Zahir Ebrahim's Letter to John Kaminski – Are you Jewish?

My Confusion Series: Part-7b   Part-1 , Part-2 , Part-2-Balfour , Part-3 , Part-4 , Part-5 , Part-5b , Part-6 , Part-6b , Part-7 , Part-7b
To: John Kaminski
Subject: Are you Jewish John Kaminski?
Date: February 16, 2011
Cc: John Kaminski's short distribution list
Dear John,
I somehow seem to have got on your short distribution list John. And I am borrowing it, as an exception, to reply all, because I believe they might also find this inquiry letter interesting. I hope the recipients don't mind this gratuitous intrusion and there will be no further communication email from me to these folks on Cc. This letter is posted on my website as well.
Your take in your interesting article which you emailed me this morning, 'Just another Hebrew pharaoh - Egypt today exactly mirrors Bible’s phony Exodus story', is evidently similar to this one by your fellow-comrade in common-cause, Christopher Jon Bjerknes:
John, you have previously not replied to my response-article to your vitriolicism against the Jews which I had left as a comment link for your article: .
Perhaps you did not see it. For your convenience, my response-article may be read here:
I had previously observed in the conclusion of an even earlier rebuttal article exactly year ago:
“Finally, I do thank you Mr. John Kaminski for your often provocative and bold viewpoints, whether or not one agrees with them. I think it is courageous and un-inhibited people like yourself who continually push on the acceptable envelop of thought and its public expression, and thus widen the discourse space for many more ordinary people like myself to have our tiny voice (for what little that's worth). Minimally, the brownshirt thought-police will chase you before they might chase me (or perhaps they will soon lock up all the non-conformists regardless)! Be that as it may, let's not get carried away as the self-proclaimed avantgarde in provocative thought, into realms of moral absurdity, especially in falling prey to the antagonists own vices: guilt by association, the race factor, arrogance, and ignorance.” ---
And I continue to still believe that your opinions are refreshingly outside the box – especially in an age where sheep roam under the delusion of being their own master on the free range of the internet where opinions count for knowledge, and farce for wisdom. However, its extreme nature in almost all of your articles on Jews, makes me wonder about the primary motivations for your ongoing rabid and rather blanket take on Jewry.
Such extreme vitriolicism appears to be an anomalous characteristic of many former Jews as well. I see this all the time – a metanoia, first seeded by the historical Saul to become Paul, created Pauline Christianity. That Christianity, as you well know, became the bedrock of the Catholic Church when Roman Emperor Constantine munificently adopted it as the religion of empire. Today, the textual sources which Constantine officially Canonized as constituting the official Bible for the Christians, is still the source of all Christian theology in the West, whatever its variant. It is the same Bible which you rant upon – albeit the Old Testament compilation more than the New, it seems. A very careful history of the Bible's compilation can be gleaned in the interesting fully footnoted book by a Muslim “Jesus: Prophet of Islam”. It is somewhat of a counterpoint to works of Westerners like: “The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity”. But of course, Muslims are always biased (sic!) – only the great minds of the West, the Shem, are the torch bearers of enlightened civilization (that's your own inspiring mentor Eustace Mullins speaking in the Curse of Canaan). What would, therefore, a Muslim know of any matter, as is often thought in almost all occidental scholarship. I am sure you are not among them John, but I only mention it here to state a factual matter up front to preempt such thoughts were they to gratuitously occur in the sub-conscious mind of those reading this.
The canonized Bible of Constantine has become the unquestioned theological basis of all Western Christendom, and is so even today. This is just an unarguable historical fact, not an opinion – and whatever be the original sources which comprise it. Thank you Paul – the noble Jew who hated the gentiles in his earlier incarnation, but miraculously transformed into their lover on the road to Damascus, and subsequently became the Jews' own greatest antagonist. I think Paul might rightly be called by those who like such labels, the first “self-hating” Jew. His contribution, post-metanoia, transformed the message of a Prophet of God, into one of son of god, with theological convolutions of a Holy Trinity to ensure no one could ever escape its blessings. Some interpret that historical stuff in today's post-modern New Age, as the legatees of ancient gods and godheads, in the limit, the narratives of a simple people ruled by the Annunaki describing their gods. This is the latter day atheists' spin on the Bible. People like Zecharia Sitchin lead that exponentiation, and receive much publicity and felicity, from the Western presses. That's it – it's just the modern day atheists' enlightened spin.
