarge: Plands Palestine_map_1948_eng
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 Weimar Republic which was the legatee of the mighty Austro-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 detective 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, '[or worldview]' this scribe's reflections)
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!”
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.

[4] George Orwell, “1984”
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:
Also see Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman, 1985; and article: The Destruction of American Education by Norman Livergood
Judge Andrew Napolitano Natural Rights and The Patriot Act Part 1 of 3
Judge Andrew Napolitano Natural Rights and The Patriot Act Part 2 of 3
Judge Andrew Napolitano Natural Rights and The Patriot Act Part 3 of 3
Hal G. P. Colebatch, Thought police muscle up in Britain, April 21, 2009
[13] John Mearsheimer, The Future of Palestine: Righteous Jews vs. the New Afrikaners

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!
thepromisedland Eretz Yisrael
(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 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

[5] Brian Gerrish, 2009 Lawful Rebellion Conference, UK,
“... 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)
Ring Of Power THE EMPIRE OF "THE CITY" (World Superstate) part 2
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:
See the detailed deconstruction of the Balfour Declaration by this scribe in :
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:
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:
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:
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:
[28] The Promised Land Map of Herzl's plan for the Jewish State: Eretz Yisrael
Image source: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East, Translated and edited by Israel Shahak
[29] Why did Arabs reject the proposed UN GA partition plan which split Palestine into Jewish and Arab states?
British 1937 Peel Commission Partition Plan, rejected by the 20th Zionist Congress which convened in Zurich in August 1937

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

Anna Baltzer Life-in-occupied-palestine Video Nov022009
Daily Show Comedy Central with Jon Stewart: Anna Baltzer and Dr. Mustafa Barghouti Part 1 of 2 October 28, 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.'
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.

Palestine 1948

Plands Palestine_map_1948_eng

From Genesis to Genocide in Palestine

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.
[1] Zahir Ebrahim, Celebrating Israel's 60th Birthday in the 60th year of the Nakba May 15, 2008
Zahir Ebrahim, At What Cost the Israel Lobby? : It's only an 'errand boy'! Oct. 14, 2009
Zahir Ebrahim, Is Zionism a sophisticated Hegelian Dialectic? Sept. 06, 2009
[2] Zahir Ebrahim, The endless trail of red herrings, Feb. 28, 2007
[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
[4] Zahir Ebrahim, Response to Financial Times Gideon Rachman's 'And now for a world government' Dec. 11, 2008
[5] DAVID BARSTOW, NYT, Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand, April 20, 2008
[6] Zahir Ebrahim, America’s Shame, Preface to Prisoners of the Cave, 2003,
Zahir Ebrahim, Why Bluff Martial Law? Oct. 03, 2008
Zahir Ebrahim, Prisoners of the Cave, 2003, Chapter 3 Is Democracy Inimical To Empire Building?
[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”,
[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
Zahir Ebrahim, Manufacturing Dissent: Weapons of Mass Deception – The Master Social Science June 01, 2008
[11] Zahir Ebrahim, The endless trail of red herrings, Feb. 28, 2007
[12] Peter Schweizer, Noam Chomsky, Closet Capitalist, 2006
[13] Zahir Ebrahim, Letter to Editor Guardian: 2008 Orwell Prize for the Palestinian Narrative of Nakba May 03, 2008
Jeff Halper in Canada Nobel Prize Nominee and Israeli Peace Activist Speaking on the Siege of Gaza, January 22, 2009
[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
A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King (Jr.), pg. 307
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
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
Zahir Ebrahim, Letter to Editor Palestinians' fate worse than Shoah! Jan 09, 2009
[17] Zahir Ebrahim, The endless trail of red herrings, Feb. 28, 2007
Zahir Ebrahim, Celebrating Israel's 60th Birthday in the 60th year of the Nakba May 15, 2008
[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
[20] From Genesis to Genocide in Palestine : The Golem Is Not Jewish! Nov. 19, 2009
At What Cost the Israel Lobby? : It's only an 'errand boy'!, Oct. 14, 2009
[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
Anna Baltzer's videos embedded at the beginning of this article:
Anna Baltzer & Dr. Mustafa Barghouti on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart -Recorded Wednesday, October 28, 2009, original URL:,
watch here:


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]
Red Ice Creations Intervew - Rothschild Connection to World Government and Zionism: David Icke – Origins and Symbolism of the EU
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:
The Balfour Declaration November 2nd 1917
[ Why is the Balfour Declaration addressed to a Rothschild? ]
Rothschilds' Monument to Justice in Zionistan
[ 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?
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!' -- ]
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.' -- ]
And, we've ignored them. Or we have not ignored them, people have ignored their power for long enough because they have brilliantly hidden it. It needs the light to be shone on it because when they come down, in so many ways, the House of cards comes down!
Thank you very much.'
End Transcription by Project, Parts 6 & 7 [Parenthesis: Transcriber's notes]

2015 Expanded Pamphlet Undoing the Theft of Palestine Homepage URL:
2015 Expanded Pamphlet Undoing the Theft of Palestine Printpage URL:

First Edition May 15, 2010 | 2nd Edition November 16, 2012
Links fixed and synced January 31, 2016 | Lede image and source link added October 19, 2016
Typos fixed, Links fixed, and synced with Report on Jerusalem 2018, January 30, 2018, 3:00 pm


Full Copyright Notice

All material copyright (c) Project HumanbeingsfirstTM, with full permission to copy, repost, and reprint, in its entirety, unmodified, for any purpose, granted, provided the full URL sentence and the copyright notice contained within each Document are also reproduced verbatim as part of this license, along with any embedded links within its main text, and not doing so may be subject to copyright license violation infringement claims pursuant to remedies noted at All figures, images, quotations, and excerpts are used without permission based on non-profit "fair-use" for personal education and research use only in the greater public interest. The usage is minimally consistent with the understanding of laws noted at In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of US Copyright Laws, you are provided the material from Project Humanbeingsfirst upon your request, and taking any action that delivers you any of its documents in any form is considered making a specific request to receive the documents for your own personal educational and/or research use. You are directly responsible for seeking the requisite permissions from other copyright holders for any use beyond “fair use”. Exclusion: All rights are expressly reserved for the usage of the terms (c) HumanbeingsfirstTM and (c) HumanbeingfirstTM which are the copyrighted and trademarked intellectual property of Project HumanbeingsfirstTM. Reproduction Note: It is acceptable to reproduce any document in smaller serialized parts provided the full URL sentence and the copyright notice within each document are also reproduced in each part and the entire document is reproduced. Please read

Caveat Emptor

Please be advised that Project HumanbeingsfirstTM fully cooperates with all law enforcement and other governmental agencies worldwide in rooting out Terrorism in all its nuanced shades and stripes in order to end its Neanderthal reign of terror upon all who are human beings first. Project Humanbeingsfirst does not distinguish between terrorists clad in turbans and those wearing suits, nor between the predatory rampages of the pirates vs. the emperors, albeit each is apportioned the measure of crime and guilt commensurate to their respective station of power and impact on their victims. Law enforcement personnel worldwide, but especially in the United States and the West, are encouraged to participate with Project Humanbeingsfirst. It is essential for all nations' state security apparatus to learn how to forensically identify the monumental supreme terrorists hiding in plain sight among us under legal cover, the real merchants of death, while they dutifully chase down the easy to spot handful of often deliberately manufactured pirates at sea.