Acknowledgment On The Road Less Traveled

Thanks and Acknowledgment
On The Road Less Traveled
The author would like to gratefully acknowledge the support of his family who have silently, and almost willingly, endured his obsession with, and single-minded pursuit of, journalism (digging for truth) and activism (doing something useful with that truth than merely reporting it to a people who are inclined to do nothing with it) since 9/11. This has, at times, included several long absences away from home for which he is indebted to his wife for having taken up the slack and giving this scribe his opportunity to “sing the song in your heart before you die” – as she likes to put it. They have had to endure all his disquiet songs. With their children now pursuing their professional education and having moved away from home, the author spends more time in Pakistan to continue his pursuits among a people who once again – as in the United States where he is a permanent resident – appear most un-interested in anything he has to offer them.
The Author also wishes to acknowledge an even greater debt. This one to his destiny – fate, karma, naseeb – that it was so apportioned to him! The hand that has moved him to endear himself to this losing cause célèbre he does not comprehend himself. The swashbuckling rebel, Captain Rhett Butler's statement to Mrs. Hamilton in Gone with the wind is oddly reminiscent of this uncharacteristic labor: “maybe it's because I have always had a weakness for lost causes once they are really lost.”
The author feels grateful that he was not only gifted a glimpse into this wily modernity from Mt. Fuji, and the uncanny drive to even try to comprehend all the forces which are shaping this modernity to create a one-world government of the oligarchy, by the oligarchy, for the oligarchy, in piece-meal increments, one global crisis at a time, one global law at a time, but also gifted the courage of his convictions to want to do something about it. As the cliché goes: “If necessity is the mother of invention, then discontent must surely be the father of progress.”
The first significant discontentment for the author is with the standard established epistemology, the theory of knowledge itself. How do we know what we know? Is something true because some authority figures proclaim it so? Is something true because you believe it to be true? Unlike in physical sciences and physical engineering where the rules of the scientific method both permit and govern some measure of objectivity by the process of falsification of axioms, in social sciences and social engineering, as in religion, one is often made to bow before gods, the instruments of power who wish to convince you of axioms of which you ought not to be convinced in order to get your measure of consent for your own servitude.
That principal first seed of discontentment from which all else naturally follows, led the author to recognize the catastrophic terrorism of 9/11 for what it was on the very day of September 11, 2001, and he has since applied himself assiduously in being a strident malcontent, actively maladjusted to the world around him. The word malcontent is novelist H.G. Wells' label for the handful of people who will ceaselessly resist the New World Order, the title of his 1940 book advertising the benefits and inevitability of world government. The word maladjusted is the call to rise beyond moral clichés by Martin Luther King Jr., made in his 1967 speech titled: Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam.
The author, living in quiet comfort and anonymity raising his children and watching world events from the safe distance of the sidelines, like the rest of humanity, embarked on his own little journey of malcontentment and maladjustment by first educating his family in 2001 that 9/11 was equivalent to the Third Reich's Operations Canned Goods, self-inflicted to create a pretext for aggression. He moved to public protest in 2002 after seeing the horrific destruction of Afghanistan and the next target being Iraq – both Muslim nations bombed by Christian soldiers and led by Jewish ideologues. And to systematic intellectual public dissent in 2003 with his maiden book Prisoners of the Cave, prompted by the FBI visiting his home under the mandates of police-state USA just as the bombing of Iraq was underway. When the rest of Muslims in America were hiding in their mosque and pretending that they were the “good Muslims” and “United we Stand” with empire to distance themselves from the “bad Muslims” who had been blamed for 9/11, the author had chosen to join the handful of godless American people of conscience and uncanny intelligence in expressing his discontent at both the manufactured narrative, as well as the acts of aggression being undertaken by the superpower using that fabricated narrative as pretext. The author's hour-long bold lecture to the FBI was, well, a rather defining moment for him. He still has no deeper understanding of the force that moved him to take such an extempore stand at his front door. The road not taken by all the other foreign denizens of the United States, and by the American masses and their privileged classes, all of whom immediately succumbed to the empire's narratives and saluted “United We Stand” for bombing Iraq after Afghanistan, has made all the difference to this scribe.
