Project Humanbeingsfirst's Response to John Kaminski's 'Why no Jewish writer can be believed'

Project Humanbeingsfirst's Response to John Kaminski's 'Why no Jewish writer can be believed'

Written By Zahir Ebrahim | Project

Sunday, February 28, 2010

In Ref To:

Hello John Kaminski,

I read your article 'Why no Jewish writer can be believed' with much interest. You know, sometimes I feel like that about the Anglo Saxons. Often times, as history is evidence, especially vis a vis the East India Company and its colonial conquests whose enduring shackles of mental servitude are still felt daily in my native nation, can one really tell the difference between the Jewish white Anglo-Saxon and the Christian white Anglo-Saxon race? While the religious rituals may be different, the imperial practices aren't when the reference begins and ends with 'race'! Any conflict between them is often only the white man's burden negotiation between two ubermensch fighting over primacy!

Let me therefore, begin this response by first agreeing that every name which you have mentioned in your article, I too have similarly unraveled some aspects of their narratives which weren't entirely wholesome (to put it charitably). The last one, Gilad Atzmon's, was here:

But that website took down my comment (now why would they do that?)! Fortunately, I had saved a local copy which is cached here:

The above is perhaps only a banal example of what you have argued: “Jewish writers inevitably blur and twist the contours of any argument to invariably shape it into advantage for only themselves.”

But then, I find the same sort of situation which you have described for the Jews, equally being applicable to many a white Christian Anglo Saxon writer as well. Let's start with your own Anglo Saxon words (I presume you are that from your photograph on your website) which immediately follow the above quotation: “I don’t want to be saddled with that taint. Think of the Boer War, where Brits and Dutch died in droves but the Jews wound up with all the diamond mines. That’s what happens every time.”

Look at the brazen omission! There is no mention of the 'untermenschen', the civilian populations who were annihilated in the policies of “scorched earth” on their own soil – and for what? For colonization, and acquisition of the same precious mines under the Anglo Saxons' combined white man's burden!! From your description, it would appear that you only lament that the mines didn't fall in the right set of white hands! But from the viewpoint of the simple indigenous natives, did it make much difference to them which of the marauders enslaved them, or who among the Anglo Saxons harvested their land and tears the most in the name of 'la mission civilisatrice'?

Here is a recent missive which digs into this sort of general attitude of the Anglo Saxons:

And were I to extend your recipe: “I don’t want my data base polluted by their deliberate disinformation.”, and “I don’t want to be saddled with that taint.”, to the entire Western Anglo Saxon conquistadors of the past 400-500 years who have diabolically employed waging wars by way of deception from continent to continent, including your own where they wiped out 10 million of the indigenous native population, would I be throwing the baby out with the bath water? Don't you think that for the sake of my intellectual laziness, I would miss out on a great deal of truthful writings of many an honest man and woman of conscience, never mind pigs ratting on each other?

Often times, as G. Edward Griffin also puts it, the sins of the 'left' are uncovered by their enemies on the 'right', and vice versa. The in-fighting among hegemonic pigs often betrays their criminal secrets. For an astute non-bigoted seeker of truth and justice for all, that's simply the low hanging fruits of the rotten tree to be plucked for forensic analysis. Especially, if they also happen to be the type-3 of Hitler's classification of people:

“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.” (Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter X)

Otherwise, I for one do not have the infinite resources to dig out the dirt on all the hectoring hegemon pigs on the planet. Let them dig it out on each other. I'll only use it circumspectly. I cannot permit my mind, and my guard, to take vacation for even a single moment – for the 'devil' knows no race, color, cast, or creed! Minimally I need to protect myself from being tainted by your prejudices – but I also find your views interesting, and often worth refuting lest they taint the feeble of mind too comfortable in their own adjusted worldview.

So, back to your narrative, I find the race construct disturbing no matter who uses it, the antagonist, or the protagonist.

I quite agree that the Talmud is a major tortuous source of Jews' misanthropic ambitions as god's ubermensch created on earth to lord over the Goy. But not completely. Atheism too is not an unfamiliar imperial driving force in the same vein:

By that token, I could condemn your non-beliefs the same way – couldn't I? It is just logic.

People generally do not lie, cheat, deceive, murder, become water boys or house negroes for the ubermensch, or endeavor to conquer the 'untermenschen' by way of deception, by their race or religion – the political ponerologists advocating the psychopathic view of ubermensch not withstanding. In my humble view, people do so by choice (including perverse indoctrination and the 'banality of evil').

I am unwilling to condemn such misanthropes by their race, religion, caste, or creed – because, by its logic, I would unfairly have to condemn all peoples belonging to those sets. That is guilt by association! I see no difference between that, and the crimes of Nazism, Zionism. I condemn criminals only by their acts. To the extent that misanthropic doctrines from their books, cultural heritage, or tortuous philosophies might motivate them, well, there are at least 60 million white Anglo Saxon ubermensch Christian misanthropes alone in the Bible Belt of America trying to bring on Armageddon and Jesus! I think they far surpass the Jews in sheer numbers. Therefore, should I condemn all Christians for the twisted perversion of such a large number of criminals among them who think bombing other nations will lead to some Rapturous Nirvana? Or, perhaps the entire white Anglo Saxon population by their race alone, for between Jews and Christians, that's the entire Western civilization? By your logic, why not?

