From Genocide to ReGenesis in ZERO
Compromise
Preamble to Palestine: The Struggle Forward
From Eretz Yisrael to Palestine – Just
One Goal in the 62nd Year of Al-Nakba:
Not Onestate;
One Palestine
Zahir Ebrahim
Saturday May 15, 2010 | Updated May 19, 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 of Herzl's plan for the Jewish State: Eretz Yisrael)
Click on this navigable map of One Palestine, courtesy of
Plands.org
I commence this exploration by framing the question forensically:
today as a Muslim in the world, I am a reviled entity in the West. I
bear the brunt of the same anti-Semitic fulminations from the
pulpits, thrones, and pedestals of “our Judeo-Christian
heritage, our secular present, and the worldwide expansion of both”
– in the potent words of the mighty Zionist Svengali, the
“leading Western scholar of Islam”, Bernard Lewis
– as the Jews absorbed for two millennia in Christendom up to
as late as 62 years ago, the day of Al Nakba. But look at my dire
predicament: I can't get in to see anyone in power to plead to them
to give me back my Palestine, and my Iraq, and to stop the military
and covert assaults on my Pakistan, and on my Iran, and to stop
inducing the “birth-pangs of a New Middle East”.
How could the Jews have done it: got the imperial powers to grant
them the Balfour Declaration from a severely weakened imperial power
upon whom the sun had never set at the end of World War I after it
had simultaneously defeated two other rival powers in Europe, the
German 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!” (Ibid.)
Here is my little take on how. I am afraid this is only the outline.
In a nut-shell, First, conclusively identify the real enemy, the
Golem which hides behind the Jews' momentous weight of 3000 years of
history, but is no more a Jew of Moses than any other self-proclaimed
Ashkenazi. Second, rip-out its heavily protected heart; or,
administer a thousand lethal cuts and prevent each one from
coagulating. Let's proceed to
The
Way Forward.
Footnotes
Also see Sunstein, Cass R., Conspiracy Theories (January 15, 2008).
Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 08-03; U of Chicago, Public Law
Working Paper No. 199; U of Chicago Law & Economics, Olin Working
Paper No. 387. PDF download from:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585
First Published Saturday May 15, 2010 | Last Updated 05/19/2010 180008 8424
Links fixed January 31, 2016
Links fixed
December 19, 2017
Typos fixed January 30, 2018 8633
From Genocide to ReGenesis in
ZERO Compromise By Zahir Ebrahim May 15, 2010 24/24
