Zahir Ebrahim | Project Humanbeingsfirst.org
Friday, January 14, 2011 6:00 PM PST | Last Revised Wed, Jan 19, 2011 10:00 AM
In response to John Kaminski's article 'The moral treason of David Icke', let me first say that I have never met John Kaminski, but occasionally correspond with him – mostly to do with his opinions on religion – and enjoy the friendly jousting with a free-thinker that I imagine John is.
It is always good to communicate with rational peoples, and with people with differing viewpoints, in order to avoid the White House's incestuously self-reinforcing decision-making process in one's own worldviews.
But John Kaminski likes to talk more than listen, unfortunately. Don't we all?
How many writers actually listen to another? Or try to see a point of view which is inimical to their own worldview?
The following statement of Bertrand Russell, while true for most of us, is most true for writers, especially the free-thinking sort:
"What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index to his desires – desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts [or worldview], he will scrutinize it closely, and unless [and at times even when] the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance with his instincts [or worldview], he will accept it even on the slenderest evidence." (Bertrand Russell, Proposed Roads to Freedom, 1919, page 147)
In his article, I am afraid John Kaminski has not produced any evidence to explain his belief that most Jews actually believe in the abhorrent crap in the Talmud. Just because one is Jewish, it is presumed that they espouse the supremacist crap in their ancient books.
Secondly, even if that was the case, and John hasn't proved that, it is irrelevant.
Why should one not be free to believe any crap one wants?
One man's crap is another man's religion.
So long as that crap doesn't become “la mission civilisatrice” upon others, a domestic policy pivot to enforce unfair laws upon others, and a foreign policy pivot to wage wars of conquest upon others, or shall we call that “imperial mobilization” from Wounded Knee to Afghanistan, I have no problem with it.
Believe any god-damned crap one wants – just don't make me and others feel its pain!
So, the sensible point then is, criminal acts are crimes, not criminal thoughts.
Otherwise the thought-police may have us all locked up!
And this commonsensical principle was also re-established at Nuremberg very forcefully:
"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, Robert H. Jackson, Chief Counsel for the United States, 1946)
John Kaminski evidently believes that the Jews are the first-cause source of world's problems because they believe in some abhorrent crap of supremacy, derived from their scriptures concerning the “god's chosen people”, and corrupted by their Rabbis in their various Rabbinical Talmuds to mean: lord over the goy. You want to see perversion of thought? I can show you that perversity right here where it is not just the goy the Talmudic Rabbis are supremo to, but also supremo to god itself. Watch it in Masters of the World:
As discussed elsewhere, how is it that such rabidly perverted Chabad have such stranglehold upon the corridors of political power in the United States and Europe? Witness it visually in the following photographs:
So, for John Kaminski, the world is in a mess primarily because the Jews are inspired by their misanthropic dogma of 'god's chosen people' so appointed to lord upon the goy.
But wait just a second – even so, how are the Jews able to do it?
What gives them that “iron wall” protection which opens for them all the political doors in almost the entire Western world?
I have discussed this elsewhere in the context of Palestine. Here, the only point I wish to make is that these ill-begotten mullahs of zionism are representatives of a power so immense, that the errand boys in the front offices of governments across Europe, the United States, and Great Britain, recognize these perverted shlomos to be the emissaries of that immense power – no differently than the ordinary pale-skinned colonel in knickers could brow-beat an Indian Maharaja into handing over the previous year's harvest simply be demanding it!
Because, the Maharaja knew that the measly chicken-shit colonel who couldn't stand a chance in a boxing match with his Indian servant, represented an un-challengeable imperial power from across the seas! If the Maharaja wasn't nice to empire's errand boys with an open smile and open backside, the imperial power would bring on even greater munificence than simply the demand for the proceeds of last and this year's crop!!