But the world is populated by others too you know – held in perpetual check by the 'ubermensch' in every age who oft proclaim they know better than the 'untermensch' they lord over, the illumined ones out to teach the unwashed masses what they simply cannot know of their own limited mind. I am sorry to suggest that most metanoia, evidently, also tends to breed this Platonic disease of the chosen people, of being privileged somehow, and in this case to know more than everyone else, and therefore, justified in trying to teach others by insulting and denigrating everything that's precious to their beliefs. Perhaps this is called progress... or being progressive. I don't know.
And I wondered John, if you were previously Jewish yourself.
As an aside, I am not sure why Westerners add “ish” to any question on, about, or regarding the Jews. As a Muslim, I would find 'Muslimish' or 'Islamish' a tad bizarre, even offensive. But I sense that the Western Jews themselves rather prefer that the goyem refer to them thusly. I was first informed of this “preference” while still a new foreign student in America's prestigious MIT, when I wrote a report on Albert Schweitzer, my long time hero as a teenager, for a psychoanalysis class, and the nice American typist whom I paid to type my lengthy paper (as my typing speed on the old typewriters was dismal and error prone), changed my usage of the term “Jew” to “Jewish”, coldly informing me that in America, we don't use the word “Jew”. That was decades ago. But now, her delicate correction appears even more pertinent. So I use that “ish” only in careful politeness, even if it sounds rather absurd to me to ask someone whether they are “Jewish”, instead of straightforwardly asking whether they are a Jew.
I saw the following comment left for the same article noted above, by ostensibly your fan with the nom de plume Whitewraithe: , where she wrote: “Um, well, John, weren't you formally a Jew yourself? ...”.
Christopher Jon Bjerknes repeated that same sentiment but quoted others: “I note in this context that Smith/Setters told me that John Kaminski is a Jew” here:
So, I wrote to Christopher Jon Bjerknes, knowing him even less than I know you John, and both only from your respective writings and not personally, asking him, inter alia: “I would like to know if you are aware, whether John Kaminski has himself ever admitted to it.” That letter may be read here:
And I would be entirely remiss if I did not ask you that question directly myself. I don't know why I hesitated earlier – but since I have asked others, I would like to ask you to clarify yourself what you were before your metanoia, i.e., transformation.
John Kaminski, where you, ever, Jewish? Were your immediate parents, or grandparents, Jewish? What caused your profound “metanoia”?
I am sure metanoia is a good thing – we all want to change for the better – but I am very afraid of it among leaders and opinion-makers. Because, it is also a perfect cognitive infiltration device, used for creating diversions, divisions, fragmentations, false oppositions, inoculations, Limited Hangouts, and in the limit, “beneficial cognitive diversity” (the fancy terminology is courtesy of the erudite Jewish scholar and President Obama's information Tzar, Cass Sunstein). We see what Saul, as Paul, did to the message of Jesus, a Prophet of Islam. We also see this common tendency to denigrate past affiliations in the reborn rebel latter day leader of the gentiles, Israel Shamir, and many former Jews, now Christians, or atheists, who tend to pose as great friends of the Muslims and of all goyem, by overtly expressing their profound hatred of anything and everything Jewish. I suspect that the long-ingrained Jewish ethos of “enemy of my enemy is my friend” might drive this fantasy that others too hold the same time-serving mercenarial ethos.
You can see Israel Shamir's outing in my article, wherein, as far as I am concerned, he is still very much a Rothschild agent, asset, or sayanim, despite his pretenses:
And with the announcement in Harvard Crimson that “Dershowitz Joins Legal Team for Wikileaks”, there can be no doubt of Israel Shamir's still existent connections to his pre-metanoia life.
We have all sorts of metanoia'd people among Muslims too – on both sides of the fence, and throughout Islamic history. While the terminology might have a Greek/Christian pedigree, its functional semantics appear almost universal. We have more than our fair share of former Muslims who turned atheist and who now bash Islam in due diligence as House Negroes of the white man. And we also have the other extreme, of enlightened Mullahs and pontiffs, some suffering from metanoia, others from uncle tom's disease, and still others outright being implanted Trojan Horses, who diabolically only serve imperial interests. They do this very eruditely too – quoting this and that text, this and that scholar, almost always expert in the Qur'an too, while covertly dishing a hegelian mind-fck to the Muslim public in almost all of our many sects.
They often take a range of diverse positions, and administer what Ezra Pound termed the Technique of Infamy – tell opposing lies to keep people embroiled in vehemently arguing which of them is true. That's how we have so many sects among the Muslims, almost of every flavor you can think of. They serve imperial interests in so many ways that the recorded imperial history of the Muslims itself offers unvarnished testimony of it. If you are not too old to learn something new that lies outside of your presuppositions, please see my essay Between Islam and Secular Humanism in World Government. And here is a link to the most recent instance of cognitive infiltration by Muslim harlots, whereas, you are, I am sure, already quite familiar with the “rebel” types as they are heard so much in the daily news riling against Islam to sell their reform books on what Daniel Pipes lovingly calls “moderate Islam”:
Your persistent Jew bashing John, while ignoring my detailed counter-responses as a Muslim, makes me think, well, putting words in Hamlet's mouth: “the lady doth protest too much, methinks,”.
