America's War Veterans: PTSD and its Cure – Letter to Editor By Zahir Ebrahim

By Zahir Ebrahim | Project
Saturday, December 18, 2010 | Updated Dec. 22, 2010
Iraqis responding to the 'liberation' brought them by the brave Veterans of America under Bush - Image via angryarab
The two American websites, Veterans Today and Salem News, run by two former US Military veterans, contain some of the most outstanding RealitySpeak writings by both civilians and America's war veterans, presumably, all mostly being eagerly ingested by other American war veterans. In full disclosure, these websites also reprint my two cents every now and then. The Editors in chief of both websites whom I have never met but communicate with occasionally, very generously invited me to become Staff Writer on their respective panels, and I politely declined in each case. I prefer my lonely voice to stay independent – for it allows me to explore my own confusions as no one else can.
So, exercising that independence of thought, if I may be permitted to ask the next logical question to great penmanship and reportage by recovering war veterans, does such RealitySpeak affect a change in status quo?
Does all this verbiage ameliorate the suffering of the bemedaled American war hero who brought my fellow Muslim men, women, and children of Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, perhaps Iran next, the 'liberation' depicted in the images?
Do the oft maligned liberators of truth from the sharp jaws of deceit, ever impact the inflexion of hegemonic power with mere moral words and intellectual theses which unravel the never ending lies of the hectoring hegemons du jour?
For, if words alone could make appreciable difference to the calculus of hegemony, then, the Ten Commandments would have surely eased mankind's journey over the past hundred years of successive world wars and vile deprecation of humanity. As the noted essayist and novelist Aldous Huxley had once observed when responding to the question “What does one do?”:
'Well this is the real problem. Nothing is easier than to formulate high ideals, but few things are more difficult than to discover the means for by those ideals might be implemented, and the categorical imperatives which spring from them can be a pain. This is the real problem. I mean one has to dream, but one has to dream in a pragmatic way to consider how... Merely preaching to people doesn't have much effect, people have been preaching for an awefully long time and we are still pretty much where we were.' (Herman Harvey: Sum and Substance with Aldous Huxley, co-produced with University of S. California, KNXT Public Affairs. )
The undeniable practical fact of the matter remains, that unless moral prescriptions and copious intelligent analyses appearing on these websites get translated into direct activism, into building organizations, into building movements, and into creating a powerful national chorus collectively saying NO to the murdersome hectoring hegemons now bringing vile indignities to the American people right here at home, elegant moral words on paper, wonderful prose bringing exposes to the intelligent, is only self-entertaining the armchair internet warriors.
In all honesty, haven't we, the narrators du jour, merely substituted the mind numbing television, America's favorite sedative, with a new type of cognitive programming for a minuscule sub-minority who indulges in study, but which remains as impotent in mobilizing the conscience to act in order to affect change, as the former medium was effective in amusing us to death? The “history's actors” in fact even brazenly noted that this is all we shall be able to do. The New York Times quoted a senior White House Advisor during the Bush Administration while explaining how fait accompli enacted by “history's actors” actually worked for “imperial mobilization”:
We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.’ — Senior Bush Advisor, The New York Times, October 17, 2004 (see Convince People of Absurdities and get them Acquiescing to Atrocities: The Enduring Power of Machiavellian Political Science )
I say, bullshit! Let's grasp the bull by the horns and turn the tables on its head for the criminals who, with cold chutzpah and flushed with hubris, openly proclaim themselves 'Hectoring Hegemons' working on ending national-sovereignty through successive hegelian mind-fcks!
Harvest of America's Operation 'Iraqi Freedom' upon the 'untermensch' - one day someone must pay the full payment for this largesse of 'freedom'!  Image via scoop
But in order to do so, one must first have the courage to spell bullshit as B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T, without dropping any letters to pass our delicate sensibilities which can shatter the tabula rasa of civilian populations 20,000 miles from home, but can't handle seeing RealitySpeak in print. This, in case it isn't already obvious, is merely a metaphor for first being able to face reality without syntactic sugaring. What follows is plain RealitySpeak – no bullshit. While you don't have to agree with anything here, there is no Newspeak in it. For, only in straight plain talk without bowing to political correctness, is there a way out of being mere narrators of the murderous shit continually being left behind by 'history's actors'.
I believe that the brave veterans of America's wars upon the 'untermensch' 20,000 miles away, the principal audience of both these websites I imagine, can actually play a leading role in helping to change that dismal state of affairs.
By rising to protect their own nation's peoples for a change, where, while they were busy bringing 'democracy' and 'liberation' to my 'barbarian' peoples in exotic faraway lands, their own land of the free was being turned into a police-state.
Instead of the increasing number of war veterans being perpetually trapped in PTSD and seeking palliatives to assuage their guilty conscience, 'VA says PTSD claims up 125%' Veterans Today, December 18, 2010, undertaking principled moral acts with discipline to safeguard the decent peoples in their own nation, may prove to be far more therapeutic than the Marijuana being pitched by experts like Dr. Phil Leveque, as in 'You Can't Go Back and You Can't Come Back', Salem News, December 13, 2010.
The 1978 Hollywood movie, The Deer Hunter, graphically brought home to civilians a vicarious touch of what soldiers of patriotism, fortune, and economic conscription, can experience in horrendous modern wars that are principally illegitimate, whose principal victims are civilians, cultures, and civilizations. Those creating the victims often end up with the guilt complex which modern soulless medicine, unable to comprehend the delicate connection between mind-body-spirit and the damage which wars cause to man's essence, calls its symptomatic display PTSD. The psycho-babble of the learned, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, in the case of wars, is primarily symptomatic of the injury to the conscience, to the soul, which perpetually remains un-amenable to brain surgery, to palliatives, to sedatives, to psycho-therapy, and to modern medicine. The Deer Hunter's main focus, if the reader will recall, was primarily to demonstrate the consequences of the horrendous dysfunctionalism of modern warfare causing maladjustment back into normalcy for both victims and victimizers, the latter becoming war's second victims. Therefore, for them to not astutely comprehend that modern warfare by superpowers moving pawns around on the Grand Chessboard is itself a monumental crime, a racket, and those participating in it as soldiers and technicians under waving flags and blaring trumpets, themselves commit crimes against humanity, is to miss the point of it all.
Call the suffering of the conscience from that backlash PTSD if you will, but being able to separate cause from effect, symptoms from disease, doesn't seem to be a forte of Veterans Hospitals. And while that symptom is captured most precisely, most elegantly, almost poetically, in the aforementioned article title by Phil Leveque, “You Can't Go Back and You Can't Come Back”, it does nothing to focus attention on the primary cause of it: the injury to the 'self', the essence of man, what, for the lack of a better terminology, we variously refer to as conscience, soul, superego, all elements which remain elusive to modern medicine. Ask any AMA approved medical doctor for any alternative to big-Pharma led prescriptions, and they will only give you the same standard response they have actually been taught to give in medical school in order to pass their AMA certification – I don't know anything about alternatives not recommended by the FDA.
But just as the Hollywood movie had left its audience hanging, had offered no real solutions for the returning veterans, nor for preventing the creation of future maladjusted veterans, neither does Phil Leveque with his prescriptive conclusion in bold: “WHY CAN‘T THE VA USE THE BEST DRUG – MARIJUANA?” When the illness is misdiagnosed, the cure can at best only be a placebo.
Please permit me to lend some Eastern Zen here – for, Western experts have sufficiently ruined this nation, and the world, to warrant any faith in their diagnosis and their prescriptions.
First, let's try to understand how the war veteran got to the stage of PTSD in the first place.
Afghan baby killed by American soldiers in Khost, collateral damage of course! Baby's name unknown - can you put a name to it? Image courtesy of