Even today, halfway into the second decade since 9/11, the same public mind despite the empire, full of hubris like all empires feeling assured of victory in their cause, openly admitting in a brazen mea culpa that there were no WMDs in Iraq, that it was “intelligence failure” so to speak (imagine that excuse being used at Nuremberg – it would have surely saved the Nazi leadership from the hangman's noose, right?), have quickly forgotten that first act of aggression from which all the evil has percolated throughout the world. Iraq today lies in ruin, but the world is focussed on “IS”, “Taliban”, “Al-Qaeda”, “militant Islam” vs. “moderate Islam”, and the American government has come out unscathed from all this, even nobler in the public mind as the “savior”. Its president awarded the Nobel peace prize while vigorously pursuing the same war-mongering narratives and the same war-mongering policies despite being elected on the “change” mantra; just like Woodrow Wilson who had been reelected on the election campaign mantra “he kept us out of the war” during his first term, was awarded the Nobel peace prize after immediately taking America to the war in Europe at the start of his second term, and in the process of protecting the “civilized world” from the “barbarian Huns”, dismembering all the empires then existing to firmly implant the seeds of Pax Americana as the twentieth century inheritor of Pax Britannia. Like the incumbent president of the United States, Barack Obama, his distant predecessor too was marketed to the beleaguered world as the “savior” of mankind to deserve that public relations peace prize. In his editorial written the moment the Nobel peace prize of 2009 was announcement in the New York Times, this scribe deconstructed the motivations behind it on Friday October 09, 2009:
Begin excerpt
President Barack Obama has just been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The President is delighted and “Says He’s ‘Surprised’ and ‘Humbled’” according to the New York Times.
When I first penned “How to Win the Nobel Peace Prize” in great anguish in April 2003, in Chapter 2 of Prisoners of the Cave as the “shock and awe” of Iraq was under way, I hadn't the full prescience of all the future players at the time for I grossly omitted the new name. My apologies to the harbingers of 'change'. Their mantra, and the $2 billion spent creating it, has obviously been very effective. After the “peace maker” moniker, anointment as the “Messiah” really can't be that far behind. This Machiavellian fabrication of a 'savior' was already examined in Mr. Obama – The Post Modern Coup in November 2008.
It is astonishing to me how simplistic the most lauded dissent-chiefs and most profound intellectuals are in the West. Even when they critique absurdities and war-mongering as per their good conscience, they tread remarkably gently. Look at historian Howard Zinn's comment in the UK Guardian. He is once again simplistic in his vocal dissent piece – just as he has been all along on 911 – by deliberately not seeing the Orwellian propaganda agenda behind the Peace Prize:
I was dismayed when I heard Barack Obama was given the Nobel peace prize. A shock, really, to think that a president carrying on two wars would be given a peace prize. Until I recalled that Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Henry Kissinger had all received Nobel peace prizes. The Nobel committee is famous for its superficial estimates, won over by rhetoric and by empty gestures, and ignoring blatant violations of world peace.” (emphasis added)
No, No, NO! Never 'superficial estimates' and never 'empty gestures'. Rather, laying the seeds of masterful propaganda towards Orwellian social engineering.
Thus, Professor Zinn's concluding prescription: “The Nobel peace committee should retire, and turn over its huge funds to some international peace organization which is not awed by stardom and rhetoric, and which has some understanding of history”, which, since he diagnosed the disease incorrectly, is a cure, I am sure, to the problem that he has posited in his own mind, but one that has no forensic bearing to the modernity plaguing mankind. Indeed, this “modernity” is itself “as old as mankind”. So while Howard Zinn does conscionably lament the bizarre awarding of peace prizes to murderous trigger pullers, he very carefully does not mention the prime-movers whom they work for:
Oh yes, the committee saw fit to give a peace prize to Henry Kissinger, because he signed the final peace agreement ending the war in Vietnam, of which he had been one of the architects. Kissinger, who obsequiously went along with Nixon's expansion of the war, with the bombing of peasant villages in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Kissinger, who matches the definition of a war criminal very accurately, is given a peace prize!”