I find your blanketly misanthropic take on "Jews" both irrational and not supported by the Muslim experiences of millennium in the East, where Jews and Muslims have lived amicably side by side for eons before the onset of Rothschild Zionism, and the Khazarian led agenda for world domination by the international bankster fraternity who are anything but moral Jews. I happen to see their Zionist flock as being no less indoctrinated than the flag waiving Americans who 'United We Stand' with any tyranny so long as their own 'American Dream' remains secure. I have already explored these views on self-serving indoctrination in the Preface to my 2003 book, and in my Pamphlet How to return to Palestine, so won't delve further into this here. My referencing it here is simply to convey the straightforward idea that the 'untermenschen', while being oppressed and killed by the white man, are not fools when it comes to understanding the white man's burden. We may be powerless, but not imbeciles.
Furthermore, as a general comment, when atheists denigrate Jesus, a revered divine figure for Christendom comprising over 3 billion peoples on planet earth, one might remain aware that they are also denigrating a revered Prophet of the Muslims, a people more than 2 billion in number today – not that anyone is particularly concerned with how the Muslims feel, bearing the full brunt as we are, not just of “imperial mobilization”, but also the convoluted “doctrinal motivations” used for seeding, enabling, and breeding it to launch one-world government at Muslims' and Islam's expense.
But Muslims are completely left out of the white man's almost infinite discourses. The space is almost entirely carved out by all breeds of the white man, former Jews, and current Jews, and our own uncle toms and house negroes for good measure, all of whom rather tell us who our enemies are, and how might we defend ourselves. What's wrong with this picture?
I hope you will understand my concerns, think them important enough, and address the question raised in this letter and in the rebuttal article cited above which is titled: The white man's burden still looks white in color - Zahir Ebrahim's Response to John Kaminski's “There are no good Jews”.
We don't all have to agree on all points of debate obviously – and in fact, if we did, we'd pretty soon be reduced to reading and quoting our ownselves (this witticism is G. Edward Griffin's) – but I am very wary of people who claim profound metanoia as their principal reason for their new found moral activism and friendship of the 'untermenschen'. Because, these new activisms often also turn out to be taking the most extreme positions, when not outright administering “hegelian mind-fcks” that is. I hope you can amply perceive the cause for my deep concern for devilishly implanted Trojan Horses through cognitive infiltration, employing hegelian dialectic variants playing both as friend and enemy, in the article noted above. While I do believe that you are an earnest fellow John, your professed extreme hatred for Jews is a red-flag for me.
You will also see similar concern expressed in my letter to Christopher Jon Bjerknes for his own blanket usage of the word “Jews” when he is really referring to the deeds of “hectoring hegemons” many of whom indeed also happen to be from the Ashkenazi Jewish cabal today.
Why do you post-metanoia boys limit the urge to conquer, to plunder, to be uber alles, only to the Jews?
The newly reformed moral white statesmen conveniently seem to forget, in their pursuit of profound nationalistic patriotism, that the United States itself was forged by the colonists, Christian pilgrims, atheists, possibly some of your own distant ancestors escaping persecution in Europe not more than a couple of centuries ago, by diabolically and brutally genociding ten million of its native inhabitants. Were those settlers of the New World primarily Jews too? Some of them may have been, but history testifies that the genociders of native American Indians were mostly pious white Bible thumping Christian folk. Has a lot changed between that mission civilisatrice, and “Lord Jesus” returning to Afghanistan today: ?
This pattern continually repeats today – see for instance part4 and part5 of my confusions for its apparent ubiquity among the white man suddenly filled with noble piety, who previously, not too long ago, were just as 'ubermensch' in their own conquests of the 'untermensch', as their new nemesis evidently is in surpassing even them today in their diabolical plans. The grapes are sour indeed!