I find the following recipe which was legally averred at Nuremberg by Robert H. Jackson rather defining, reasonable, equitable, and wisely applicable to all cases of misanthropic thoughts that transform into inflicting actual harm upon others, whether by bombs, or by debt-enslavement, whether in the quest of Lebensraum, Zionistan, or one-world government:

“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.” (Nuremberg, Closing Speech)

I charge as crimes against humanity, the enactment of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. All those who crafted it, proposed it, enabled it, aided and abetted in its passage as well as in its obfuscation over the past 100 years, and benefitted from its enslaving action of the entire nation, are more appropriate candidates for being accorded the full 'enemy combatant' protocol at Guantanamo Bay than its present indigent inhabitants! For indeed, in that one enabling Act, is accumulated the combined evil of all the evil that has followed over the past 100 years, including all the wars, its 100 million victims, and entire nations entrapped in un-payable debt to steal their public commons! That first monumental crime is independent of the race – all the Congressman who signed the Bill under the stewardship of Bernard Barauch and Col. House, including the President of the United States at the time who approved it, and the vast numbers of newsmedia and PR spokespersons of both political parties who got on the Hegelian Dialectic bandwagon of sloganeering “banking reform” and filled the newspapers with their bullshit, were Christian white folks right alongside the Jewish white folks. (The blacks in America at the time only lived in their ghettos after their escape/emancipation from the clutches of their white Christian Anglo Saxon plantation owners, and therefore can't rightly be counted among the races who contributed to the hijacking of America.)

So, are all the white Anglo Saxons of America guilty of that first monumental crime against the American public, and the world's peoples? Are they all complicit in hiding it, spinning it, obfuscating it? But you have already absolved Eustace Mullins. I apologize for using an obvious truism to make the blatant point that by your criterion of guilt by association, you should have dismissed the good Samaritan Christian Mullins too without reading, just like the anti-Semitic choir does!

In a previous communication regarding another article way back in September 2009, titled: 'Jewish disinfo the specialty of popular Rense columnist', I had also noted your zeal for gross, and what I felt at the time was ignorant, generalization. In that article, you had carelessly maligned Islam in the same breadth as Christianity by asserting: “Throughout human history, the Talmud is the heart of darkness, and the Bible and the Qu’ran are complicit in concealing this fact.” I had written to you:

'As a Muslim, I would only like to inquire on your statement: “Qu’ran are complicit in concealing this fact”. Would you kindly let me know what you have based that assertion upon? While I might concur with anyone that the Talmud contains some really abhorrent things, nay shocking things, I also wonder who among the Jews really believes in what's in their old books.... but that's not the purpose of this letter to you. It is to only inquire the basis upon which you chose to malign Islam, by asserting that the Qur'an is deliberately complicit in concealing some abhorrence, some distortions in Judaism like its Talmudic teachings. As you surely [must] know [Islam], both Prophet Moses and Jesus are revered in the Qur'an as among the Great Prophets. Qur'an assert that God sent both Moses, and Jesus, among many other prophets, to mankind, to every people, and each time sent a new one to correct the erroneous man-made teachings that had cropped in the previous prescription over time, or to generalize the particularized teachings, as the case between Moses followed by Jesus, with Prophet Muhammad being the last one to correct all past manmade errors, and to generalize God's religion to all mankind. So, while one may not believe in Islam, or any religion [for that matter], the fact of your assertion being false [in the context of Qur'an and Islam] is plainly manifest. Thus I inquire if it was inadvertent, malicious, or merely ignorant. And if none of those, then kindly do enlighten me the reason for your statement. We can always learn from each other – no one has monopoly over knowledge.'

That moment onwards, I could easily have dismissed you on the same grounds as you have dismissed all the Jews: “[Anglo Saxon] writers inevitably [distort and prevaricate], blur and twist the contours of any argument to invariably shape it into advantage for only themselves.”!

But I still read your present article with care, and I am even taking the time to respond to you, once again – since it warrants a response – because I refuse to bow to the vagaries of your personal prejudices and myopia lest it infect others. You already may have a great following among the white supremacists I imagine, despite perhaps your own aversion to it – I hope.

Finally, I do thank you Mr. John Kaminski for your often provocative and bold viewpoints, whether or not one agrees with them. I think it is courageous and un-inhibited people like yourself who continually push on the acceptable envelop of thought and its public expression, and thus widen the discourse space for many more ordinary people like myself to have our tiny voice (for what little that's worth). Minimally, the brownshirt thought-police will chase you before they might chase me (or perhaps they will soon lock up all the non-conformists regardless)! Be that as it may, let's not get carried away as the self-proclaimed avantgarde in provocative thought, into realms of moral absurdity, especially in falling prey to the antagonists own vices: guilt by association, the race factor, arrogance, and ignorance.

Thank you.