Ever since hectoring hegemons have existed, ever since oligarchs have existed wielding power from behind the scenes through their 'errand boys', ever since they discovered social engineering, and especially ever since Edward Bernays discovered and employed Public Relations which coincided approximately with the time that Nobel peace prizes started to be awarded, these accolades from the high and mighty serve the oligarchic agendas as needed.
Since Professor Howard Zinn, as a profound historian who would like us to learn from history, is berating the Nobel Peace Committee on their lacking “some understanding of history”, watch the BBC documentary Century of Self to observe how Edward Bernays himself fabricated President Woodrow Wilson's aura as the European 'savior' right after the “he kept us out of the war” devil had taken America to World War I at the behest of his handlers Bernard Baruch and Col. Edward Mandell House, both of whom represented the international bankers. House even penned the rationale for having 'errand boys' and controlling them in a fictional narrative based upon his own role during Woodrow Wilson's presidency. Who is channeling President Obama's energies such that despite all his election promises to the contrary, he is very predictably maintaining the same overarching policy axioms as his predecessor from his day one in office?
These prizes are anything but “empty gestures”. It is both a payoff to tickle the ego of the 'errand boy', and a propaganda seed. In the expert hands of the Mighty Wurlitzer, such a gift can convince the masses of the most ridiculous absurdities, like the War on Terror already has. The proof of these statements of fact is both empirical, and historical. Watch Barack Obama crafted into a fine new global 'savior' at the expense of the 'untermenschen'. That's why the United States President, ceremoniously presiding over the most militarized superpower in the world which has just devastated two civilizations to smithereens, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize while he rapidly accelerates his war prosecution to bring “peace” in a one-world government.” --- Zahir Ebrahim, How to win the Nobel Peace Prize, October 09, 2009
End excerpt
The social engineering for exercising “imperial mobilization” is so sickeningly transparent to this scribe that since the world is co-opted into accepting these Big lies and generations are growing up believing them, he has ever since 9/11 endeared himself to exposing all Big Lies, unraveling the science of behavior control and social engineering which co-opts the world public, and deconstructing the political philosophies which underwrite that global dysfunction.
For the persistent presence of this inexplicable force in his life, which though ebbs and flows like the tide, is always there like the force of gravity, constantly pulling, tugging, never letting him slink away, nor become too disheartened at being unable to make any difference to the dystopia in the making under the umbrellas of universal deceit and universal public apathy, he is grateful to his destiny. He is continually inspired by a wise Chinese proverb one of his children quoted in a graduation speech: A society where old men plant trees under whose shade they know they will not get to sit, cannot go wrong for long. It is usually sufficient to help him overcome the sense of fatalism and fait accompli he feels during bouts of frustration with being so very ineffective in the immediate term.
The battle, his moments of optimism as well as his children and friends often remind him, is long term – and as common a man as this scribe is, it is the common man who sheds his sheep's skin that is the biggest threat to the wolves. To get to that stage of not responding instinctively to the call of the shepherd's whistle and the bark of the sheepdog, minimally requires an intellectual prowess that is sufficient to neither be fooled by others nor fool oneself. A pleasing platitude to think about that is unlikely to ever come to pass. Sheep will remain sheep, and wolves will remain wolf. The predator will continually adorn the sheep's clothing to lead them from the front in the perfect trifecta of behavior control from which there can be no escape: of the wolves chasing from behind, the sheepdog herding from the sides, and the wolf in sheep's clothing leading from the front. It is this perceptive understanding of human nature and the natural law of inequality that makes the wolves so damn fearless in exercising their instincts for primacy: “some are sheep while others are wolves, we are the wolves”!