That power, variously represented today by the "hectoring hegemons" rather than the pale-skinned colonel in knickers, and who eagerly front for a similar greater power of the oligarchs who rule from behind the scenes, happen to be self-proclaimed Jews across the hierarchy of power. And just like yesterday, many a white man from Christian lands, still willingly carry his own white Anglo-Saxon's pale-skinned burden of "la mission civilisatrice", upon his own tortuous back! As is reported in Edwin C. Knuth's The Empire of 'The City':
“Geopolitics, the study of the struggle for space and power, forms a well-developed science with an extensive bibliography, which conclusively impeaches the superficial fabrication, with which the American people in particular have been implanted with consummate cunning, that the great World Wars are caused by brutal attacks upon world law and order, instead of being the fully anticipated consequences of the most diabolical double dealing and planning by the secret 'One World' order of 'The City.' ... '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.'” (Edwin C. Knuth, The Empire of 'The City', 1944 AD)
I have previously responded to John Kaminski in an article sufficiently, which was a response to his own previous article: "Why no Jewish Writer Can Be Believed", to warrant rehashing it again. His present article is really more of the same, just going the next logical mile for John Kaminski to now condemn all Jews, writer or not. I'll just leave a link to my previous response below. I remain entirely un-persuaded by my free-thinker friend John Kaminski, as I do on many of his other points on religion as well. But my new friend and interlocutor is just as entitled to his beliefs as the Talmudic Rabbi. Just don't force its enactment upon others.
Incidentally, I will note as a Muslim, that Muslims have lived with the Jews for centuries and don't share such dismal sentiments of John Kaminski: “There are no good Jews. Except for extraordinarily infrequent exceptions, there ARE no good Jews. They take a vow every year never to tell the truth. They believe other people are animals, and that Jews can steal other people’s property with no penalty (as long as they don’t get caught by a gullible goy lawman).” And: “That’s why Jews make such bad neighbors, because we’re only just animals.”
The reader might take my opinion more than a tad seriously – since Muslims are the people today bearing the full brunt of the largesses of the Jewish Lebensraum in Palestine, and World Government in the 'untermenschen' nations, and if anyone should be upset, its us. And those largesses are being visited upon us in our cold red blood on the backs of the Christian white man now bringing us 'untermenschen' their Jesus ( http://youtube.com/watch?v=hVGmbzDLq5c ). The same white man who previously colonized my lands and left me English to write these comments with:
 What then shall that language be? One-half of the committee maintain that it should be the English. The other half strongly recommend the Arabic and Sanscrit. The whole question seems to me to be-- which language is the best worth knowing?
 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.
 It will hardly be disputed, I suppose, that the department of literature in which the Eastern writers stand highest is poetry. And I certainly never met with any orientalist who ventured to maintain that the Arabic and Sanscrit poetry could be compared to that of the great European nations. But when we pass from works of imagination to works in which facts are recorded and general principles investigated, the superiority of the Europeans becomes absolutely immeasurable. It is, I believe, no exaggeration to say that all the historical information which has been collected from all the books written in the Sanscrit language is less valuable than what may be found in the most paltry abridgments used at preparatory schools in England. In every branch of physical or moral philosophy, the relative position of the two nations is nearly the same.
 How then stands the case? We have to educate a people who cannot at present be educated by means of their mother-tongue. We must teach them some foreign language. The claims of our own language it is hardly necessary to recapitulate. It stands pre-eminent even among the languages of the West. It abounds with works of imagination not inferior to the noblest which Greece has bequeathed to us, --with models of every species of eloquence, --with historical composition, which, considered merely as narratives, have seldom been surpassed, and which, considered as vehicles of ethical and political instruction, have never been equaled-- with just and lively representations of human life and human nature, --with the most profound speculations on metaphysics, morals, government, jurisprudence, trade, --with full and correct information respecting every experimental science which tends to preserve the health, to increase the comfort, or to expand the intellect of man. Whoever knows that language has ready access to all the vast intellectual wealth which all the wisest nations of the earth have created and hoarded in the course of ninety generations. It may safely be said that the literature now extant in that language is of greater value than all the literature which three hundred years ago was extant in all the languages of the world together. Nor is this all. In India, English is the language spoken by the ruling class. It is spoken by the higher class of natives at the seats of Government. It is likely to become the language of commerce throughout the seas of the East. It is the language of two great European communities which are rising, the one in the south of Africa, the other in Australia, --communities which are every year becoming more important and more closely connected with our Indian empire. Whether we look at the intrinsic value of our literature, or at the particular situation of this country, we shall see the strongest reason to think that, of all foreign tongues, the English tongue is that which would be the most useful to our native subjects.