For the reader's orientation, please permit me to coldly state that I am that 'untermensch' upon whose civilizations the proud, the brave, the bold veterans of America and its Allies waged their boundless courage 20,000 miles away from their own home, in whose homes they slaughtered our children calling it collateral damage just as the CIA's hit team started arriving in Afghanistan courageously proclaiming: “We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of our great nation.” (Bob Woodward in Bush at War).
You, dear veteran, could have shown a different kind of courage too at that time and avoided the injury to your soul altogether. Instead of signing up to bravely rain Daisy Cutters and cruise missiles upon barefooted children, upon cities, upon civilian infrastructures, upon wedding parties, upon defenseless men, women, and children, and continually be fearing that hypothetical day when a future Nuremberg might administer you the same victor's justice as your nation routinely administers to the vanquished, you could have signed up to say NO to immoral conquests of your ruling elite. You could have signed up to say NO to economic conscription and found other ways to fund your college education, other ways to earn your livelihood. And you could have used the tiny gray matter to see through the facade of false patriotism, of inculcated false beliefs, of false flag operations, of false enemies, of falsely identified culprits, of “imperial mobilization” disguised as “war on terror”.
Just like one among you had done, not too long ago, sparing himself the moral scar tissue you find yourselves saddled with today as its new victims. This is what this courageous fellow had found the nerve to state then:
'Why should they ask me to put on a uniform and go 10,000 miles from home and drop bombs and bullets on Brown people in Vietnam while so-called Negro people in Louisville are treated like dogs and denied simple human rights? No I’m not going 10,000 miles from home to help murder and burn another poor nation simply to continue the domination of white slave masters of the darker people the world over. This is the day when such evils must come to an end. I have been warned that to take such a stand would cost me millions of dollars. But I have said it once and I will say it again. The real enemy of my people is here. I will not disgrace my religion, my people or myself by becoming a tool to enslave those who are fighting for their own justice, freedom and equality. If I thought the war was going to bring freedom and equality to 22 million of my people they wouldn’t have to draft me, I’d join tomorrow. I have nothing to lose by standing up for my beliefs. So I’ll go to jail, so what? We’ve been in jail for 400 years.' (Redemption Song: Muhammad Ali and the Spirit of the Sixties (1999) by Mike Marqusee, quoted from Wikipedia page on Muhammad Ali)
You could have done the same thing, no?
Yet, you didn't.
PTSD and American War Heroes - Victims of their own Barbarianism
You took that uncourageous path of accepting to shoot at my 'untermensch' peoples because your leaders ordered you to do so. Your blind deeds borne of “I was just following orders” have made you your own victims. Don't think that only you know in the privacy of your anguish how horrendous some of these crimes were. The victims know too, both the dead ones for whom the war and misery has ended, and the living for whom it is never ending. You think your suffering from PTSD is painful? Ask those whose tabula rasa you have shattered while “following orders”. And though silently and apathetically spectating, the world spectators aren't blind either. The veterans suffers only in a glass cage that appears opaque to them in the hell of their private shame. But it is only a one-way mirror, entirely transparent from the other side.
Unless you can squarely face up to that grotesque fact without self-delusions and false justifications, that you have monumentally wronged the 'lesser peoples' while slumbering under your patriotic zeal and implanted false beliefs, the redemption will remain illusive. Just like this Winter Soldier squarely faced up to his crimes against humanity without making excuses:
'And I tried hard to be proud of my service but all I could feel was shame. These were peoples, these were human beings. I have since been plagued by guilt. I feel guilt anytime I see a mother with her children. I feel guilt anytime I see a young girl. We are told we are fighting terrorists; the real terrorist was me and the real terrorism is this occupation. Those who send us to war do not have to pull a trigger or land a mortar round. They don't have to fight the war, they merely have to sell the war. They need a public who is willing to send their soldiers in a harms way. They need soldiers who are willing to kill and be killed without question. They can spend millions on a single bomb, but that bomb only becomes a weapon when the ranks of the military are willing to follow orders to use it. Our enemy is not 5000 miles away, they are right here at home. If we organize and fight with our sisters and brothers, we can stop this war, we can stop this government, and we can create a better world.' (Iraq war veteran Mike Prysner admits his shame and guilt after the fact, and suggests the only remedy possible for preventing future shame – had he only paid attention to what Muhammad Ali had done before the fact, March 15, 2008, )
But that private suffering, I believe, is also a mercy upon man – for within it also lies the only seed of positive redemption. This aspect is very important to comprehend fully. It is not theological gibberish of religious salvation which I expound here (I leave that to the priests), but empirical psych-physiology of what makes us a human being. In its clarity, lies the practicable solution-space. Both for suffering veterans of today, and for preventing future suffering veterans of tomorrow.
So please permit me to explain at length, for indeed, no leader glibly sending America's kids off to perpetual wars, no MD serving in empire's own imperial institutions under AMA and FDA guidelines to stick to their officially mandated medical protocols or lose the license to practice medicine, and no priest carrying empire's renewed white man's burden to bring us 'untermenschen' their 'Jesus' (watch video ) will explain the following commonsense.
Only if man has a conscience, a soul, that he naturally suffers when he indulges in horrendous crimes, what modern soulless medicine calls PTSD. Just think, if we had no conscience, there would be no mental anguish, and thus no psychological traumas!
The proof of this straightforward observation is to simply ask the empirical question: do we ever observe the mighty generals and noble presidents, who, under orders from their own task-masters, destroy entire nations and civilizations before being awarded Nobel Peace Prizes for their peace-making, suffering from PTSD? No. They are never known to walk the night lamenting: “All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand”, and die rather “holily in their beds.” (MacBeth). That is because they have no conscience, they have no 'soul'. This pathology, more aptly termed pathocracy, is not just Zen-babble or Shakespearean theater. It is now even clinically coming to the surface. See the book Political Ponerology: A Science on The Nature of Evil adjusted for Political Purposes by Andrew M. Lobaczewski ( ).
While the rest of us may suffer from the “banality of evil” whose only known cure is moral courage and moral redemption, the psychopath is observed to be suffering from some yet to be precisely identified structural abnormality which makes him and her completely impervious to feeling empathy. He and she is evidently either born without a conscience (or, some how had it killed off in unrecoverable ways in rituals and rites peculiar to the elite who send ordinary men and women to the slaughter without batting an eye). This creature appears as normal person to us, lives and moves among us as a normal person, but inevitably always seems to rather uncannily end up in ranking leadership positions where it easily makes immoral decisions for narrow interests without compunction and remorse. He and she experiences no more cognitive dissonance ordering an atomic bomb dropped, than ordering a rendition flight, or sentencing a frail Aafia Siddiqui to 86 years in jail. Whereas, the evil normal people face, both you and I, was aptly captured by Hannah Arendt by that term “Banality of Evil” when trying to comprehend how the Good German was created in Nazi Germany.
Hannah Arendt arrived at the conclusion that it was a combination of lack of moral courage, easily succumbing to authority figures by one's nature, through sustained indoctrinations to obey authority, and due to the blind allegiance to discharging one's duties without reflecting upon the consequences of those duties. The 'banality', ordinariness of individual evils, added up suddenly becomes extraordinary in its proportion and consequences. This is the exact same description of how the Good American has been created today for which, you are now paying the price of PTSD due to all that red blood of my peoples upon your hands.
No? Yes! Read it here to see it from the eyes of one upon whose Muslim civilizations, your patriotic munificence was so courageously unleashed by the cumulative “banality of evil”.
We, the ordinary peoples, who often become canon fodder for pathocrats, have a conscience, we are not psychopaths. We may however become so if we continue to suffer and continue to inflict suffering upon others to the point that physiological changes in our bodies irreversibly kill off those brain structures where empathy springs from, where conscience resides, where, in Freudian terms, the superego keeps our id and ego in check. But short of becoming a psychopath, there is a moral path of redemption available to all of us which isn't available to the pathocrats who send us to our death smiling. Who never suffer from PTSD.
