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 Humanbeingsfirst.org

Sunday, February 28, 2010



In Ref To: http://www.johnkaminski.info/pages/the_next_chapter/too_late_for_trust.htm

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:

http://atlanticfreepress.com/news/1-/12281-in-defence-of-larry-david-by-gilad-atzmon.html#pc_8954

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

http://humanbeingsfirst.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/cacheof-12281-in-defence-of-larry-david-by-gilad-atzmon-with-zahirs-comment-afp-nov162009.pdf

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:

http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/02/white-anglo-saxon-race-obsession.html

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:

http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/02/letterto-dalitvoice-which-god.html

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

Project Humanbeingsfirst.org



Source URL: http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/02/respto-johnkaminski-jewish-writers.html

Source PDF: http://humanbeingsfirst.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/respto-johnkaminski-jewish-writers-feb282010.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:

http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/02/white-anglo-saxon-race-obsession.html

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

Project Humanbeingsfirst.org

Response March 22, 2010 http://palestinethinktank.com/2010/03/01/zahir-ebrahim-response-to-john-kaminskis-why-no-jewish-writer-can-be-believed/#comment-15605



Source PDF http://humanbeingsfirst.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/respto-johnkaminski-jewish-writers-feb282010-addendum-comment-mar222010.pdf



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

Open Letter to the Champions of Humanity concerned with the Purity, Rights, and Primacy of the White Anglo Saxon Race

Open Letter to the Champions of Humanity concerned with the Purity, Rights, and Primacy of the White Anglo Saxon Race

Zahir Ebrahim | Project Humanbeingsfirst.org



Hello.

Through this open letter, I would like to draw the kind attention of the many champions of humanity based on their concern for the Anglo Saxon race, to my missive:

The Obsession With Purity Of The White Race For The White Anglo Saxons – What's to Be Proud Of In The Race Construct for Civilization? Its Record Is Only Dismal!

http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/02/white-anglo-saxon-race-obsession.html

And I invite an educated response.

If there is an error of assumption, or presumptions which are not perceived to be true, I ask that those much concerned with the primacy (and/or preservation) of the Anglo Saxon race and the myriad issues afflicting it, offer corrections and/or clarification. Not in mere words however, but by citing their own statements from their published works. I wish to be informed of any errors from their official writings, not from their private views. Invectives however are not welcome.



Thank you.



Source URL: http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/02/letter-white-anglo-saxon-race-champs.html