As is customary to state explicitly, the author is solely responsible for this body of work, his humble two-bit attempt at planting trees under whose shade he knows he will not get to sit, but he hopes that his progeny will. He however disclaims credit for its accuracy as it would be like taking credit for adding two plus two to make four. He accepts culpability for what is in error despite his due diligence. A difference of opinion is not defined as an error. Getting facts wrong is. Getting analysis and conclusion wrong also is. The original reporting of facts by officialdom used by the author may themselves be in error. As explained in the Introduction Chapter on Modernity Simplified, this book concerns the making of “contemporary history”. The closeness in time to the deeds of “history's actors” under their cover of “Plausible Deniability”, covert-ops blamed upon patsies, state secrecy laws, police-state enactment, and scribes commissioned to pen narratives spanning the full gamut of Hegelian Dialectic, make access to verification of inconvenient facts, and discovery of actual facts, impossible except for bringing to bear insight, intuition, perspective, and basic arithmetica of two plus two making four. This is as true of modern history as ancient history. The latter is even harder to unpack from its attendant layers of natural myth amplification and truth distortion that get added to narratives throughout the ages like noise to signal.
These insights have led the author to model “contemporary history” of every epoch as a crime scene. And as is true of every crime scene, there is only one underlying truthful reality which is kept immersed in a sea of red herrings by the criminals who want to get away with their crime. The signal to noise ratio of which is continually degraded over time. This invariance is the observable reality of not just current affairs, but of the entire documented history of mankind. Which is why Henry Ford had cynically observed: “History is more or less bunk. It's tradition.”
Separating myth from reality should have been the cornerstone of hard epistemology in good scholarship, good journalism, good historiography, and the first port of call of intellectual integrity. But scholarship, like any human endeavor, is usually not divorced from obedience to dominant powers, both consciously and unconsciously, nor free from biases, narrow self-interests, and nor from pressures of earning a livelihood, having a career, being glorified, and dying holily in bed. Fully removing all of “truth's protective layers” therefore, is never a high priority if the underlying truth is inconvenient for any and all those forces of co-options. Even the well-known historiographies, the studies of how to study history, from the famous Ibne-Khaldun of antiquity in his Muqadma to the contemporary historian of the modern world, Carroll Quigley, who devoted much space to bringing the scientific method to the study of social sciences and history, have not addressed this problem of corrupted epistemology head on. They in fact pretend that it does not even exist, if one is to judge by their glaring silence on the subject. This road not taken turns out to be the most crucial problem of extracting truth from the jaws of social engineering; the making of any contemporary public's mind by “history's actors” to suit their own agendas which becomes the source material for subsequent generation of scholarship. Falsehoods and myths become truth as they are repeated by many hands over generations. Pretty soon they become part of the cultural backdrop, the ethos of the people, and the axioms of scholarship. Modeling the deeds of “history's actors” as a crime scene is the author's rational approach for getting a practical handle on this most empirical problem of corrupted epistemology.
The author's modus operandi therefore is like Sherlock Holmes', forensically piecing that underlying reality together by carefully separating out real clues from false clues, false evidence, false narratives, and false causality. Everyone, and everything, is suspect in this rational method of examining what is put before the public mind. There are no un-falsifiable axioms, no presuppositions, and no faith in any theology of authority figures such as “government, democracy, empire, rulers, kings, caliphs, pontiffs, Nobel laureates, scientists, elected representatives, presidents, prime ministers, cannot do this because ...” and fill in your favorite clause. This is being godless (but not necessarily Godless which is atheism). If villainy can dream it, man will do it. Motivations become the key to understanding events, to interpreting what has been recorded as facts. Forces, both covert and overt, that shape events from both near and far, and not just what's conveniently reported by scribes, or happening nearby in time and space, become the primary focus of attention.
This has profound implications for epistemology, for it turns tradition, meaning official history, and narratives of current affairs, on its head. What was previously treated as sacred truth, becomes suspect. What was previously considered fact becomes a possible magician's slight of hand. What was previously considered science becomes potential covert agendas couched in the language of science, or pseudo science. Like in any forensic science, it is an exercise fraught with pitfalls of course. One does not necessarily always get it right completely as removing one layer of obfuscation still leaves other layers beneath it quite intact. The process is like peeling an onion, one layer at a time. If the process succeeds in unpeeling all the layers down to its essential core, it unveils the base reality about a matter which is always singular, just like two plus two make four and not any other quantity. There are no exceptions.