So, what is the cure for this tortuous scarring of the moral psyche of normal persons which modern medicine calls PTSD? What is the path of redemption? Permit me to share our Eastern wisdom, our ancient medicine, our redemptive therapy, something that adventurers coming to bomb and rob us somehow conveniently fail to carry back with them to their own civilization along with their plunder and their mental scars. The cure is not in physical therapy, it is not in confessionals in priest boxes, and it is not on a psychiatrist's couch, nor in going back into childhood to find and kill-off old demons, real and imagined. The damage caused to the spiritual essence of man for enduring horrendous moral crimes, only the spiritual resurgence can cure. That is what modern medicine cannot give you because there is no profit in it for big-Pharma. Nor is it in the interest of the war-mongers to have their VA hospitals advocate spiritual resurgence – the kind I describe below – for they must have a continuous supply of new recruits of patriotic and economic conscriptions as canon fodder to fight their perpetual wars.
Moral or spiritual redemption is only possible in undertaking moral acts, not in mere words, but in courageous endeavors which go beyond the normal existence, just as the cataclysms which created PTSD went beyond the normal existence. Acts which border on heroism, and which permit us to rise to our better-selves primarily in the service of those whom we have injured by both commissions, and omissions. Only such redemptive acts can assuage our guilt sufficiently to enable atoning for our earlier moral lapses. In certain societies, perhaps still today, judges would sometimes award the guilty a punishment of such a type, to go humbly serve the family of those whom they have injured, whose bread-winners they killed. When implemented properly, it helped heal both the victim, and most interestingly, also the victimizer. Not too profound when one thinks about it, is it? Even Hollywood learns – as they evidently did in what may have been the topical sequel to the Deer Hunter, Tom Cruise's 2003 movie, The Last Samurai! The Metanoia experienced by the American soldier Nathan Algren, beckons today's PTSD villains. The Greek term for 'afterthought repentance', metanoia, denotes a change of mind, a reorientation, an awakening, a fundamental transformation of outlook, a spiritual conversion, walking the path of moral redemption and penitence in consequence.
Those who have undertaken such strivings, ask them their experiences. I imagine that asking Ken O'Keefe for instance, the man who is off in Gaza braving bullets whizzing by his head, bullets which he once himself inflicted upon the 'untermensch' in whose defense he now braves it with empty hands, might be an interesting exercise for America's veterans.
Not only can the veterans help heal themselves with such courageous efforts undertaken with direct moral acts in their own nation, but they can even help prevent future veterans from coming into existence by leading conscientious objector movements across their nation, teaching and warning the youngsters often enlisting as victims of economic conscription and state propaganda, the very words and analyses available on these stellar websites.
If each suffering veteran of America can prevent just one new future suffering veteran from being created, the healing efficacy of their moral strivings will be nothing short of miraculous! Just imagine when they can prevent ten?
If the suffering veterans of America can forge a movement to loudly say NO to the vile indignities being heaped upon us right here at home in the land of the free, they can make a difference to their own healing.
Image Who is laughing their way to the bank while the land of the free is groped, reviled, bankrupted, and turned into a fascist police-state?  Image via is a composite from  and
Here is the most recent grotesque example of what we all face: Boy Asks TSA ‘Why Pat Down Mom And Not Me?’, TSA Replies “You Don’t Have Boobs”.
Saying NO to invasive body scans at airports, and saying NO to humiliating patdowns as well, and drawing media and public attention to those bold NOs can even galvanize the public to do the same, and to join forces with you to reclaim your nation from the rapidly closing jaws of a police-state. If servicemen remain unaware of the real agenda behind these vile physical gropings of America's men, women, and children, as is amply evidenced by the blind compliance of the active duty American soldier going through an American airport in uniform carrying an automatic weapon – a narrative which appeared in Veterans Today and which drove me up the wall that someone can so courageously shoot at barefooted people in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, but can't say NO to absurdities in his own country – see my article 'Body-scan Alert - Not Suffering Indignities at Airports'. Will that soldier also only acquire his moralsense under PTSD once he is a veteran? Isn't there something grotesquely wrong with that picture?
A single dose of resonating moral NOs across the land of the free will prove to be far more therapeutic to the veterans of America than a 1000 psychedelic joints of Dr. Phil Leveque's prescription which he simultaneously avers: “My subject matter is that whatever the degree of PTSD/TBI the condition is almost permanent.” And thus, by his own admission, asserts all ingestive medicines being ineffective.
Can you, the veterans of America who have finally woken up, kindly give an active think to this prescription? As Ray McGovern lamented in Washington DC at a war veterans' march upon the White House, December 16, 2010, which was only a hundred veteran strong instead of one to two million:
'[quoting Daniel Berrigan] Those who say let us have peace, often tack on: but let us risk nothing, let our lives stand intact, let us know neither prison, not ill repute, nor ridicule from friends, nor disruption of ties. There is no peace, says Berrigan, because the making of peace is just as costly as the making of war. At least as liable to bring disgrace and prison. So, we accept our responsibility here. We are going to do all we can to stop the violence being perpetrated in our name. And so, if the making of peace means prison, that's where you are gonna find us!' (watch )
And where were all the tens of thousands of war veterans suffering from guilty consciences?
They were, and still are too busy reading websites like this one to bother striving for real redemption – they'd rather just talk about it while collecting their minuscule pecuniary compensation from the Veterans Administration!
You don't need any more knowledge my friends. You don't need any more study. You don't need to read any more websites to learn what has happened to you. All that these words do for you is to turn you into even more armchair wallowers caught between diligent study and PTSD. But no redemption. Knowledge does not lead to acts of redemption. Only metanoia does! And that comes from within – not by reading more websites!
How can you, the equally discarded victims of America's wars of hegemony, elevate your metanoia, your new found awareness of how you were sent off to fight for the narrow interests of an elite hell-bent on destroying your own nation – all amply demonstrated by the stellar writings and beautiful words appearing on Veterans Today and Salem News for those who really don't already know – into principled coordinated moral acts which can reverse the grotesque police-state transpiring in your own nation right now? And by so doing, help avert a global catastrophe, a planned Armageddon upon the remaining 'untermenschen'! That is an unparalleled self-healing path, unmatched by modern medicine as well as natural sedatives.
If I, a mere civilian mouse, a foreigner in the United States pursuing his 'American Dream' like everyone else, can say NO to state tyranny – read it here – and I scare just as easily as any other mouse, have a family, have aspirations, have passions, have no history of maladjustment except by choice since 911 when I consciously chose to become a malcontent (in H. G. Wells' words) and maladjusted (in Martin Luther King Jr.'s words) because there was simply no other choice (read it here and here); if this disabled wheelchair bound young man protesting state tyranny in the streets of London can say NO – watch it at – and he is suffering from cerebral palsy; is there some very good reason why the hurly-burly American veterans of wars' brutalities should continue to comply with tyrannical absurdities which are destroying their own nation-state? I believe this is where the certificate of everlasting virtue from the Veterans Administration comes in handy. But, if the war veteran, you, boldly rise beyond such certificates, if you rise beyond the mere psychedelic words you read on paper which always look good in print and in speeches, if you instead stand alongside the very 'untermensch' whom you once oppressed, serve the victim families from Afghanistan to Iraq whose bread-winners you once destroyed with a humility you were never acquainted with as a US marine, stand-up for your own nation's peoples suffering under the jackboots of the same tyrants who caused you to suffer PTSD in immoral imperial mobilizations deceptively sold to you as preemptive war on terror in defense of your nation, your yesterday becomes a mere prologue, the rest of your life, finally your own.
Thank you.
Zahir Ebrahim | Project
California, United States