 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.
 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.
 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. -- http://columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00generallinks/macaulay/txt_minute_education_1835.html
The above excerpt is from a speech made by Lord Macaulay, dated the 2nd February 1835, in the British Parliament, and soon afterwards, we had the brown-sahibs cultivated in the Indo sub-continent, who became, just as Macaulay architected it for the British colonies: “a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect.”
Yes mes amis – la mission civilisatrice – the white man's burden.
I am not clear how many of those were Jews? Can you perhaps inform me?
And how many were Christians?
And how many were the Anglo-Saxons, who, inter alia, killed 10 million of the inhabitants of the native Americas, forcibly settled it with genocide, with General Sherman regrettably expressing to his son before he died:
“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.” (Press Release Gaza-Palestine, Fake Wars and Manufactured Enemies: What’s it all about? January 21, 2009 )
And how many were the pale-skinned Anglo-Saxons, who, again inter alia, physically and mentally colonized the 400 million peoples of India?
And pray tell how do I tell them apart – they all look white to me – from those pilgrims coming to America to kill the 10 million of its inhabitants, to the ones coming to India under the banner of free trade with the East India Company, and through deception and divide et impera, taking over the entire lands for almost 200 years? Just as the new white man, the Ashkenazi, has today taken over Palestine with support from the same Anglo-Saxon Christian civilizations employing the same principles as used to settle the New World. This was even un-abashedly admitted by George W. Bush on the occasion of the 60th Birthday bash in Zionistan which was enthusiastically attended by most Western European Christian heads of state: “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.”
Perhaps John Kaminski has a litmus test of piety for the white man – beyond his specious and outright facile "jew" vs. "gentile" demagoguery?
Also see my perspective article linked below: 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!
The white man is in no position to spout hypocritical morality, when now faced with an even more diabolical foe – as also directly expressed in my letters to Dr. David Duke and Professor Kevin MacDonald noted at the end. These two gentlemen also rile against the Jews, inter alia, for the multiculturalism and open immigration policies the Jews subversively introduced into the United States, and also into Western European countries, diluting what these Christian white man perceive as their white man's culture. In his extraordinarily perceptive book the Culture of Critique, Kevin MacDonald very eruditely analyzed 'multiculturalism' as the tribal dynamics of survival in a singular majority culture which has, at times, been inimical to the well-being of the minority Jews.
The following is what I wrote Kevin MacDonald for instance (see the sidebar), inviting him to interlocution, which was greeted by the usual enthusiastic silence – as I noted at the beginning of this article, which erudite pundit with a bullhorn likes to listen to the 'untermensch's' perspective, especially among the self-righteous who have performed their hajj after eating 900 mice! My letters to the erudite Professor of psychology, Kevin MacDonald, and to the (presumably) recovering Klu Klux Klanner, Dr. David Duke, both of whom evidently favorite of many a white supremacist now repackaging their age-old white man's burden as merely protecting the white man's culture from cultural contamination, un-mincingly hone in to the heart of the matter. Namely, that Western Christian hegemons who perfected the very modus operandi of divide and rule with perfidy and enslavement of the 'untermenschen', now facing an even greater 'ubermensch' hegemon chosen by none other than god itself out to conquer even them under the combined weight of their dysfunctional history of living together for 2000 years, are merely crying “foul” because the grapes are sour!!
This is so brazenly transparent that it can only fly unchallenged in the pious West, unequivocally demonstrating to the world that even in their virtuous dissent, the intemperate white man piously riling against other races and other religions using the race and creed constructs, principally remains a hectoring hegemon at heart. Of course a zebra can't change its stripes anymore than a feline can stop eating mice! Only the foolish mice would believe the cat's feigned protestations. This is the pertinent passage from my letter to David Duke which I invited Kevin MacDonald to refute if I was mistaken about grapes being sour:
'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.' --- Zahir Ebrahim in letter to David Duke, December 16, 2010
The la mission civilisatrice now evidently spans the gamut of Kaminski's inimical infighting: “There are no good Jews” to their mutual collaboration: “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.”
Yes, I am so impressed with this Hegelian mind-fck!