To get at that closely protected truth with unflinching perseverance, where the author has been inspired and guided by others' contributions in un-peeling some of the “truth's protective layers”, these navigating beacons are acknowledged in the respective essays. The analyses of Project, of which this book is a sampling, is built upon the holistic integration of insights gleaned from a great deal of Western political philosophy and advancements in the understanding of psychological forces which make mass behavior control possible. The author isn't the first one to arrive at that understanding and to use it for both deconstructing as well as predicting the direction of modernity. Both Aldous Huxley and George Orwell had in the twentieth century demonstrated those same approaches in their respective fables as the cornerstone of exercising primacy upon the herds of humanity. Just like Niccolò Machiavelli in The Prince in the fifteenth century, Plato in The Republic in the fifth century BC, and the most insightful of them all, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, written by anonymous author(s) to ostensibly malign the Jews (as the Jewish press claims), but containing within its twenty-four most profound Protocols the summation of all subversive insights of recorded history on how a small cabal can takeover the world, destroy its moral social order, to create a new nihilistic global social order, and rule it with an iron-fist with the public initially being none the wiser. Instead, with the public actually helping in creating that autocratic social order by willingly destroying all that is precious to their civilization with their own two hands in the name of “Liberty”, “Equality”, “Fraternity”, “Democracy”, “Revolution”. Before too long, an Orwellian world order beckons --- the wonderful liberal traditions which once inspired mobs unfurling the preceding flags magically replaced by the most conservative monolithic control and theology of subjugation taking over the entire world from which there can be no escape.
That diabolical process of this transformation in the Protocols has well defined stages:
  • (1) get the masses to shout freedom and liberty to enable mob rule and destroy all intellectual and civilization heritage with their zeal for “Equality”;
  • (2) give temporary freedom to the mobs to exercise their libido and their lowest animalistic instincts legally and call that “liberal” civilization ;
  • (3) seed wars pushing that new mantra of “liberal” civilization against all existent moral order in the name of “freedom” ;
  • (4) descend the world into chaos using crises and wars after wars in destroy-remake-destroy cycles;
  • (5) marginalize all moral order with the control of the narrative and with manufactured scandals, fabricated virulent strains claiming to represent the moral order, and cast them all as oppressive, non-liberal, and replace with “Secular Humanism” wrapped in Newspeak ;
  • (6) repeat; until the war-weary beleaguered public seeks refuge in “security” of police-states and the authority of world government which now brings peace – the peace of slaves.
The Protocols, once stripped of their overt “Jewishness”, are seen to unmistakably borrow from a range of political philosophies that span the gamut of perverse thought from Plato (taking over the press to control the narrative ala the Simile of the cave in The Republic) to Talmud (control of people and nations through interest and on unpayable debt) to Machiavelli (governing by way of deception) to Hegel (Hegelian Dialectic as the method of creating greater and greater combines from of the ashes of conflict). It is not unimaginable that George Orwell studied the Protocols as he witnessed the current affairs of the early twentieth-century unfurl before him as if blue-printed in these prescriptions to become inspired to express its end result in his fable Nineteen-eighty-four.
More writers, scholars, and important intellectuals of the world have accepted the Protocols on its face value of Jewish conspiracy (just like the mainstream intellectuals who have rejected it for the same reason as being anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish) than have not. Among the latter few is the famous Russian novelist and dissenter Alexander Solzhenitsyn who won the Nobel prize in literature. According to those who are familiar with his work on the Protocols, presumably in his book Two Hundred Years Living Together, in its original Russian, and which remains deliberately un-translated into English, Solzhenitsyn in his analysis of the Protocols thought to replace every occurrence of “Jew”, “Gentile”, “Goyim”, “conspiracy”, etc., with race neutral and unemotional terms in order to focus attention on what the Protocols were in fact prescribing, stripped off of their racial flavoring which seemed to otherwise greatly distract the respected political scientists of the world who refused to examine it as a political treatise as they would Machiavelli's The Prince. This author's analytical commentary on the Protocols based on his own study where he replaced these racial terms with the behavioral ones: “Ubermensch” and “untermensch”, is in Henry Ford and The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem – NOT! Rather than repeat ground tread by those who came before him, this author has added original insight not pursued by anyone else to demonstrate that “Jewishness” is a calculated red herring planted in the Protocols by its authors who have also left a calculating key in the Protocols to deduce that exact conclusion.