The author, an ordinary researcher and writer on contemporary geopolitics, a minor justice activist, grew up in Pakistan, studied EECS at MIT, engineered for a while in high-tech Silicon Valley (patents here), and retired early to pursue other responsible interests. His maiden 2003 book was rejected by six publishers and can be read on the web at He may be reached at Verbatim reproduction license at

12/22/2010 12:00:07 4950
Links fixed July 16, 2016

America's War Veterans: PTSD and its Cure – Letter to Editor By Zahir Ebrahim 13/13

My experiments in confusion - Part-5: Letter to Prof. Kevin MacDonald on Multiculturalism diluting the White Man's Burden?

My experiments in confusion - Part-5: Letter to Prof. Kevin MacDonald on Multiculturalism diluting the White Man's Burden?

Zahir Ebrahim | Project

My Confusion Series: Part-1 , Part-2 , Part-3 , Part-4 , Part-5 , Part-6 , Part-7

Continuing... How many Gentiles does it take to confuse me? Evidently, still only One!

To: Prof. Kevin MacDonald, Professor of Psychology, Cal State University Long Beach, kmacd@

Date: Friday, December 17, 2010

Subject: Multiculturalism diluting the White Man's Burden? (Revised with clarity added – please substitute this final letter for my earlier ones dogged by typos)

Hello Prof. Kevin MacDonald,

I wonder if you might comment on my letter to Dr. David Duke, specifically the last main paragraph. You are an outspoken critic of multiculturalism yourself. Several years ago I read your interesting book CoC. I also read some of your essays every now and then. What you share with Dr. David Duke, is in that last passage of my letter to him. Most of the authors who write for (submission noted below) also evidently hold that view. And so did Eustace Mullins, as evidenced in his glorification of Shem in his book The Curse of Canaan, as the only distinguished harbingers of world civilizations. The white man today bemoans his loss of advantage at the altar of multiculturalism, an advantage often gained, which history tells us, at the point of perfidy and sword. From the East India Company bringing the white man's burden to my lands, perfidy, to the noble white man settling the New World by exterminating its indigenous inhabitants, sword. Yet, when I point this inconvenient fact out to the outspoken harbingers of white man's civilization bemoaning the loss of their primacy advantage to an even greater hegemon, they entirely ignore me thus adding to my confusion-space. I hope you will not do the same.

What I humbly request is that you kindly publish my letter to Dr. David Duke, since evidently neither Vdare is going to do it, nor is David Duke going to respond, and offer your cogent refutation of its pertinent passage if you feel I am indeed confused in thinking that principally, the grapes are sour! Otherwise, I hope you can straightforwardly admit your own narrow self-interests have as much to do with objective scholarship and moral supremacy as the narrow self-interests you critique of your nemesis, the Jews. As an 'untermensch' having long endured the munificent largesses of the white man's burden, I am never confused by hectoring hegemons and their pious doctrines of conquests which often come wrapped in profound scholarship – they live and perish by the same values they espouse. It is only the pious complaints when they lose which confuse me. I quite anticipate the indomitable Zionists to be making similar arguments someday as the pious white gentile is making today.

I look forward to you, as a public scholar at a publicly funded university, to gently remove this fog of confusion which tends to surround me in the West anytime I try to think for myself. No one else is ever willing to address a plebeian's confusions which, I dearly suspect, may be quite endemic among the silent 'untermenschen' comprising the great multicultural milieu in what was once a peaceful mono-cultural land of the native Americans.


Zahir Ebrahim | Project

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Project

Date: Thursday, December 16, 2010

Subject: Submission: My experiments in confusion - Part-4: Letter to David Duke on his Metanoia

To: pbrimelow@

Dear Editor,

My experiments in confusion - Part-4: Letter to David Duke on his Metanoia

Thank you,

Best wishes,

Zahir Ebrahim | Project

P.S. [As per the fund raising blurb on complaining inability to pay writers and hence unable to publish their work,] I do not accept payment for my work being published. Hope that helps you print this letter. Thank you.

Source URL:

Mirror URL:

My experiments in confusion - Part-5: Letter to Prof. Kevin MacDonald on Multiculturalism diluting the White Man's Burden? By Zahir Ebrahim

My experiments in confusion - Part-4: Letter to David Duke on his Metanoia

My experiments in confusion - Part-4: Letter to David Duke on his Metanoia

Zahir Ebrahim | Project

How many Gentiles does it take to confuse me? Evidently, also only One!

See: Part-1 , Part-2 , Part-3 .

To: Dr. David Duke ( )

Subject: Your video: How Zionists Divide and Conquer

Date: Thursday, December 16, 2010 at 11:59 AM

Dear Dr. Duke,

Your video conversation which I watched on youtube last night is very interesting ( ). And so is your apparent transformation from your earlier roots. I am interested in understanding your metanoia. Have you written about it? Can you kindly point me to it?

Dr. Duke, I am surrounded by 'cats' who, expressing this in a parable often used by Muslims, 'having eaten their fill of 900 mice each, have gone for Hajj, and on return, became the most outspoken representatives of the mice trying to convince them that they [the reformed cats] have amended their feline ways'.

Transformations of course, are also the way of spiritual ascendance, like I believe what Malcolm X genuinely experienced. It goes on everyday around us, in ordinary peoples, in different measures, as each of us strive to better ourselves, but we don't often hear about it. Every once in a while, we get to hear of it happening to a very public and controversial person. That gives us a chance to be inspired by it when genuine.

In that spirit, and also the spirit of the overly cautious 'mouse' who refused to accept the cat's platitudes even when it critiqued other felines for their atrocious behavior toward mice, I would like to understand yours, before I pay more attention to your accurate words. I utter the same analyses too, and we evidently share a common enemy. Here is my most recent article which penetrates to the very heart of darkness: My experiments in confusion - Part-2: The invisible House of Rothschild.

But I also live in the United States, I came here to study, got married, had kids, and they are born in the USA. They are as American, while of the Asian stock, as any who came across the Atlantic and settled here by exterminating 10 million of this land's native peoples. To you, I am a vile intrusion into your white America because of the multi-culturalism perfidy of the Jews which diluted your race-cultural dominance in a land which your own ancestors criminally emptied of its native race-cultural dominance. It is not clear to me on what moral grounds you can complain – the grounds, evidently, of arbitrarily starting the clock on the time axis that is convenient to you. Those are some of the same characteristics in your own nemesis today in their analogous forced re-settlement of another's land. There is a lot more in common between Zionistan and Americanistan than you care to admit. Both the leaders of the two 'tans' admit it openly [however], as evidenced on the 60th birthday bash in Zionistan, deconstructed by yours truly here: Celebrating Israel's 60th Birthday in the 60th year of the Nakba.

I hope you will offer a reply which will prove to be of much benefit to me. It is rare that the white man can stand up to criminals even higher than they. I want to meet such a white man who can do it standing on a high moral ground [without carrying the white man's burden].