Zahir Ebrahim


Source URL:

Source PDF:

Addendum March 22, 2010

In reference to the comment on my article:

'As a preliminary note, your racist attack on “Anglo-Saxons” is misplaced in regard to Kaminski. Whatever an Anglo-Saxon might be in 2010'.

There is a good question buried in that statement: what is an Anglo-Saxon in 2010?

Does it still carry the white man's burden of yesteryear?

But this question must equally apply to the Jew in 2010 as well – does it carry the abhorrence of yesteryear's Talmudic tortuous philosophies today?

Do many Jews even know what's in their own books anymore than the Anglo Saxons know what's in theirs?

Those accusing the Jews of particularism with a victim face for what's in their olden books of generations past might perhaps first abandon their own chutzpah – read what's recorded in their own books of their own ancestors' genocidal and colonizing exploits and of their own forefathers abhorrent aspirations for the future, without resorting to apologetic re-semanticizing their monumental crimes against the 'untermensch' humanity as merely the crimes of the “Anti-Christs”:

“It is the destiny of the pure Aryan Anglo-Saxon race to dominate the world and kill off or else reduce to a servile status all other inferior races.” — William Allen White, quoted in E.C. Knuth's The Empire of “the City”

Please read the cited essay for more clarity, and do pay particular attention to the excerpt from the speech made to the British Parliament in 1835 by Lord Macaulay. Here is that link again:

Back to the comment, if the un-stated argument buried in it is that that's no longer the general Anglo Saxon man's and woman's burden in 2010, why do people make the same sort of crap out to be the burden of the general Jew man or woman in 2010?

Judge people of today by their own acts of today – not by what they may have inherited as historical baggage. As for beliefs, one is entitled to harbor any – including abhorrent ones. Freedom of belief is as fundamental as freedom of thought. How can the twain ever be separated – except in a totalitarian Orwellian sort of system, the one we are begetting as we speak, whereby, thought crimes are punishable in room 101 while destruction of entire civilization is handed the Nobel Peace Prize? No, only its virulent expression that inflicts harm upon others, which usurps rights of others, whether through bodily decimation with bombs, or economic decimation through sanction-strangulation, or monetary decimation through perpetual debt-enslavement, or psychological decimation through mind-control, indoctrination and psyops, etc., is a crime. And the criminals of today have plenty to not only be condemned for, but hung at the highest gallows several times over – with all their wealth and power confiscated and their aiders and abettors held for paying full and fair restitution to the victims – from among both Jews and Christians.

One need not dredge out their cultural-historical-religious past to condemn an entire people for the crimes against humanity being perpetrated today by the handful of monumental criminals among them who have now openly revived that very Anglo Saxon's white man's burden, and whose main brunt is being borne by Muslims today.

My kith and kin, my civilizations, which were, in yesteryear and in couple of centuries past, brutally colonized by the Anglo-Saxons to harvest our wealth, and who reduced us to servile 'negroes' and destroyed our way of life because they carried upon their long white bent backs their la mission civilisatrice. And who are, even as I write this, bombing us to smithereens with their renewed burden of world government in the guise of bringing us what's once again staged as being beneficial for us. Our own bondage and servitude!

I am the victim, my people are the victim, and yet, I am unwilling to condemn all of white color or of Christian religion or of Jewish religion. Only those who are guilty – and guilt by association through common race or common heritage is not in any sensible fair-minded person's law books. And neither was it even in administering the victor's justice to the Nazis at the Nuremberg Military Tribunals which set a precedent for International Law in modernity. Nor do I accept it being imputed to us by those posing as our friends and sympathizers.

No polemics, nor false accusation of racism due to inability to read tone and text accurately, as in the comment cited above: 'your racist attack on “Anglo-Saxons”…', can alter this basic commonsense.

Since English is my second language, thanks to Lord Macaulay, I am sure the native speakers of English can read-write-understand their own natives' penmanship far better. Therefore, I hope the above explains sufficiently in a simpler vernacular for those unable to parse the acquired English of the once colonized brown man. No longer colonized, and the hectoring Anglo Saxon's worst nightmare: many have now learnt to read their own books from that same “single shelf of a good European library [which] was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia.” And from what has been gleaned, Lord Macaulay surely “could [have done a tad more] to form a [more] correct estimate of their value.”

Thank you.

Zahir Ebrahim


Response March 22, 2010

Source PDF

Project Humanbeingsfirst's Response to John Kaminski's 'Why no Jewish writer can be believed' By 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

Reprint License

All material copyright (c) Project HumanbeingsfirstTM, with full permission to copy, repost, and reprint, in its entirety, unmodified and unedited, for any purpose, granted in perpetuity, provided the source URL sentence and this copyright notice are also reproduced verbatim as part of this restricted Reprint 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, documenting crimes against humanity, deconstructing current affairs, and scholarly commentary. The usage by Project Humanbeingsfirst of all external material is minimally consistent with the understanding of "fair use" laws at Project Humanbeingsfirst does not endorse any external website or organization it links to or references, nor those that may link to it or reprint its works. 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”.