The Obsession With Purity Of The White Race For The White Anglo Saxons

 
February 24, 2010
A White Christian Anglo Saxon correspondent from the Southern United States, a non-supremacist comrade in common cause against the hectoring hegemons du jour, noted to Project Humanbeingsfirst:
Quote:
... Now, regarding David Duke, I have not heard him speak in this [white supremacist] fashion at least not of late. I am fairly certain that, today, Duke like myself believes in the survival and continuation of one's race and heritage. (The word racism defines this concept but like antisemitism in today's modern times it has a negative connotation, so what other present day word defines the race concept of survival and continuation?) Every human in a cultured society has the same personal aspiration. Yet, today, the white race is the only race the world over made to feel ashamed of their skin color, their heritage and collective history. Of course, you and I know the reasons behind this warped frame of mind. The parasitic Jewish agenda, in essence, fractured white society literally beating us into the ground over the past 10 decades with drugs, psychiatry, multiculturalism, diversity, miscegenation, immigration, rock music, feminism and the biggie - debt slavery, so that the tribe would eventually feel safe from their host culture, and the Jews believe that the darker races will be more easily controlled once they are in total, absolute power, which is right around the corner.
At the turn of the last century - 1900, white society was the largest most successful culture on the planet, now, we make up about 16% of the world's population. It is estimated that by 2060 the black races (sub-Saharan Africans) will have racial dominance on the planet with their populations doubling over the next 50 years. All one has to do is take a long, hard look at black controlled South Africa versus white dominated South Africa (not that I agreed with Apartheid) to get a glimpse into the future. It will be hell on earth. I am relieved that I will be long-gone from this world when that happens.
I am of the opinion that all races are unique each defined by their culture, heritage and customs and they all should be given the respect accorded them and each other. But lets face the truth here, the races were not designed to mix and mingle. There is an old Christian saying that kind of goes like this - If God wanted all the races together he would not have placed them in isolated geographic regions around the planet.
Endquote
Project Humanbeingsfirst responds:
Thanks for sharing your views so candidly. I can't resist a good intellectual conversation in good faith among ordinary peoples.
So I hope you will permit me to ask one question on your statement, and offer some pertinent chitchat-commentary:
“But lets face the truth here, the races were not designed to mix and mingle. There is an old Christian saying that kind of goes like this - If God wanted all the races together he would not have placed them in isolated geographic regions around the planet.”
Is your statement of “truth” based on some Biblical scripture? Could you cite me the relevant passages in the Bible so that I can study this aspect for myself.
May I further share with you some chitchat-commentary as just an ordinary plebeian?
"Christian saying" often does not actually mean Biblical saying. Many a tortuous act, philosophy, and belief has been wrought upon mankind in the name of religion as you well know. Institutional Christianity is no different, and traces its history to the Council of Nicea where the scriptural selection was first canonized in the service of the Roman Empire. The same source selection (but in different source languages) has been the official source base for all transformations in Christianity, Lutheran, Anglican, Orthodox, et. al., as well as all forms of institutional Christianity, from Eastern Orthodox to Western Reform. There are no other Gospels besides those four canonized ones comprising the New Testament, and all reflecting Pauline Christianity. Other Gospels and any remaining early Christians' writings were burned by Emperor Constantine after the Council of Nicea canonized these four in order to stop promulgating doctrines contrary to what was deemed official Christianity. Even the Universalist Unitarians who do not espouse the Holy Trinity have the same set of New Testament Gospels. And these Gospels are the very foundation of all institutional Christianity, which in turn is largely the source base of cultural amalgamation which is often anecdotally termed "Christian saying". A learned moral Christian scholar familiar with his or her own traditions and history will not entirely disagree with the above description, although I have yet to meet a living priest who has actually even heard of the Council of Nicea.
A "Christian saying" isn't always "Christian", either in its letter, or in the spirit of the lofty teachings of Jesus in its best pristine form even if it is present in the scriptures. Contortions in interpretations and mythologies in support of the ruling class – be they the Medieval clergy, the ancient or contemporary emperor, or the plantation owners of yesteryear – are more culturally abundant than one might think.
After only a few generations of crafted dogmas or interpretations being passed down through cultural osmosis and diffusive narratives, these become accepted wisdom without question as part of the 'religion'. This is true of all 'religions', and all dogmas, but is most assuredly true of Christianity.
Here is an example: The Southern states of the United States, for instance, maintained negro slaves in cotton-service to the British empire and argued their 'la mission civlisatrice', inter alia, with the same kind of pronouncements from their pious pulpits to justify their attitudes, as your statements. They did it to prevent the whites marrying the negroes, slaves or not. But raping the negro was okay, of course. You know this history better than I, and surely must also be more familiar with Sojourner Truth than I. Please do revisit her "Ain't I a woman" speech. And the 'white man's burden' is a Rudyard Kipling poem, not a Judaic contribution to civilization. Today, the same white man's burden has been made politically correct among the 'left'. Unsurprisingly, it is expressed by many a Southerner today in a natural sanitized way just as it was only 40-50 years ago when it was actually used to justify segregation, with as much thought to its source as to one's natural act of breathing.
A conscientious white moral person today among the Anglo Saxon race taking a Black Studies and/or Native-Indian Studies course at a local university, as respectively taught by the Black and the Native American Indian professor, can be the best favor he and she can do themselves to learn of the victims from the victims' own narratives, rather than from the white man's! The same is surely beneficial for the moral Jew, taking a study-session from a Palestinian teaching his own Palestinian history and his people's contemporary travails, and of course, rather than the Jew trying to teach the Palestinian the victimizer's version. This would perhaps mitigate the desire among the genuine but misled white Anglo Saxon champions of humanity for pursuing such particularistic racial aspirations which appear right out of the “chosen people's” anachronistic vernacular:
'And someday all Whites on this planet will have not only this civil rights movement in their respective countries….. ….. but they will come together politically and be UNITED in ONE GLOBAL WHITE FEDERATION: safe, strong, Aryan, noble and FREE.' -- http://johndenugent.com/jdn/the-eternal-solutreans/
Those accusing the Jews of particularism with a victim face might first abandon their own chutzpah – their own brand of Aryan particularism – in favor of other more universal constructs for the pursuit of equitable fairness, global justice, and peaceable, livable existence for all among mankind against its common enemies. Just as “hegemony is as old as mankind”, and divide et impera its prime modus operandi, racial discourse, in any garb, is its poisonous doctrinal warfare to implant the “high degree of doctrinal motivation, intellectual commitment, and patriotic gratification” necessary for long term “imperial mobilization” and primacy of the glorified white Anglo Saxon races:
“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”
Separating scriptural statements of a religion (in their accurate and in full context of the message) from its followers' statements, is always important to any student of comparative religion. I hope it is also important to those who seek truth in all matters, no matter where it might lead them, even if against their own selves!
So please do let me know the relevant Biblical passages of your "Christian saying" if you can find it.
Having said all that, the Bible obviously also has some really "interesting stuff" upon which, indeed, many an empire has been built. This is why Pauline Christianity laid the foundation of the Roman Empire, and not any of the other narratives of the other disciples of Christ! My favorite among this genre of "interesting" is "Honor the King", a scriptural statement, I believe Romans 13, upon which the tortuous agenda of the "New American Theology of Civil Submission" is constructed.
Here is its sampling: "even bad governments do god's work ; I am free to give up my freedom; honor the king, do it anyway whether the king deserves it or not ; you are free to respect the authority of the government that god gives you ; I am free to submit to authority ; I am free to make myself a slave"!
Imagine a good Christian from that congregation coming to tell you that message of servitude in the name of Christianity at your own home. Since you are well-informed on that front, you might just throw them out of your house. Can you imagine the same happening to you, belonging as you are to the 'white race congregation', when you bring your message of racial segregation in the name of Christianity to some others who are similarly not un-informed on that topic?
Here is my pertinent Press Release, Just FYI:
So, you may very well have found some Biblical passages to support your statements of racial pride and racial hygiene. I do notice that you did not advocate white superiority. In fact, you came out against any kind of superiority complex, but you do advocate pride and congregating based on race, and lament the denigration of the whites as a race, and the erosion of their rights as a race. Perhaps you are unaware that this is also the politically correct form du jour of the white supremacists, especially since they are also in opposition to the 'chosen peoples' mantras who fundamentally claim precisely the same thing, that their race is distinct. This is the discourse model which VDARE.com also follows. You'd be hard pressed to find even one author there who isn't a white supremacist, even as he or she may vociferously dissent with empire and its support of the Zionist agenda. That is Paul Craig Roberts, that is Kevin MacDonald, and that is also David Duke, et. al. But stripped of its political correctness veneer, it reduces to the same ideology that races must differentiate and should not mix, because, one is deemed inferior, and the other superior! That is, at least to my mind, the psychological basis upon which Paul Craig Robert issued his invective to me – unless he is outright a fabricated dissent-chief for dishing "Hegelian Mind Fcks" by introducing beneficial "cognitive diversity" among the handful of conscionable dissenters – that how dare a brown man challenge the white man's narrative on what's happening in the brown man's own neck of the woods! How can the brown man possibly know more than the white man:
History of course does not begin at one's convenience, nor at a point convenient to one's narrative, such as "At the turn of the last century - 1900". What underlies that ubermensch psyche is not something antediluvian, nor something that I have just made up, but the long held Anglo-Saxon spirit of the white man's burden that colonized all the 'untermenschen' races and harvested all their riches it could lay its hands on in the name of 'la mission civilisatrice'! Please catch its unvarnished glimpse in this famous speech made to the British Parliament in 1835 by Lord Macaulay, titled “Minute on Indian Education”:
Excerpt:
[10] I have no knowledge of either Sanscrit or Arabic. But I have done what I could to form a correct estimate of their value. I have read translations of the most celebrated Arabic and Sanscrit works. I have conversed, both here and at home, with men distinguished by their proficiency in the Eastern tongues. I am quite ready to take the oriental learning at the valuation of the orientalists themselves. I have never found one among them who could deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia. The intrinsic superiority of the Western literature is indeed fully admitted by those members of the committee who support the oriental plan of education.
[13] The question now before us is simply whether, when it is in our power to teach this language, we shall teach languages in which, by universal confession, there are no books on any subject which deserve to be compared to our own, whether, when we can teach European science, we shall teach systems which, by universal confession, wherever they differ from those of Europe differ for the worse, and whether, when we can patronize sound philosophy and true history, we shall countenance, at the public expense, medical doctrines which would disgrace an English farrier, astronomy which would move laughter in girls at an English boarding school, history abounding with kings thirty feet high and reigns thirty thousand years long, and geography made of seas of treacle and seas of butter.
[14] We are not without experience to guide us. History furnishes several analogous cases, and they all teach the same lesson. There are, in modern times, to go no further, two memorable instances of a great impulse given to the mind of a whole society, of prejudices overthrown, of knowledge diffused, of taste purified, of arts and sciences planted in countries which had recently been ignorant and barbarous.
[15] The first instance to which I refer is the great revival of letters among the Western nations at the close of the fifteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth century. At that time almost everything that was worth reading was contained in the writings of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Had our ancestors acted as the Committee of Public Instruction has hitherto noted, had they neglected the language of Thucydides and Plato, and the language of Cicero and Tacitus, had they confined their attention to the old dialects of our own island, had they printed nothing and taught nothing at the universities but chronicles in Anglo-Saxon and romances in Norman French, --would England ever have been what she now is? What the Greek and Latin were to the contemporaries of More and Ascham, our tongue is to the people of India. The literature of England is now more valuable than that of classical antiquity. I doubt whether the Sanscrit literature be as valuable as that of our Saxon and Norman progenitors. In some departments-- in history for example-- I am certain that it is much less so.
[34] In one point I fully agree with the gentlemen to whose general views I am opposed. I feel with them that it is impossible for us, with our limited means, to attempt to educate the body of the people. We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern, -- a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect. To that class we may leave it to refine the vernacular dialects of the country, to enrich those dialects with terms of science borrowed from the Western nomenclature, and to render them by degrees fit vehicles for conveying knowledge to the great mass of the population.
End Excerpt
And this was the largesse of the benevolent sort awarded by the Anglo-Saxon race to the 'untermensch' people of the Sub-continent – its jewel in the crown – not the one of genocide handed the entire indigenous peoples of the American continent, wiping them out completely. As I had written in the Press Release on the Gaza atrocities last year, drawing on the parallels which the moral white Anglo-Saxon Christian folks today lambasting the Zionists rather pretend don't exist:
'President George W. Bush for once had truthfully blurted out while on the 60th birthday-bash visit to Zionistan “Our two nations both faced great challenges when they were founded. And our two nations have both relied on the same principles to help us succeed.” The core-principle being, the outright elimination of indigenous peoples, wherein, “the very same army that had recently conquered and occupied the Southern states – led by Generals Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan – mass murdered Indian men, women, and children during the winters, when families would be together, with massive Gatling gun and artillery fire. In a letter to his son a year before he died (1889), Sherman expressed his regret that his armies did not murder every last Indian in North America.” The Pious Jews don't intend to make the 'Sherman mistake' in Palestine! They have noted it time and again that “We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel ... Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours.” But the Jews' narrative of Holocaust is what remains the most profound and sacred obsession of the 'civilized' West – a perennial “mystery whose parallel may only be the one of Sinai when something was revealed.”'
Is that "civilized West" composed of anyone other than the white Anglo Saxon Christian folks in the majority? Is the white Anglo Saxon nicknamed the "old Hickory” – the one who "killed the bank", the one so lauded for standing up to the banksters as President of the United States – spare any of the innocent indigenous peoples of the land his forefathers so barbarically conquered?
So much for the glorious achievements of the white Anglo Saxon race in which the colonization and harvesting of the brown, the black, the red, and the yellow man, and enslavement of entire nations for their indigenous riches, is seldom rehearsed. Why the racial pride? Sounds very much like the Nazi formulation, the Zionist formulation.
And 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!
See for instance my response to the late Baruch Kimmerling (while he was still living among the dead), who tortuously betrayed exactly the same sort of mentality and in the same politically correct syntactically sugared veneer as your "Christian saying": "I admit that I am closer to the victims from my own people, for personal reasons and because of my familiarity and personal experience with many of them or members of their families. What can I do? A person is closer to his own friends, tribe, and people."
Professor Kimmerling of course never replied to any of my deconstruction of such twisted logic either, but neither did he issue any invectives, and my pertinent writings were always emailed to him. Kimmerling was a greatly lauded sociologist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and claimed that he was "a Jew, an atheist and a Zionist," all in the same breadth. He judiciously avoided explicitly claiming special rights as a Jew in order to stay politically correct in the Hegelian Dialectic of the liberal 'left' vs. the fundamentalist 'right', but his acts and his writings betrayed exactly that shared Jewish axiom which is common among all Zionists regardless of their clothing. Why else, for instance, would he locate himself from NY to Israel using the Jewish "Birthright" special 'race privilege' accorded to the Jews in Israel at the expense of its indigenous inhabitants? He and his liberal 'left' brethren have demonstrated the many clever ways of spinning things to their advantage in no less measure than their Hegelian twin, the Jewish far 'right', as I have systematically but only partially unraveled here:
And the white supremacist are qualitatively doing the same sort of syntactic sugaring today as the so called 'liberal' Zionists! When they claim 'their white America' for their glorious Anglo-Saxon race, and their lamentably becoming a minority due to the multi-culturalism and open immigration policy largely driven by the Jews to mitigate their own persecution by the Christians, these virtuous sons and proud daughters of the white Anglo-Saxon race never mention the systematic eradication of the native indigenous populations by their own criminal Anglo-Saxon forefathers claiming the exact same privilege as the Jews are now claiming in re-settling Palestine. See this admission:
Anyway, people are of course entitled to harbor any belief, no matter how tortuous, or how virtuous, or no belief at all, and to take pride in whatever they wish. One's personal beliefs are really of no particular concern of another. But when beliefs among innocent peoples are implanted and/or harnessed to thinly camouflage a white supremacist agenda (often unbeknownst to the good people), that is sufficient cause to unmask the ideologue pigs who otherwise deceive through obfuscation in no less a measure than the Zionist ideologues deceive their own Jewish people. You might have seen this passage before, where a moral Jew, the late Tanya Reinhart, admits to this Zionist indoctrination openly:
'The state of Israel founded in 1948 following a war which the Israelis call the War of Independence, and the Palestinians call the Nakba - the catastrophe. A haunted, persecuted people sought to find a shelter and a state for itself, and did so at a horrible price to another people. During the war of 1948, more than half of the Palestinian population at the time - 1,380,000 people - were driven off their homeland by the Israeli army. Though Israel officially claimed that a majority of refugees fled and were not expelled, it still refused to allow them to return, as a UN resolution demanded shortly after 1948 war. Thus, the Israeli land was obtained through ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Palestinian inhabitants. This is not a process unfamiliar in history. Israel's actions remain incomparable to the massive ethnic cleansing of Native Americans by the settlers and government of the United states. Had Israel stopped there, in 1948, I could probably live with it. As an Israeli, I grew up believing that this primal sin our state was founded on may be forgiven one day, because the founder's generation was driven by the faith that this was the only way to save the Jewish people from the danger of another holocaust.'
But I have yet to see the contemporary moral Christian white Anglo Saxon spokesperson do this kind of truth-telling about their own accumulated cracks and lacunae.
It is okay to be a pig, or to have been one and transformed into something else by hard choice. But it is not okay to disguise oneself as a sheep if one is really still a pig. Call a pig a pig, a sheep a sheep, and a hectoring hegemon in any clothing a hectoring hegemon. I am sure you won't disagree there. Right?
So, since you did call your belief "Christian", I mainly inquire in this letter if there is indeed a Biblical scriptural source for such racial segregation - just as there is for manufacturing a compliant police state with Romans 13. And you will surely note from my chitchat-commentary above that even with a primary scriptural source backing a tortuous belief, a truth seeker can't let go of one's own commonsense, or one easily becomes a convenient patsy in the hands of the devils among one's own kith and kin. As true for you, as for me. And therefore, first a reminder to myself, and then to others. To achieve the transformation which I have analyzed in my little essay: "Islamofascism - Zionofascism - Judeofascism - Christofascism - Neofascism etc. An equitable distribution of Collateral Language!" is a very very difficult task. For the moral Jews like Israel Shahak to have written a book like Jewish Fundamentalism, or Gilad Atzmon daily bearing witness against the misanthropic dogmas among the Jews themselves, is an example to others. But these courageous folks do it by leaving Judaism, by losing faith in the Divine, by becoming atheists or agnostic (I think). Whereas Martin Luther did his Reformation by not losing his faith. That is an example for all of us today to follow in our own reformation! Here is the link to my essay mentioned above:
Thank you.
Zahir Ebrahim
Project Humanbeingsfirst.org