With best wishes,

Zahir Ebrahim | Project


Source URL:

Mirror URL:

My experiments in confusion - Part-4: Letter to David Duke on his Metanoia By Zahir Ebrahim

My experiments in confusion - Part-3: The Omnipotent Rothschilds

December 31, 2010 | Last Updated Jan 04, 2011
My Confusion Series: Part-1 , Part-2 , Part-2-Balfour , Part-3 , Part-4 , Part-5 , Part-6 , Part-7
Continuing from Part-2, where Baron David de Rothschild was quoted proclaiming:
World Governance By The Rothschilds, 2003, via-bibliotecapleyades-net via bureaudetudes-orgCaption World Governance By The Rothschilds, 2003 - Click to view GOVERNING BY NETWORKS (Image via bibliotecapleyades-net via bureaudetudes-org large 3 MB)
'We provide advice on both sides of the balance sheet, and we do it globally. ... We have had 250 years or so of family involvement in the finance business, ... There is no debate that Rothschild is a Jewish family, ... For a family business to survive, every generation needs a leader, ... Then somebody has to keep the peace. Building a global firm before globalisation meant a mindset of sharing risk and responsibility. If you look at the DNA of our family, that is perhaps an element that runs through our history.' --- Baron David de Rothschild, The first barons of banking by Rupert Wright, UAE, November 6, 2008
When, in my state of perpetual confusion whereby my experiments in independent thinking sometimes get out of hand, I have immoderately challenged many a rebel leader on their omitting to mention the Rothschild name in their otherwise erudite critiques of modernity, I have always come up empty handed. This is amply demonstrated in my responses to Salman Abu Sitta, Antoine Raffoul, Ismail Zayid, Khalil Nakhleh, Shadi Nassar, Mustafa Barghouti and Anna Baltzer, Jeff Gates, Jeff Blankfort, et. al. My most recent challenge was yet another unsolicited letter, this time to an old timer Western rebel of the United States of America, Mr. Jeffrey Blankfort. He courteously replied:
Detail-2 Israel benefactors World Governance By The RothschildsCaption Detail-2 Israel benefactors World Governance By The Rothschilds, 2003 - Click image for expanded view GOVERNING BY NETWORKS. See Detail-1 at end for how power flows seamlessly through the interconnected web of networks (Image via bibliotecapleyades-net via bureaudetudes-org large 3 MB)
'I do not mention the Rothschilds because I have yet to see a single shred of evidence that they control the world's money supply, the CFR, or anything else of such substance as to influence the way the world works. As far as I can tell whereas once members of the Rothschild banking family ran the banks of Western Europe, I see no evidence that they do so today. ... Again, if you have any direct evidence with unimpeachable sources that the Rothschilds are running everything or for that matter anything behind the scenes I would appreciate receiving it but lacking that up to now, I never mention their name apart from Walter Rothschild being the recipient of the Balfour Declaration.' --- Jeffrey Blankfort replying to Zahir Ebrahim Nov. 11, 2010 (see full correspondence at the end of this article)
I was simply delighted that my new friend Jeff Blankfort had even bothered to write back, as most brilliant chiefs, both Eastern and Western, gallantly rising to defend the Palestinians as their own cause célèbre, simply tend to ignore the meddlesome and the confused who don't buy their craftsmanship. The crazy thing is, that among the Palestinians themselves, many appear to prefer running from Jew to Jew to solve their problems, as was observed by a Palestinian friend of mine out of sheer frustration: “We run from Jew to Jew, they create the problem, and also argue the solution, they control the full spectrum of our discourse as well as our existence.” I promised Jeff: “Thank you mon ami for your reply. I will compose a thoughtful reply later...”.
This Part-3 attempts to respond to Jeff Blankfort's request for evidence for the trumpeting-defecating elephant in the bedroom. As quoted above, Jeff asked for “direct evidence with unimpeachable sources”.
I will humbly endeavor to provide both – direct, unimpeachable. And before concluding, I will even suggest that the legal standard itself for proving criminal conspiracy is far less than what Mr. Blankfort has generously demanded from me, for the obvious reasons that even half-smart conspirators usually hide behind their errand boys, like the Mafioso, and don't leave their calling cards. More empirically however, unlike the dumb Mafioso who rob, extort, and kill illegally thus enabling the state policing apparatuses to be used to juridically hang them, brilliant conspirators usually enact legalisms and statutes, and directly employ the state's governing apparatus itself to mask and legalize their dastardly plunders, their war-mongerings, their social-engineerings, and their pernicious subversions of the peoples' democratic institutions and constitution. Even the flag-waiving ordinary indoctrinated American understood how that craftsmanship worked when he and she witnessed the banksters' bailout extortion racket in October 2008 (see 'Why bluff Martial Law') and their subsequent brazen accounting of how they spent it (watch).
And yet, the law of un-intended consequences, i.e., nature, still has its ways to un-obscure the golem if one has the eyes and the will to perceive.
Let me first state the criterion for proof as Blankfort did not stipulate any beyond “direct, unimpeachable”. I intend to demonstrate that an omnipotent power exists, that such a power visibly existed not too long ago using unimpeachable sources, and since there is no evidence of such a power suddenly eviscerating, that by the sheer force of logic, it must still exist even if occulted from mainstream Americans today. And I will top that off with the confirmation of its own existence by the omnipotent power itself. I invite the readers to pretend that they are a jury member, and reach their own verdict whether the following can be sufficiently deemed “direct evidence” from “unimpeachable sources” to satisfy the request of Jeffrey Blankfort and all those like him who choose to willfully remain innocent of knowledge of the most glaring, trumpeting, shitting, elephant in the bridal suite.
First, the unimpeachable source: Nuremberg Military Tribunal and its official Record. I don't think there can be anything more unimpeachable a source than that, do you?
Let's first see what transpired at Nuremberg in the score-settling with victor's justice in the aftermath of Word War II with respect to the Nazi banker most instrumental in financing the Nazi war machine, Hjalmar Schacht. While 21 Nazi chiefs were hanged (watch) by Robert H. Jackson, the chief prosecuting counsel for the United States (watch), the banker whom the chief counsel as the official representative of the United States government to the Nuremberg Military Tribunals, most wanted to hang, was set free due to the intervention from the Bank of England governor Sir Montagu Norman!
Say what? Bank of England is so powerful that it prevailed upon their own military Allies at Nuremberg to let go of the principal enemy who financed the destruction of entire Europe and of the British Empire itself – with agreement from all the Allied military high command and their governments (with only Russia dissenting)? No, you did not read that in history books did you, nor did you hear Noam Chomsky talk about the inconvenient case of Hjalmar Schacht even when he waxes eloquence about victor's justice at Nuremberg by highlighting the case of Admiral Karl Dönitz, and evidently, nor did you hear Mr. Jeffrey Blankfort bring it up in all his dissent-ing critique of Noam Chomsky.
I get really confused when I encounter such blind-sighted omissions regarding the King of the Jews among the moral Jews who become dissent-chiefs for the dumb goy, and book-end their own dissent so wonderfully while still giving the illusion of vigorous debate. Chomsky explains this Machiavellian construction rather elegantly even as he implements it himself with involuntary help from his own antagonist, Jeff Blankfort, and the goyem cheer for their favorite horse – don't matter which horse wins, the real winners are those who benefit from the calculated omissions, the race course owners:
This “debate” is a typical illustration of a primary principle of sophisticated propaganda. In crude and brutal societies, the Party Line is publicly proclaimed and must be obeyed — or else. What you actually believe is your own business and of far less concern. In societies where the state has lost the capacity to control by force, the Party Line is simply presupposed; then, vigorous debate is encouraged within the limits imposed by unstated doctrinal orthodoxy. The cruder of the two systems leads, naturally enough, to disbelief; the sophisticated variant gives an impression of openness and freedom, and so far more effectively serves to instill the Party Line. It becomes beyond question, beyond thought itself, like the air we breathe.’
Democratic societies use a different method: they don’t articulate the party line. That’s a mistake. What they do is presuppose it, then encourage vigorous debate within the framework of the party line. This serves two purposes. For one thing it gives the impression of a free and open society because, after all, we have lively debate. It also instills a propaganda line that becomes something you presuppose, like the air you breathe.’
The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.’ --- Noam Chomsky.
At this point, before I go any further, please permit me to dust out the following observation of novelist Aldous Huxley in the Brave New World to illustrate why I consider artful omissions and silence, as counter-intuitive as it might appear to the profoundly innocent of knowledge, to be a most powerful propaganda tool:
The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but by refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth. By simply not mentioning certain subjects, by lowering what Mr. Churchill calls an “iron curtain” between the masses and such facts or arguments as the local political bosses regard as undesirable, totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion much more effectively than they could have done by the most eloquent denunciations, the most compelling of logical rebuttals. But silence is not enough. If persecution, liquidation and the other symptoms of social friction are to be avoided, the positive sides of propaganda must be made as effective as the negative.’ — Aldous Huxley, Preface (circa 1946) to Brave New World, 1931, Harper, pg. 11
I have to wonder about my sanity sometimes – why don't I get it when brilliant chiefs inexplicably dabble in their own thought control, in their own self-policing?