Okay I am a cynic, but a realistic one who has come to finally comprehend the age-old political science of hegemony in just about as small a measure as my professional field of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science where I earned my living. Here is a bio link in case you are wondering what the bullshit detector of an engineer who builds in the real world, looks like. Only my applied field today is different, the skills are qualitatively still the same. And I can earnestly tell you that I am surrounded in bullshit everywhere I turn. I sense you might have the same feeling – which is why we are rebels, the malcontent, possibly sharing the same ultimate fate of choosing the hemlock over co-option, and most likely not even being offered the choice. But before then, I have an opinion different from yours. Therefore, I hope you might respond back with some coherence to this Muslim field negroe's concerns – being a singular unheard voice challenging the white man's choruses – that is in more than just a stonybrook silence (which is of course always the penultimate in coherence).
Please note the addition of two names on the Cc, the two authors whom I quote on your being a Jew in this letter: whitewraithe, and bjerknes. I do not know if that's really the latter's current email address, so if someone knows a different one, I would appreciate this letter be forwarded to Christopher Jon Bjerknes on that address as well.
Thank you for your time.
Best wishes,

John Kaminski's Reply – White Man's Burden Redux
From: John Kaminski
To: "Project"
Subject: Re: Zahir Ebrahim's Letter to John Kaminski – Are you Jewish?
Date: Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 7:22 AM
Let me put it this way, Zahir. No, no and no. And, the most important
point, the only people who ask me this question are secret Jews
themselves. You are behaving like the Jew Scott Summers, and the Jew
Alex Jones, pressing a point that has already been answered a million
times, notwithstanding the proclamations of unstable characters like
Daryl Bradford Smith, Eric Hufschmid and yourself, catering to the
obsequious whims of Jews by deviant behavior such as this. You are a
subversive traitor to humanity, I think. Do not write me again with
your time-wasting gibberish. For the record, and you can quote me:
"Christians and Muslims are trapped in the same delusional mindlock as
the Jews, worshiping an all powerful tyrant in a neverending drama the
kills people over the quibbles of syntax while ignoring and
suppressing the divinity, and connection to the overarching divine
source, that animates us all. Of course the Jews know Jesus never
existed because they invented him as sort of a permanent punching bag.
But Christians and Muslims don't know the foundations of their
religions are pathologically bogus, and provably so by multiple
academic disciplines. This is the mindlock we are trapped in, but
you'll never realize that because you're trapped in your fetid and
toxic dogma. Goodbye. Don't write again. You're wasting my time, and
the time of everybody else on this list.
Best wishes,
John Kaminski

Zahir Ebrahim's Response to Nihilists February 17, 2011
John Kaminski evidently carries the heavy burden of the same la mission civilisatrice upon his bent back as his uber alles ancestors, the same superiority complex, but with a nihilistic variant to bring it up to date with modernity. He is a perfect Trojan Horse cheerleader for Secular Humanism, the new religion of the globalists in their coveted one-world government:
“But Christians and Muslims don't know the foundations of their
religions are pathologically bogus, and provably so by multiple
academic disciplines. This is the mindlock we are trapped in, but
you'll never realize that because you're trapped in your fetid and
toxic dogma. Goodbye. Don't write again.”
John Kaminski's rabid expression of hatred for the Jews and everything Jewish, which prima facie appeared inexplicably irrational to me coming from an ostensibly thoughtful pen, finally begins to make some rational political science sense as well. I may be wrong here of course, but unpeeling just one layer down, it appears to me that he is playing “noora kushti” – WWF wrestling – on the one hand for “cognitive infiltration” (see Cass Sunstein), while offering the preferred solution of the globalists on the other by denigrating everyone else's religion in the same vein. Clever. See The Hegelian Dialectics of Deception to comprehend the subtext of the agenda of this nihilist character who licenses himself to denigrate anyone and everyone.
Where else, and among which people, is such a trait very visible?
In Zionistan – where spitting on Jesus, and reviling Islam is an every day occurrence.
How can this ethos be brought to America and to the rest of the West, and ultimately to the world? Which are the two most powerful social and populous forces on the planet which must be destroyed in order to do so? The Christians and the Muslims of course, each fueled by an inexplicable and un-quantifiable ethos which relies on faith in something outside of themselves, in a Creator. The Hindus will surely be the next, as their belief in Karma and reincarnation enables them to withstand immense amount of suffering without becoming nihilists. Therefore, such a peoples, in the limit, always can draw upon their spiritual sustenance to respond to the nihilism being forced upon the world, and outlast it from generation to generation as history is ample evidence. Faith in the divine, in powers outside of one's earthly control, is a powerful antidote to nihilism. The only way to co-opt such a force, is from within, by eroding away established religions under the knife of uber rationalism. I have previously addressed this in my essay: Morality derived from the Intellect leads to Enslavement!.
Witness the ongoing attempts to denigrate Christianity by the very rebel exponents who ostensibly also rile against the Jews as its reformers, in my response to Gilad Atzmon: Response to Gilad Atzmon's 'In Defence Of Larry David' : Don't see the courage or the genius in pissing and spitting on others' sacred things, pee and spit on your own!