Once again, on the road not taken by the majority of Western and Eastern intellectuals, this author has found evidence which is overwhelming that Ubermensch is an attitude, a mindset, and not a tribal, or religious, or racial binding. Public pretenses to cultural or religious or tribal association are for manufacturing consent among the group whose membership and leadership is claimed by the Ubermensch. And members of the so favored cabal willingly oblige --- the whole point of manufacturing consent! But the Oligarchy hesitates not in sacrificing any number of their members, in fact, often in large numbers, to achieve their objective of global rule. Eventually, once full utility has been extracted from those who are today positioned as the 'chosen people', or their helpers of mutual convenience in the shape of Christian Zionists from the Bible Belt of the United States, they will all be ejected from their perches in the New World Order as a new religion becomes universal law, the Oligarch's own, Secular Humanism. Of course, those flushed with hubris today will soon find the shoe on the other foot and will learn the hard way themselves.
Before the Oligarchy's self-ascribed categorical imperative for deciding mankind's future, and the cunning illusions it is to be packaged in, the ordinary man encased in the moral straight-jackets of heritage, culture, civilization, and religious traditions, stands little chance of survival. Caught as he perpetually is between bread and circuses on the one hand, and wrapped in layers upon layers of falsehoods, myths, half-truths, and gratuitous beliefs in some messiah coming to help them eventually to put all matters right, only serve to engineer their consent for whatever is happening to them. This is the actual reality --- whatever academic theory one may seek to explain it. Often times, one is unable to divorce oneself from long-held cultural prejudices and hastily lumps the cause and effect together. It is not that one cannot find sufficient evidence for any position, such as “Jewish conspiracy” which is prevalent among the malcontents in the West as well as the East, it is the careful separation of causality down to the first-cause which remains the key to understanding the Ubermensch's power which draws upon the cracks and lacunas, and weaknesses as well as strengths, of all peoples to harvest their creative energies for its own cause. Some are setup as the bad guys, others as the chosen peoples, to create the dialectical ultimatum: “either you are with us or with the terrorists”. Every side issues the same ultimatum to enlist its cattle fodder. This dysfunction has a prime-mover and is not organic, nor can it be explained away by local organic struggles for power and hegemony which has existed from time immemorial. These natural brinkmanship are equally harnessed and harvested, but often their seeds are first artificially planted, and continually fertilized, of which both the bloody partitions of the Indian sub-continent and Palestine are veritable examples. The full harvesting season is yet to come. How exactly will it materialize to enact further chaos and genocide, only the Ubermensch would know, but the end result is their one world government with the planet's population reduced significantly from its present numbers. Reproduction will be transformed into a privilege from a right, just like driving is a privilege and not a right, only to be accorded in measure to those deemed “worthy” of holding that license, as captured in its many variations by authors besides Orwell and Huxley. Zbigniew Brzezinski, not a sci-fi author and not a fable writer, but America's foremost National Security Advisor and policy-planner, equally indicates its inevitability in Between Two Ages, 1970:
Another threat, less overt but no less basic, confronts liberal democracy. More directly linked to the impact of technology, it involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled and directed society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite whose claim to political power would rest on allegedly superior scientific know-how. Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and control.” (pg. 97)
Who are those elite? The scientists? Or those who employ them? Once Henry Ford was in court for a reporter having called him an “uneducated” or “illiterate” or something to that effect and was sued. Henry Ford in his defence stated, in this scribe's dramatization as the court transcript is not at hand: “Ask me any scientific question if you think I am uneducated, or illiterate”. And he was obliged. He pointed to someone in the audience in the court room to rise and answer that question, and it was correctly answered. So Henry Ford said: “I employ hundreds of people of superior intellect and training who can answer any scientific question, or any question, you put before me. If I can answer your question accurately, perceptively, does it matter to you if I look it up in a book, research it myself, or hire the hundreds of engineers and scientists who do it for me?” Henry Ford won that case!