Why do I persist in experimenting with independent thinking? Just accept the pious statements of the Jewish chiefs that there is not a shred of evidence of the existence of the King of the Jews controlling the state of affairs in the world today, lest I be labeled a 'kook', a 'denier of established truths', and carted away to some re-education camp for my own, as well as other's safety! 'Denier' I have already been anointed by none other than a recovering Jew, a reformed Zionist, Christian friend of mine, Israel Shamir! Yes, I know I have accumulated some lovely friends in my few journeys into the unknown world of independent thinking! I now try my best to stay away from such confusions, and I believe this is one of my last few times as my new year's resolution!
Before we jump too far ahead as I briefly did in the preceding passages to give a taste of the acerbic logic about to develop, let's study this shockingly revealing fact of Hjalmar Schacht which is so uncontrovertibly recorded in the pages of victor's justice at Nuremberg, and the circumstances surrounding this fact. The following is excerpted from David Irving's Nuremberg, the Last Battle ( PDF ). It appears in my document “Monetary Reform: Who will bell the cat?” as footnote [11] and [13] and is reproduced below along with the passage being footnoted:
Nuremberg, the Last Battle Caption Nuremberg, the Last Battle: Bank of England overriding the victorious Allies and freeing the Nazi Banker Hjalmar Schacht from the hangman's noose
'Yes, confessionals after faits accomplis, is a characteristically “cleansing” Christian tradition. Somehow, it only seems to work for those in absolute power, never for the common man. “You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again” [Ben Bernanke to Milton Friedman] doesn't seem to be part of the ordinary judicial system where the common man is made accountable for stealing bread. But it is part of the Nuremberg Military Tribunals which let Dr. Hjalmar Schacht, the former governor of the Reich Bank [11] – the bankster who orchestrated the financing for Hitler and enabled his war machine with funding from Wall Street [12] and the City of London financiers – go scot-free!
Whence such awesome power to even let a fascist banker who caused the destruction of all of Europe – as per the Nuremberg established principle of “all the evil which follows” – become a prominent and influential member of the financial community once again in post-war Germany “as though there had never been a blemish on his character”? [13]'
Footnote [11] Dr. Hjalmar Schacht (Reich minister of economics until 1937, Reichsbank president until 1939). David Irving, Nuremberg, The Last Battle, 1996, page 160.
[Jackson] regarded the former president of the Reichsbank as the most contemptible of all the defendants. He had provided the finance for the spectacular rise and rearmament of Hitler’s Germany. More than any other, this man’s financial genius had paved the way for the violation of the Versailles Treaty.” (page 157)
Ambitious and arrogant, Schacht [Highest IQ 143, page 292] had walled himself in behind a belief in his own righteousness. He seethed with rage at being imprisoned with Hitler’s henchmen. He admitted to having violated the Versailles Treaty, but countered that since the Allies were in collusion against Germany this was no crime. .. He admitted rebuilding Germany’s run-down economy, but not for the purpose of waging war; Hitler had dismissed him as soon as he balked at the aggressive planning that began.” (page 293)
Hjalmar Schacht – ‘after Göring the toughest of them.’ He [Jackson] had always regarded Schacht as one of the most despicable defendants. The banker’s arrogant attitude since the trial had begun only vexed him all the more.” (page 327)
Even more irritating for Jackson was that Schacht was overheard in the cells confidently predicting that he would be acquitted. Irritating rumours circulated that the prosecution of Schacht was not in earnest. Letter-writers taunted Jackson that he would never succeed in convicting a big banker – whether friend or foe, they were the new Untouchables. He soon became aware that the Nazi banker did indeed have friends in the most unlikely places and influence everywhere. One day one of his team, the eminent New York international lawyer Ralph Albrecht, reported to him that the British assistant prosecutor Colonel Harry J. Phillimore – later a lord justice of appeal in London* – had accosted him in the hall outside the courtroom and urged the Americans to relax their remorseless pressure on the banker. When Albrecht, perplexed, asked ‘Why?’, Phillimore uneasily explained that certain representations had been made by Sir Montagu Norman, governor of the Bank of England from 1920 to 1944. ‘It would be most unfortunate,’ murmured the British colonel, ‘if anything were to happen to Schacht.’ In fact Schacht had been an informer of Sir Montagu, secretly apprising him of the political and financial decisions taken at the highest level in Berlin for sixteen years before the war.” (page 328)
There is in the records of His Majesty’s treasury in the British archives an illuminating file on the efforts made by Sir Montagu Norman to get Schacht released.” (page 329)
He [Jackson] regarded the case against the banker as a test of the good faith of the entire prosecution. As he had said in a secret meeting of all the chief prosecutors in April, of which there is a shorthand record in his files, ‘If the court, for instance, holds that we have no case against Schacht, then it seems clear that we can have no case against any industrialist, as the case against him is stronger than the others.’ ... He [Jackson] privately recorded later, ‘I would at least stand out forthrightly in demanding his conviction, convicting him if I could.’ He harried the banker mercilessly in the witness box, addressed him as ‘Schacht,’ tout court, confronting him with the evidence of his participation in Hitler’s aggressive planning until eventually the defendant had to admit that he had been untruthful about his dealings with the Führer. Jackson showed the Tribunal newsreel film of Hitler’s triumphant return to Berlin in July 1940 after the defeat of France – long after Schacht would have had them believe he had fallen into disfavour. There was Schacht, in Prince-Albert morning coat and top hat, the only civilian among the generals waiting on the station platform to pump the Führer’s hand – indeed with two hands he caught hold of the Führer’s, stepped out of line, and followed him ‘in almost lickspittle fashion,’ as Jackson remarked later. And this was the Nazi gentleman for whom the British lawyer Phillimore and banker Sir Montagu Norman were interceding. All the more acute was Jackson’s fury when the Tribunal – with only the Russian judge publicly dissenting – acquitted Schacht. Biddle, who read out this part of the judgement, claimed some months later that he had also wanted to convict, but the British had insisted on an acquittal and had left him no choice.” (pages 329-330)
Footnote [12] Antony C. Sutton, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, 1976
Footnote [13] David Irving, Nuremberg, The Last Battle, 1996, page 402: “As he was released from his [Nuremberg] cell, German police stepped forward and arrested him. A German court sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment as a major offender under the denazification laws enacted by the Control Council in Berlin. He served two years in solitary confinement, and was eventually released in 1948. The world of banking absorbed him again as though there had never been a blemish on his character.”
Let's also recall from my article “Of Ostriches and Rebels on The Hard Road to World Order” what Professor Carroll Quigley had stated about Montagu Norman, and all the other governors of world's private central banks:
'The powers of financial capitalism had (a) far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland; a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank, in the hands of men like Montagu Norman of the Bank of England, Benjamin Strong of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, Charles Rist of the Bank of France, and Hjalmar Schacht of the Reichsbank, sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.' (Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, 1966, Chapter 20, page 324)
'It must not be felt that these heads of the world's chief central banks were themselves substantive powers in world finance. They were not. Rather, they were the technicians and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised them up and were perfectly capable of throwing them down. The substantive financial powers of the world were in the hands of these investment bankers (also called “international” or “merchant” bankers) who remained largely behind the scenes in their own unincorporated private banks. These formed a system of international cooperation and national dominance which was more private, more powerful, and more secret than that of their agents in the central banks. This dominance of investment bankers was based on their control over the flows of credit and investment funds in their own countries and throughout the world.' (Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, 1966, Chapter 20, page 326)
Is it too rude to ask – that if Montagu Norman is merely among the “technicians and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own countries”, then who is the dominant investment banker of England who has in fact controlled the Bank of England and the City at least since Waterloo?
Rothschild N. M. and Sons.
This is what they confirm of themselves today on their own website: Rothschild has been at the centre of the world's financial markets for over 200 years. Today, it provides Investment Banking, Corporate Banking and Private Banking & Trust services to governments, corporations and individuals worldwide. Baron David de Rothschild has already been quoted in the beginning of this article, proclaiming: 'We provide advice on both sides of the balance sheet, and we do it globally. ... We have had 250 years or so of family involvement in the finance business'
But here we shall just stick with Nuremberg for the moment.
Sir Montagu Norman, at the behest of the owners of the Bank of England, set one of their own criminal banksters free from the clutches of the hangman's noose. Those owners, both commonsense and force of logic suggests, commanded at least that much power which could trivially prevail upon all of the Military Tribunal members, except Russia who voted against it. Americans had lost 300,000 soldiers in that 'just war' against the axis powers, the United Kingdom had lots its empire along with its jewel in the crown, and Europe lay decimated, 6 million Jews exterminated – we won't quibble with the holocaust industry here – 20 million Russians butchered, and sum-total of 50 million human beings, mostly Christians, and most of them German civilians under the unspeakable fire-bombings of civilian cities by the Allies, lost their lives in the name of fighting the aggression initiated by the Nazis which was even termed “... the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole”.