The Obsession With Purity Of The White Race For The White Anglo Saxons – What's to Be Proud Of In The Race Construct for Civilization? Its Record Is Only Dismal! By Zahir Ebrahim 12/12

Response to Jason Leopold's 'DOJ Report on Torture Memo: Yoo Said Bush Could Order Civilians “Exterminated”'

Response to Jason Leopold's 'DOJ Report on Torture Memo: Yoo Said Bush Could Order Civilians “Exterminated”'

Zahir Ebrahim | Project Humanbeingsfirst.org

Project Humanbeingsfirst Responded to Truthout, Saturday February 20, 2010, 1 PM PST



Indeed – Justice is in the Service of Empire, as it has always been.

Why the surprise tone?

Only in victor's justice courts, as at Nuremberg Military Tribunal, can there ever be any semblance of justice, and that too only because of all the show of bravado and morality that is necessary to explain away the tens of millions butchered by the good-guys by putting all the sins and crimes of war only upon the bad-guys!

It is instructive to periodically refer to this PR Closing Speech of Robert H Jackson at Nuremberg, Day 187, July 26, 1946:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=No06Lwk_TAg

Robert-Jackson-Nuremberg-Day-187-Closing-July 26-1946

The report on the Yoo case, as well as the report “No Court Can Hear Abuse and Wrongful Death Claims from Guantanamo”, further underscores the following analysis: The Only Truth About US Justice is that Justice is in the Service of Empire!

http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/02/draafia-justice-inthe-service-of-empire.html

Unless this issue is appreciated in its full un-varnished dimension, that all organs of state – which includes Justice and the Courts in no less measure than the Legislative, Executive, and not to forget the newsmedia and the diabolical manufacturing of both consent and dissent – are all entirely in the service of “full spectrum dominance” towards world government regardless of their differing virtuous garbs, “history's actors” will continue to make new history while narrators, “all of you, will be left to just study what we do”, with absolutely zero impact on any future history.

That statement above is rooted in empiricism. So what's the point, might I ask, of this:

'Leopold will also be writing a thorough analysis of the voluminous report this weekend.'?

What will it achieve except a show of ineffectual brilliance and pedantic scholarship?

Please take a careful look at this NY Times magazine article before you waste further effort – it is mocking you, and all of us who endeavor in narrating/unraveling the past faits accomplis while new ones are blithely being constructed:

'The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'' ' --- Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush By RON SUSKIND, October 17, 2004. NYT.

Don't ask me what's the answer to putting hectoring hegemons, their aiders and abetters, and their financial masters on the gallows – all I know is that narrations ain't it. And I also know, and as the historical record of Nuremberg is testament, Hjalmar Schact, Hitler's financial bankster genius, went scot-free at Nuremberg.

Zahir Ebrahim

Project Humanbeingsfirst.org



Source URL: http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/02/respto-jasonleopold-doj-torture-memo.html



Response to Jason Leopold's 'DOJ Report on Torture Memo: Yoo Said Bush Could Order Civilians “Exterminated”' By Zahir Ebrahim

Observations on Statecraft, the Constitution, and the Elected Representatives

Observations on Statecraft, the Constitution, and the Elected Representatives

Zahir Ebrahim | Project Humanbeingsfirst.org

In response to 'The tragic myth of Sovereignty, Al-Jehad Case, Judges and Dictators By Yousuf Nazar'

Project Humanbeingsfirst.org Comment 1: February 18th, 2010 at 11:07 pm

My comment on your analysis (cached herethe original was removed by its author) is simply this: even the best of systems is only as good as the people running them.