So, who are the “elite” that Brzezinski is referring to? Can they be named?
Here is Woodrow Wilson also speaking of an unspecified power that the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of:
Since I have entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are of afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breadth when they speak in condemnation of it.” — The New Freedom, Woodrow Wilson, 1913, Chapter 1, pgs. 17-18
Needless to state the obvious, this “elite”, this “power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive,” has been kept carefully occulted from the world stage and the glare of publicity. It is cunningly hidden in plainsight by the conspiracy of omission. By not mentioning their name or acknowledging their existence in the popular media, in academia, in popular dissent, they are craftily engineered out of the picture of current affairs which they entirely control. Then anyone who digs up the evidence and puts two plus two together to make four, is trivially dismissed as “conspiracy theorist”.
This scribe, once again on the road not taken, has persuasively argued, repeatedly, that perceptively identifying the first-cause enemy, understanding its core strengths and one's own core weaknesses, is the first shrewd step in the long arduous journey of commensurately developing one's own strengths and exploiting the enemy's weaknesses for waging an effective self-defence against these superman predators whose natural instincts for primacy defy the commonsense of the Poor Man:
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.” — Sun Tzu, Art of War
The Poor Man this book has defined as: “one with limited ability, or time, or even inclination, to carefully read, reflect, and reason about the period one lives in”. The Poor Man transcends the socio-economic divides, racial divides, civilizational divides, academic qualification divides, and professional divides.
Hitler characterized [the Poor Man] in Mein Kampf as follows:
those who believe everything they read; this 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 Poor-Man who never learnt to think, or to exercise his natural thinking abilities despite his profession and training, is encouraged to mis-identify the enemy. For incorrectly identifying the nemesis and imputing it false strengths which do not originate within it, one can never win any battles – because the real enemy stays occulted from the public eye like the ninety percent iceberg. All its visible signs are there, but it floats treacherously and as a great mass just beneath the surface. That is both its strength, hiding in plainsight, and also its weakness, that it needs to hide. But no longer. The entire conspiracy for world government is being orchestrated in open view. There is no “illegality” – as the conspirators are shrewd enough to always exercise legalisms in their favor before anything is made public.
This intellectual backdrop points the path to others as well who wish to either confirm (or refute) Project Humanbeingsfirst's analyses and conclusions across the spectrum of topics it has taken up, or make their own independent study of modernity and the forces which drive it. Without the intellectual backdrop and perceptive comprehension of motivations that drive world events, no one can figure out modernity by just looking at the events themselves. No one! Never mind protect themselves with an effective antidote.
Which is precisely why all of newsmedia, all establishmentarian scholars, and all dissenting con-artist intellectuals controlling the permissible range of opinions to exclude what's not convenient to the ruling powers and their agendas, mainly focus the public's attention at the events themselves wrapped in narratives upon narratives. It's called freedom of speech and democracy, and the public rejoice at the openness of their Western society, while the colonized nations rush to emulate Western standards. Which is how the public mind is made so easily and uniformly across the world.
The drive for the standardization of worldviews and values is no less strident than the drive for the standardization of global laws. Both are necessary predicates for the standardization of human behavior --- from its natural diversity divided into tribes and nations, beliefs and values, all humming and vibrant in their own local cultures like the birds in a thriving forest and therefore difficult to control all at once, to its uniform and streamlined servitude long desired by the oligarchy. The honest to goodness observation made by Aldous Huxley to the students at the University of California, Berkeley, more than half century ago is even more empirical today:
Well, it seems to me that the nature of the Ultimate Revolution with which we are now faced is precisely this: that we are in process of developing a whole series of techniques which will enable the controlling oligarchy who have always existed and presumably always will exist, to get people actually to love their servitude! This is the, it seems to me the ultimate in malevolent revolution shall we say.
And this is a problem which has interested me for many years, and about which I wrote thirty years ago a fable, A Brave New World, which is essentially the account of a society making use of all the devices at that time available, and some of the devices which I imagined to be possible, making use of them in order to, first of all, to standardize the population, to iron-out inconvenient human differences, to create so to say mass produced models of human beings arranged in some kind of a scientific caste system.”