Just watch the video of the closing speech of Robert Jackson condemning the Nazis (cited earlier). It was a superlative public relations Tribunals, because, it was utmost important for the United States of America, the emerging superpower from the ashes of World War II, to pontificate to the entire world its moral and military supremacy, and condemn the abhorrence of aggression of the Nazis as it was itself entering a new Cold War with the new enemy. Nuremberg was entirely about public relations. And the United States judges at Nuremberg wanted to make an outstanding example of the Nazi war machine and its bankster to demonstrate their own moral high grounds.
Despite all of these empirical motivations, those who controlled the Bank of England, call it Foundation-X for the lack of a better handle to refer to this non-existent power which none can see, could spring one of their own from the sure jaws of death?
This incontrovertible fact and its significance indicates the existence of a power which is superior to the combined power of the victorious allies of World War II.
So, the evidence of Hjalmar Schacht being set-free unequivocally demonstrates at least the existence of an elusive omnipotent power in 1946.
And we already know that this immense power also existed in 1917, when the Balfour Declaration was issued in its name (see Part-2).
The Balfour Declaration November 2nd 1917 - The first-cause of Palestinian genocide in the Land of CanaanCaption Revisiting the Curse of Canaan: The Balfour Declaration November 2nd 1917 - The first-cause of Palestinian genocide in the Land of Canaan is in the Name of a Rothschild and yet they don't know that name!
Where did that amazing power, which was confirmed to exist in 1917 when it prevailed upon the British empire to grant the Zionists another's land, and again in 1946 when it prevailed upon the British and American empires to grant amnesty to their own arch enemy that had seen tens of millions of Christians dead, so suddenly vanish in the mere 60 years since?
Did the earth swallow it, did the sky absorb it, or was there an earthquake which sunk it?
What happened to it?
In my experiments in confusion, I valiantly searched for such a catastrophic event which could have silently vanquished that Foundation-X which had existed only 60 years earlier.
I am sorry to report here that there is no known documentation existing on planet earth in the annals of public archives which records any such cataclysmic event where that elusive power could have disappeared. If one exists in secret classified archives, like aliens abducting them off the face of the planet, I do not possess such powers to access those classified documents, let alone unlock them of their public relations baggage. We shall just wait for Wikileaks to let us know if UFO-Abduction is indeed that elusive cause of their sudden vanishing from the face of the earth. Julian Assange has already hinted: “it is worth noting that in yet-to-be-published parts of the cablegate archive there are indeed references to UFOs.”
In the meantime, back here on earth outside the Plato's cave, by the sheer force of inevitable logic, I must rationally conclude that such a power, Foundation-X, still exists right here on earth. And, since I have also not found, despite vigorous search in libraries and on the web, any evidence that the Foundation-X ownership surreptitiously changed hands except from generation to generation within the same DNA cess-pool, and as admitted by the scions now wielding the baton themselves, then, whomsoever were the owners of Foundation-X in 1946, and in 1917, are still the owners today.
Casa de Rothschild!
Let me know if this sufficiently constitutes Jeff Blankfort's requirement for evidence: “if you have any direct evidence with unimpeachable sources that the Rothschilds are running everything”
Now let me briefly examine the legal requirement for evidence in the United States. The following definition is excerpted from my Editorial: Some Dare Call it Conspiracy! Are you among them? April 19, 2009:
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
Permit me to highlight the core legal standard in that passage with emphasis:
1) The conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence.
2) Any conspirator is guilty of any substantive crime committed by any other conspirator in furtherance of the enterprise.
3) 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.
My goodness! The entire gang of banksters despite their web of control can be roped in even if one conspirator can be indicted. I have just demonstrated the corrupting power of the bankster fraternity, and shown that the Casa de Rothschild exists today because it existed in 1917 and 1946 by the evidence of Balfour Declaration and Nuremberg Military Tribunals, respectively. This fraternity has such immense powers that it can legally enact Federal Statutes, like the Federal Reserve System of the United States, by having the American Congress enact their preferences into law. When such an extortion happens, the above artfully defined definitions of conspiracy become irrelevant. The law of the sovereign becomes the ultimate arbiter of what is crime and what is virtue, as aptly demonstrated by Saint Augustine of Hippo in the 4th century:
“When the King asked him what he meant by infesting the sea, the pirate defiantly replied: 'the same as you do when you infest the whole world; but because I do it with a little ship I am called a robber, and because you do it with a great fleet, you are an emperor.' (The City of God against the Pagans, Page 148).
This modus operandi, of theft of public's wealth by legalism enactment by the sovereign, appears to be right out of the Protocols. Witness Protocol 1, items 3 through 5 which lend an empirical definition to the term “legal” when applied to control the masses:
3. It must be noted that men with bad instincts are more in number than the good, and therefore the best results in governing them are attained by violence and terrorisation, and not by academic discussions. Every man aims at power, everyone would like to become a dictator if only he could, and rare indeed are the men who would not be willing to sacrifice the welfare of all for the sake of securing their own welfare.
4. What has restrained the beasts of prey who are called men? What has served for their guidance hitherto?
5. In the beginnings of the structure of society, they were subjected to brutal and blind force; after words – to Law, which is the same force, only disguised. I draw the conclusion that by the law of nature right lies in force.
Based on insights gleaned from these contortions, especially item 5), if you can enact Federal Statutes and laws to protect your graft by wielding the hidden might of your indomitable force, then, there is no “conspiracy” in the legal terms because you did not violate any Federal Statutes!
Isn't that just marvellous?
So, the House of Rothschilds, using their hired front men and political errand boys, backed by their interlocking interests in all the world's central banks, have protected themselves from that definition of Conspiracy by shrewdly employing the uber-Machiavellian Protocols!
But have they protected themselves from RICO?
See my editorial which contains an extended excerpt of laws from the late Eustace Mullins' 1985 book World Order, which could have potentially been used in earlier times.
I now believe that the accelerated pace towards world government today, under the complete co-option of all organs of state worldwide, makes the bankster fraternity almost immune by way of any legal recourse in the entire Western Hemisphere. They might occasionally sacrifice a red herring errand boy here and there at the altar of reform to keep the plebeians happy, if it ever came to that! These are the ultimate UNTOUCHABLES! No one can even see them.
I hope that between Part-2 and Part-3 of this series of my goyish attempts at independent thinking, there is sufficient grounds for courageous moral Jews like Mr. Jeffrey Blankfort to finally perceive their own brethren – the King of the Jews – who have bestowed upon Zionistan its creation. Its ethos. Its “iron wall” that none can breach. Their full spectrum interlocking control of the world's private central banks continually enables them to implement their own two centuries old familial boast “give me control of a nation's money supply and I care not who makes its laws” with such brazen impunity that it is almost always accompanied by the thunderous applause of European and American goy statesmen and law makers. The King of the Jews have inflicted upon the entire Jewish peoples a calumny that the Jews shall not be able to outlive even if they exist for another 3000 years! See: From Genesis to Genocide in Palestine : The Golem Is Not Jewish!. The following sentiment barely captures it:
'If fair punishments are ever to be awarded for their crimes against humanity for just the past 100 years in any Just court of law, Adolph Eichmann would have to be retroactively let go by resurrecting his soul from his grave with high honors and awarded multiple peace prizes plus compensation, in order to administer hanging and extraction of restitution as the graduated scale of ultimate punishment for the ultimate prime-movers of all wars and pestilence before which their errand boys' and patsies' crimes against humanity pale in comparison.' ---
All persons of any faith (or no faith) not entirely consumed by depravity, apathy, Faustian pacts, and if I might be so bold as to emphatically add, pious hypocrisy, should have no qualms calling a spade a spade. What prevents one from doing so, is suggested in my pamphlet: How To Return to Palestine This Day Forward.
What can one do about it today? Practicably nothing, as suggested in: “Of Ostriches and Rebels on The Hard Road to World Order”.
But I pray that I am mistaken, that Machiavellian political science and infinitely deep pockets of the oligarchy exuded through their tax exempt foundations, private central banks, income tax levied upon masses, and national debt levied upon nations – an inflexion of power which can bring combined superpowers to their knees – can straightforwardly be trumped by copious narratives of dissent chiefs and plebeians' abundant prayers!
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.