To elaborate on that comment only briefly, in your (almost) glorification of the supremacy of the Parliament, the elected representatives of the people, and as you put it:

according to the Objectives Resolution, sovereignty belongs to Allah and is to be exercised by the people through their ‘chosen representatives’ and not by the Army or the Judiciary. The Parliament, and not the Constitution, Army, or the Judiciary should and can exercise sovereignty in view of the unambiguous definition of sovereignty provided in the objectives resolution, which is an integral part of the constitution.”,

might I refresh your gentle memory of what has transpired in the mother of all democracy? The United States and the UK have systematically been converted into police-states, and all their imperial mobilizations”, all of them, duly sanctioned and fully funded by, yes my friend, by its elected Representatives, the Congress, the Parliament.

If you analyze how the elected Representatives become beholden to other un-elected greater powers in order to become elected, which is clearly also the worst guarded secret in the world, that is even more true for the Pakistanis.

Every thug, moron, do-no-gooder feudal thinks being an elected Representative of the people is finally their ticket to a well-earned life, or a well-earned return to power if they are already from the feudal clans, the praetorian guards. All duly exercise the white man’s burden on its behalf.

Even for as brazen a crime as the fictitious trial of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui could not be called as such as an act of Pakistan’s supreme Parliament. The real power wielders all work for the white man, as is obvious in this editorial: The Only Truth About US Justice is that Justice is in the Service of Empire!

As one last note, one of sharing a bit of rather stale wisdom acquired from watching the practice of political science over these past 9 years since 911, and which can only be expressed in the well-worn diction of David Ben-Gurion: “what is inconceivable in normal time is possible in revolutionary times”!

And in Pakistan, any time the magician is about to conjure up an ill-fated dead rabbit from his tall hat, he distracts the audience’s attention towards the “revolutionary times” being fabricated by the left-hand while the real ‘magic’ of pulling the rabbit out is being accomplished with the right hand.

You are focussing on the left hand.

Thank you.



Zahir Ebrahim

Project Humanbeingsfirst.org

---



Project Humanbeingsfirst.org Comment 2: February 20th, 2010 at 7:12 am

Hello again. Continuing the above theme from my previous comment, I found these statements of United States Judge Andrew Napolitano rather pertinent. The pertinence is so huge that I had to leave a link to his speech here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n2m-X7OIuY

It is the elected Representatives of the peoples who have screwed the people the most!! I am not saying it as just another un-informed plebeian, even the US Judge is saying it! [Caveat: on the Judge's statement on 911, please see “My beef with the stellar congressman Hon. Ron Paul”]

And how are they able to do it?

Very simple – they do not follow the Constitution of their own land in service to the oligarchy which rules their land from behind the public-scenes.

It is indeed even far simpler in the UK than in the US – the former does not have a written one – so whatever the law makers say, is the new Constitution!

Well, in Pakistan, that oligarchy is beholden to the white man which alternately puts them in power and then sacrifices them, entirely according to their own pawn plays on the Grand Chessboard. This is hardly a surprise to anyone.

Why is none of that betrayed in the above article in its glorification of the Parliament?

In fact, in your previous two articles “Another example of unprofessional and substandard reports by the News International”, and “Rubbish and Trash published by The News International” you very forthrightly berated the pimpish newsmedia:

It has become a plague in Pakistan for reporters and columnists to not only get involved in partisan politics but also fancy themselves as astute and “ghak” political advisers with no regard to the responsibility they owe to the readers and viewers who have a right to expect unbiased and professional reporting and analyses. Little do they know, they are merely little and disposable pawns in the overall scheme of things and great games that are played.’

Very well put my friend in common cause for non-partisan truth and justice. Unfortunately, on your last sentence quoted above, is the pot (inadvertently) calling the kettle black?

Certainly one man’s analysis is another’s terrorism, and in no less measure than one man’s trash is another’s treasure.

But to continue on with the topic of what or who is supreme in statecraft, the Parliament, or the Constitution, I have found the following book incredibly insightful even on the subject of sticking religiously to a Constitution, and I encourage you to try and acquire a used copy, or locate it in a library as it’s lamentably out of print: Cracks in the Constitution by Ferdinand Lundberg. Steve Lendman also wrote a review of this fantastic book with extended excerpts and it can be found on the web with a search engine.

This book rather perceptively explains that even the most righteous Jeffersonian words on paper are not only just as good as their implementation by any people – otherwise they are only a “goddamned piece of paper” as George W. Bush once put it – but that even those righteous proclamations are open to interpretation of self-interest no differently than how the Zionists interpret the Ten Commandments!! (The latter characterization is of course in my own chosen vernacular)

The book eviscerates anything holy that is generally attributed even to the Constitution by its worshippers. It quotes Thomas Jefferson that even those chosen words of the mighty fathers of the nation must be open to being carefully re-considered, and perhaps tweaked as needed every generation and a half, for their practicableness and relevance to the time! For, as Jefferson states, a previous generation cannot justifiably presume to know all the problems to be faced by the succeeding generations better than their offspring! In fact, he called for a revolution every other generation to ensure non-complacency and pertinence to their time!