In all this drive for the standardization of human beings to be ruled just as theologically by an all powerful financial oligarchy from the top of the control pyramid as in any predatory religion which puts man in the service of fellow man while paying all the lip-service to high-minded morality, there is no room in established scholarship, politics, press, or religious fervor, for unraveling truth's protective layers. Duh!
Whereas the Sherlock Holmes of the day first look for the motivations behind events, and gauge the forces, both near and far, that drive them. They strive to unravel all of truth's protective layers.
On their profound intellectual courage and strength of character to see through the smoke and mirrors, to boldly proclaim two plus two make four and not five, to take the path not taken, to rise above their own narrow self-interests and to make no personal profit from their labors, this scribe humbly stands, and for which he is thankful that his own physical, psychological, and spiritual makeup endears him to their lonely path on the road less traveled. When the empire applauds, one is serving the interests of empire. When the choir applauds, one is preaching to it. When the people applaud, one is serving their interests. This is self-evident; a universal moral truth that is beyond doubt. So who applauds when one serves the interest of truth? There is no applause on this road not taken by others. Only the hemlock. The slave of truth always stands alone, lonely, and accepts the hemlock. The master of truth is always surrounded by cheers, accolades, prizes, and dies holily in bed. The author is grateful to his fate, destiny, naseeb, and all that in his life's experiences which has brought him to its crossroads, for that small share of loneliness on the road less traveled which is his cherished prize.
Lastly, the author thanks the reader. He would especially like to thank in anticipation those critical reviewers who might bring forward any contrary evidence in support of their refutation of what might be in error in these pages. The author would be more inclined to pay attention if they cited chapter and verse of what they deem to be in error rather than merely allege “bias” and the like so that the next version of the book can improve upon its deficiency.
This work is certainly not intended to be the last word on the oligarchic primacy for world government and their diabolical modus operandis, but the mere introduction to the subject in completely honest terms to the best of the author's limited abilities given the reign of universal deceit and full spectrum control of the narrative in support of the mantras du jour. No other point of view is permitted to exist outside that narrative space of “respectability”. It is neither published by the “respectable” intelligentsia press nor given a fair hearing in their literary review spaces. The author fully expects his point of view to be met with resentment and denigration in some quarters. But the author believes that any such overt intellectual resentment can only translate to fostering a greater awareness and motivate further discovery of the topics only barely dealt herein. This would be a good thing. Therefore, what the author fears will happen instead is that the work will be completely ignored rather than intellectually refuted --- for silence on truth is the stronger method of controlling the narrative. Why draw attention to these matters even with their most eloquent denunciation and needlessly open the Pandora's box of public consciousness for the new generation growing up in total darkness of the predators scheming behind the scene? Thus, any overt resentment will likely take the un-intellectual form as it took during the French and Russian revolutions: “Beware of that man for he has written a book!” (heard in the streets of Paris, quoted by Nesta Webster). And: “Writers must be proscribed as the most dangerous enemies of the people” (Robespierre, quoted by Nesta Webster).
Click to Download PDF: The Poor-Man's Guide to Modernity  By Zahir Ebrahim | Project Revised and Expanded 9th Edition, September 11, 2015 Click to Download PDF: Pamphlet Undoing The Theft Of Palestine - From Genocide to Genesis in Zero Compromise (printable Pamphlet 8.5x11) By Zahir Ebrahim | Project Click to Download PDF: Hijacking the Holy Qur'an and Islam  By Zahir Ebrahim | Project Revised 2nd Edition, September 11, 2015
For what its worth, this humble effort is dedicated to all who care — to lend them courage to reshape tomorrow's world. Or tomorrow's world will be an age of servitude far worse than today.
Zahir Ebrahim
September 2015

Thanks and Acknowledgment On The Road Less Traveled Zahir Ebrahim

The Plebeian antidote to Hectoring Hegemons

Home is

INDEX here.

Okay to copy, print, or post this document; verbatim reproduction only.
here. Full Copyright Notice