Detail-1 Rothschild Governance by Networks

Correspondence between Jeffrey Blankfort and Zahir Ebrahim
From: Project
To: Jeffrey Blankfort
Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 7:51 PM
Dear Jeff,
I am not sure that you would necessarily care to know my opinion – but I thought I'd forward you the following letter nevertheless. It is a short communication to an MIT co-alum who had asked me for my opinion of your recent interview ( Jeffrey Blankfort: Chomsky misfires on US-Israel relations — By Kathleen Wells on November 4, 2010 ).
Just as you observe in your interview of others who don't seem to [perceive] some other daylights, my own take is similar, that “It's like the monkey: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.” ...
With Best wishes,
----- Forwarded message ------
From: Project
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010
I finally got some time to read the interview – and read almost half-way through until I got bored. Mr. Blankfort is both perceptive and accurate, as far as he goes. I learnt some interesting factoids in it, like He is Jewish, that he had joined AIPAC, etc.
I admire Mr. Blankfort all the more for his standing up to what is right and moral irrespective of his own tribal affiliation, and his not giving in to expediencies and abhorrent political realities on the ground. The latter argument is Noam Chomsky's forte, and my good professor has made them time and again, all of which I have deconstructed in considerable depth in my 2007 essay “The endless trail of red herrings”.
More pertinent to your inquiry however of what I thought of this interview, the issue of the Jewish Lobby in the United States – which Professor James Petras itemized here:
and this was my letter to Professor Petras for the energies he spent compiling his excellent list:
James Petras' list includes only a subset of the hundreds of Jewish organizations throughout the world, and almost all the national and international level think-tanks along the Hudson and the Potomac, not to forget Hollywood/newsmedia moguls, nor the average Jewish person who is suckled on the mother's milk of Zionism since birth which creates that tribalism that Mr. Blankfort mentions.
For my take on the Jewish Lobby's efforts for Zionism – the root cause – please see the first portion of this article:
How comes Europe succumbs to the same pressures as the United States?
What is the common prime-mover?
Blankfort is silent. I am not.
The difficulty is that Mr. Blankfort's silence is more meaningful and instrumental than my loquaciousness because I am an unknown, whereas Blankfort is nationally and perhaps internationally known.
But I seek truth wherever I can find it – perhaps because I belong to the 'untermenschen' class bearing the brunt of “imperial mobilization”. And all the Jewish exponents of truth that I have ever met, including who take bullets to their head to uphold decency and morality, directly affiliate with the civilization bringing us “imperial mobilization”:
And here is a letter I had written Mr. Blankfort:
And the following outlines my thoughts on how to deal with Zionism, as activists, with Mens et Manus:
Best regards,
--- --- ---
From: Jeffrey Blankfort
To: Project
Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 10:52 PM
Dear Zahir,
I do not mention the Rothschilds because I have yet to see a single shred of evidence that they control the world's money supply, the CFR, or anything else of such substance as to influence the way the world works. As far as I can tell whereas once members of the Rothschild banking family ran the banks of Western Europe, I see no evidence that they do so today. There are a number of other Jewish bankers who have surpassed them in influence and if the Rothschilds were as powerful today as you claim them to be, there would be some kind of trail to find at least a hint of what they have been doing.
I have a number of personal suppositions about how and why certain things have happened but if you read what I say and write I am always able to document my claims. In my radio program today, I explained in brief how the Balfour Declaration was the payment to the Zionists for their having succeeded in bringing the US into World War One at a time when the British were about to lose and I provide unimpeachable documentation for that statement. It is one of the most important buried pieces of the puzzle that most advocates for Palestinian justice have ignored. Here is the link:
In my interview I spoke only about the Zionist operations in the US because they are far and away the most important but I am more than aware of their activties in the UK with all the major parties as well as in France, Italy and Germany. It is their money combined with their organization, plus the fact that there is no serious political opposition that enables what I call the Ziontern (Zionist International) to have its way. As in the US, most Palestinian and pro-Palestinian groups are hesitant to take on the Ziontern internationaly or in their own backyard because they are either dominated by or intimidated by what Gilad Atzmon first identified as "Jewish tribalists," who while they may be genuinely anti-zionist are as ready and willing to shield Jews from collective blame for their crimes against the Palestinians and Lebanese as any Zionist. These are the folks who routinely attack me on their blogs when I expose their hero, Chomsky.
Again, if you have any direct evidence with unimpeachable sources that the Rothschilds are running everything or for that matter anything behind the scenes I would appreciate receiving it but lacking that up to now, I never mention their name apart from Walter Rothschild being the recipient of the Balfour Declaration. It was Judge Louis Brandeis, however, an American Jew, who apparently was the one who convinced Woodrow Wilson to break his vow to the American people to go to war. And it was Edward Bernays, Freud's nephew and the father of modern propaganda who devised the campaign to get Americans willing to support the war.
Finally, I support BDS, not because that is the ideal tool for international organizing against the Zionists but that given the relative little strength we have as a group, it is the only means at the moment that has a chance of getting anywhere. Here, in the US, I would like to see campaigns exposing every member of Congress who has sworn their loyalty to Israel, be they Jewish or not, but I don't see that happening. Even at Al-Awda conferences, there is a tendency to stay away from discussing such political activity.
--- --- ---
From: Project
To: Jeffrey Blankfort
Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:41 PM
Thank you mon ami for your reply. I will compose a thoughtful reply later...
regards, zahir.
--- --- ---

- ### -

The author, an ordinary researcher and writer on contemporary geopolitics, a minor justice activist, grew up in Pakistan, studied EECS at MIT, engineered for a while in high-tech Silicon Valley (patents here), and retired early to pursue other responsible interests. His maiden 2003 book was rejected by six publishers and can be read on the web at He may be reached at Verbatim reproduction license at

First Published December 31, 2010 | Last Updated 01/04/2011 09:00:06 7040 | Links fixed January 31, 2016

My experiments in confusion - Part-3: The Omnipotent Rothschilds By Zahir Ebrahim 20 / 20