How commonsensical. And how remarkably perceptive of the very author of a written Constitution in the aftermath of their own momentous revolution, to state such a bold truism for any human-designed system!

Finally, please permit me to close this contrarian viewpoint with the very words of Lincoln, or was it Jefferson: “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty”! Or is it “eternal vigilance is the price of democracy”! Both ideas work! And what that means in statecraft practice, is that nothing is sacred. The test of virtuosity of the elected Representatives, as well as of the governance system which they administer, is daily, constant! Otherwise, short of a Prophet of the Divine running the show, man is corruptible, and so is all that is manmade! This also means that even a lousy, imperfect and crappy system can be made to work better by the right set of people, than a perfect system with crappy people at the helm! As Thomas Jefferson had put it: “when people fear their governments, that is tyranny; when governments fear the people, that is liberty”! In our nation perpetually run by crappy rulers and their crappy instruments of coercion, people fear the government. And that's the bottom line regardless of the governance system!

Thank you.

Zahir Ebrahim

Project Humanbeingsfirst.org



---



Project Humanbeingsfirst.org Comment 3: February 23rd, 2010 at 6:01 am

Hello.

I continue to have serious problems with your thought provoking article when I reflect on the word 'democracy' in the same breadth, including the “Charter of Democracy” text which you just reprinted. I have now read your article for which this is my third comment, more times than anything else you have written. It is both that much interesting, and that much problematic. The problems therein are far more fundamental than I have addressed in my previous two comments, and these cracks only emerge as one ponders carefully upon your axiomatic statement in the same breadth as the word 'democracy':

'That is the spirit of the constitution because according to the Objectives Resolution, sovereignty belongs to Allah and is to be exercised by the people through their ‘chosen representatives’ and not by the Army or the Judiciary. The Parliament, and not the Constitution, Army, or the Judiciary should and can exercise sovereignty in view of the unambiguous definition of sovereignty provided in the objectives resolution, which is an integral part of the constitution.'

However, instead of an ordinary plebeian expressing the fundamental problem, I am going to permit those far more learned – who far better understand constitutionalism, who far better comprehend what it means to be “a government of the people, by the people, for the people”, and who, ab initio, crafted the very concept of people governing themselves through their elected representatives – to respond to your afore-quoted passage. May I just preface what is reproduced below by saying that its sense of constitutional semantics may also be gleaned from the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America! Unsurprisingly, that very sense was commonsensically uttered by a brown man of the sub-continent in his eloquent opposition to Objectives Resolution of the Constituent Assembly, March 1949.

So, rather than always have the venerable white man articulate my theses, here is an opportunity for an equally venerable non white man, a non 'Negro' man, a self-respecting man, Sris Chandra Chattopadhya, to boldly state the truth of the matter in his own words:

Begin Excerpt

I wish that Pakistan must be a great State. That will be covetable to Muslims as well as to non-Muslims who are living in East Bengal. A few people from East Bengal have left – may be five per cent and my calculation is not even that. Of course, there are other calculations too – somebody says ten lakhs. We are living in East Bengal peacefully, in peace and amity with out Muslim neighbours as we had been living from generations to generations. Therefore, I am anxious to see that its constitution is framed in such a way which may suit the Muslims as well as the non-Muslims. I have gone carefully through this Resolution and I have carefully, read made-to-order, nicely-worded statement of my esteemed friend, Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan. But after reading the Resolution carefully and reading the statement, even after hearing the speeches of my friends, both the Doctors and others, I cannot change my opinion. I cannot persuade myself to accept this Resolution and my instruction to my party would be to oppose this Resolution.

Now as for the first paragraph:

Whereas sovereignty over the entire universe belongs to God Almighty alone and the authority which He has delegated to the State of Pakistan through its people for being exercised within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust”.

This part of the Resolution, I think, ought to be deleted. All powers, in my opinion, rest with the people and they exercise their power through the agency of the State. State is merely their spokesman. The Resolution makes the State the sole authority received from God Almighty through the instrumentality of people – Nemittamatrona, “Merely instruments of the State”. People have no power or authority, they are merely post boxes according to this Resolution. The State will exercise authority within the limits prescribed by Him (God). What are those limits, who will interpret them? Dr. Qureshi or my respected Maulana Shabbir Ahmed Osmani? In case of difference, who will interpret? Surely they are not the people. One day a Louis XIV may come and say “I am the State, anointed by the Almighty” thus paving the way for advent Divine Right of Kings of afresh. Instead of State being the voice of the people, it has been made an adjunct of religion. To me voice of people is the voice of God, “Jatra jiba tatra shiva.” The people are the manifestation of God.

In my conception of State where people of different religion live there is no place for religion in the State. Its position must be neutral: no bias for any religion. If necessary, it should help all the religions equally. No question of concession or tolerance to any religion. It smacks of inferiority complex. The State must respect all religions: no smiling face for one and askance look to the other. The state religion is a dangerous principle. Previous instances are sufficient to warn us not to repeat the blunder. We know people were burnt alive in the name of religion. Therefore, my conception is that the sovereignty must rest with the people and not with any body else.