If non-Jewish Western folks riling against the Jews can only recognize that their problem in the so called "Judeo-Christian" civilization with the Jews is exclusively the baggage of their peculiar history that both are forced to share, and that, this baggage of history not only colors both sides' perceptions of each other, but also does not exist in the Middle East, Iran, India, and elsewhere, except for Zionism, which is indeed a project of the Rothschilds (links below), they might see that the grotesque generalizations made by John Kaminski like “There are no good Jews”, are not only patently false, but patently absurd.
If these generalizations were universally perceived to be true, then the Muslim societies where Jews have lived peaceably for centuries after centuries, and thrived at the same time, before the onset of Zionism which has today indoctrinated the world Jewry in no small a measure, would also share in that outlook. But we, the Muslims, generally don't. We are more than 1.25 billion Muslims, and more than 3/5 of all humanity lives outside the West who don't share such 2000 year old burden upon our cultural ethos. Hence, these bizarre generalization are false!
Okay, so if these are generally false, then are they particularly true merely in the West? I'll let the white man sort out their internal squabbles on who might carry the greater burden of la mission civilisatrice!
As for Lord Macaulay, despite his admission “I have no knowledge of either Sanscrit or Arabic.”, he bequeathed us more than just English, he bequeathed us the 'brown sahib', “a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect.”! The fifth columnist in our developing nations like Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh, our feudal classes, and most of our ruling elites, are largely drawn from this cess-pool of brown-sahibs and Uncle Toms.
And I am supposed to be all riled up against the Jews - who I believe to be as much victims of Zionism as any Islamofascist is of empire's cultivation, "tickling", and harvesting?
As any "Good American" is today of their own indoctrination?
If one can accept that Christian and secular Americans are indoctrinated from birth into a perverse flag waiving 'united we stand' asininity, what makes one reject that the Jews are also similarly indoctrinated since birth to their own perverse flag waiving for 'zionistan'?
Why the special exemption for the Jews from that acute understanding of social and political science?
Should the Americans be asked to give up Christianity and the phantasmal material in their Bible? They are bombing the world aplenty to surely warrant it! Then why are the Jews being asked to give up what's in their phantasmal books?
As a Muslim, I find much to critique in both faiths' scriptural texts that exist today, just as atheists find the entire lot rubbish, including my faith, Islam, and my holy book, the Qur'an; just like Jews didn't accept the Messiah, the Jews and Christians together didn't accept Prophet Muhammad, and the modern atheist thinks all of it is bunk and he knows best – the illuminated one!
Also see link below for my perspective article, Islamofascism - Zionofascism - Judeofascism - Christofascism - Neofascism etc. An equitable distribution of Collateral Language!
So, since one man's faith is another's cartoon, is John Kaminski out to insult almost 6 billion theistic peoples on the planet?
Because, that is the only logical conclusion to where his riling against the Jews will end!
Or, is it more sensible to judge people solely by their acts, not their beliefs?
The actors today of all the crimes against humanity, have indoctrinated their flocks equally to 'united we stand' them – both in the Unites States and the entire West, as well as among the world's Jewry, into respectively supporting the War on Terror, and Zionistan.
The indoctrinators in both cases, today, I believe, happen to be the same!!
Their plan, for world government, for making a "Zion that will light up all the world", has common financiers as most already know. But do see the study links below to learn from an 'untermensch' what he has learned perusing the fabulous “intrinsic superiority of the Western literature”!
I would just like to mention in conclusion, without harboring any false sense of modesty, that Lord Macaulay also made a mistake. Alongside the 'brown-sahibs' and assorted 'house negroes' and Uncle Toms, he also spawned English-speaking 'field negroes' who, albeit in a tiny minority, can today go head to head with any white man without adopting the white man's burden! The latter is a humble gift of my faith, and some commonsense. In fact, commonsense alone is sufficient when the heart is permitted to guide the reasoning of the head:
Thank you for reading – if you got this far!
Zahir Ebrahim | Project Humanbeingsfirst.org
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 http://PrisonersoftheCave.org. He may be reached at http://Humanbeingsfirst.org. Verbatim reproduction license at http://www.humanbeingsfirst.org#Copyright.
01/19/2011 10:00:06 5217
The white man's burden still looks white in color - Zahir Ebrahim's Response to John Kaminski's “There are no good Jews” 14 / 14