Then about the Constituent Assembly representing the people of Pakistan. This Constituent Assembly was created by a Statute – Indian Independence Act – allotting one member for ten lakhs of people to be elected by the members of the Provincial Assemblies. The members were not elected by the people themselves. They are for the purpose of framing a constitution. They have the legal right to do so but they cannot say that they are the representatives of the people. They are merely a Statutory Body.

Then I come to the fourth paragraph:

Wherein the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice, as enunciated by Islam, shall be fully observed.”

Of course, they are beautiful words: Democracy, freedom, equality, everything. Now about this portion I had some discussion with some Maulanas from the Punjab. What they told me must be from their religious books. I shall repeat here. If I commit blunder, I wish to be corrected.

In this connection you say “equal rights”, but at the same time with limitations as enunciated by Islam. Is there any equal right in an Islamic country? Was there any …. An Honourable Member: “There was in Islamic countries.” ……. It was not between Muslims and non-Muslims. We are now divided into Congress Party and Muslim League Party here for farming constitution and suppose after framing of this constitution we face election, and parties are formed on different alignment, there may not be Congress, there may not be Muslim League, because the Congress has fulfilled its mission of attaining independence and Muslim League has also got Pakistan. There may be parties of haves and have-nots – and they are bound to be – and have-nots party may have a leader coming form non-Muslims. Will he be allowed to be the head of the administration of a Muslim State? It is not a fact that a non-Muslim cannot be head of the administration in a Muslim State. I discussed this question and I was told that he could not be allowed to be the head of the administration of a Muslim State. Then what is the use of all this. The question is whether there can be Juma Namaz in a country with a non-Muslim as its head, I am told that a country where a non-Muslim is the Head of the administration – as was in India, the Britishers were the head of the administration – according to the interpretations of Muslim rules, and I do not know much of them Muslims cannot say their Juma Namaz. As an instance, I cite a case and I think, the Honourable President also knows about it – in the District of Faridpur, Dudu Mea’s party. They do not say Juma Namaz. His grandson, Pir Badshah Mia, told me that “in a country where the head is a non-Muslim, there cannot be Juma Namaz.” Therefore, the words “equal rights as enunciated by Islam” are – I do not use any other word – a camouflage. It is only a hoax to us, the non-Muslims. There cannot be equal rights as enunciated by Islam. If the State is formed without any mandate of the religion, anybody whether Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist who can get votes can become its head, as such there would be difficulty if a portion of a book – it is not my book, it is not a Congress book, it is a Jamat-I-Islam publication from Lahore and it was handed over to me. I read a few lines from this book – Page 20.

The preceding statement makes it quite clear that Islam is not democracy; for democracy is the name given to that particular form of Government in which sovereignty ultimately rests with the people in which legislation depends both in its form and content on the force and direction of public opinion and laws are modified and altered, to correspond to changes in that opinion. If a particular legislation is desired by the mass of people steps have to be taken to place it on the Statute Book if the people dislike any law and demand its removal, it is forthwith expunged and ceases to have any validity. There is no such thing in Islam which, therefore, cannot be called democracy in this sense of the term”.

My friend, the Honourable Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar, the other day said ‘What is in the name’? I also say, what is in the name? Name may be given to mislead people but it will smell theocracy.

End Excerpt

Full text of the address of Sris Chandra Chattopadhya is available here.

To finally conclude my (gratuitous) commentary on your article (and thank you for the opportunity to extend the dimensions of the problem domain you sketched out), may I humbly suggest that one entirely drop the sham label of 'democracy' if one wishes to devolve man's natural powers to govern itself to Allah. In such a case, one might use the semantically more accurate label of 'theocracy'.

Or, one accept the principal concept of democracy ab initio, as it was intended to be: not a majority rule, not a mob rule, not a foreign power's rule, but a Constitutional Republic which derives all its rights to govern according to an agreed upon Constitution, solely by the powers accorded to the governing structures and to its elected/appointed stewards by the people.

The people are the Sovereign, not the Parliament, not the Executive, not the Judiciary, not the Military, not the Mosque, not the Banks, and not the Constitution.

The people can withdraw these powers, and thus the legitimacy they accord to the governing structures, if the governance stops representing the people's interests, stops protecting them, prefers the interests of foreign powers over their own, tyrannizes, kills, displaces, disappears, loots and plunders its own peoples, and auctions off their public commons for private gains.

The people may even amend the Constitution and the structures of their Republic, as necessary, to keep up with the needs of their time!

The government must fear its people! And that's the only fairest charter of democracy, don't you think?

Zahir Ebrahim

Project Humanbeingsfirst.org


Source URL: http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/02/respto-yousufnazar-statecraft-elected.html

Source PDF: http://humanbeingsfirst.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/respto-yousufnazar-statecraft-elected-feb222010a.pdf

Statecraft, the Constitution, and the Elected Representatives By Zahir Ebrahim