To get rid of all fundamental forces which are antithesis to the nihilism of the New World Order, all established religions must be undermined and subverted very diabolically. They can't easily come in through the front door for the level of erosion of faith necessary to construct the religion of Secular Humanism, so they have to come in through the backdoor. I have covered this in: Letter to Muslims: Is Islam really the Last Obstruction to World Government and Absolute Scientific Global Dictatorship?
Focussing on what is already overtly hideous in dusty old books which some are goadingly encouraged to follow to create believable pretexts, is just one of these methods of subversion. This can be seen in practice in how “Islamofascism” is constructed – by creating indoctrinated patsies on a national and global scale and manipulating them to perform the desired service with calculated design in which the diabolical lies are different at every level.
So who is using the Jews and irredentist Zionism in this way? Who created Zionism and its vile agenda upon Palestine, as well as the seeds and orchestrations of over two hundred years of machinations and world wars to culminate in one-world government under the nihilists' control? Who protects both with an “iron wall” that none can breach? See part1, part2, and part3 of my confusion series, and this editorial: Is Zionism a sophisticated Hegelian Dialectic?
Most importantly, the success of any scheme of conquest relies on the empirical observation of many a sociologist that less than 2% people actually think, 8% think they think, and 90% would not be caught dead thinking! These 98% tend to look to others to do their thinking for them.
Therefore, more people will rise to the challenge of thinking for themselves – thinking does not imply becoming nihilists, or to stop being Christians or Muslims or Hindus or Jews or giving up one's civilization and culture, or rabidly turning against it to show post-modern liberal progressiveness, etceteras, but thinking for themselves on how hectoring hegemons from time immemorial have been enslaving human beings into voluntary servitude, only the latest modus operandi being by dishing successive hegelian mind-fcks to the unsuspecting – more difficult it becomes to manipulate and to malevolently control society by the ruling oligarchy.
Today, that oligarchy has become global. Their agenda is to control the entire world in a one-world government. Its initial phases, as argued by Bertrand Russell in his ode to the oligarchy, Impact of Science on Society, must be controlled through a draconian police state: “World government could only be kept in being by force.”
And the more Orwellian its character, so much the better. Thus enters the concept of Newspeak in every police state.
However, police state is not something that is indefinitely sustainable, as argued by Aldous Huxley. The human spirit eventually rebels against the point of every bayonet. This was even hinted at by George Orwell in the conclusion of his fable 1984. It is also entirely empirical from even a cursory study of human history.
In a talk given in 1961 at UC Berkeley on the thirtieth anniversary of his seminal fable Brave New World, one learns from Aldous Huxley, straight from the horses mouth, of the pervasive social engineering forces diabolically arrayed to co-opt human beings into actually getting us to love our own servitude as the ultimate in malevolent revolution for adverse social control:
“In the past, we can say that all revolutions have essentially aimed at changing the environment in order to change the individual. I mean there has been the political revolution, the economic revolution, in the time of the Reformation the religious revolution. All these aimed, as I say, not directly at the human being, but at his surroundings, so that by modifying the surroundings you did achieve, at one remove, an effect upon the human being.
Today, we are faced I think, with the approach of what may be called the Ultimate Revolution, the Final Revolution, where man can act directly on the mind-body of his fellows. Well needless to say, some kind of direct action on human mind-bodies has been going on since the beginning of time. But this has generally been of a violent nature. The techniques of terrorism have been known from time immemorial. And people have employed them with more or less ingeniuities, sometimes with the utmost crudities, sometimes with a good deal of skill acquired by a process of trial and error, finding out what the best ways of using torture, imprisonment, constraints of various kinds.
But as, I think it was Metenif said many years ago, you can do everything with bayonets except sit on them!
If you are going to control any population for any length of time you must have some measure of consent. It's exceedingly difficult to see how pure terrorism can function indefinitely. It can function for a fairly long time, but I think sooner or later you have to bring in an element of persuasion. An element of getting people to consent to what is happening to them.
Well, it seems to me that the nature of the Ultimate Revolution with which we are now faced is precisely this: that we are in process of developing a whole series of techniques which will enable the controlling oligarchy who have always existed and presumably always will exist, to get people actually to love their servitude! This is the, it seems to me the ultimate in malevolent revolution shall we say.” -- Aldous Huxley, 1961 speech at UC Berkeley, minutes 02:23,
The shortest and fastest path to that ultimate revolution, and to be able to sustain it indefinitely in one-world government, is to get people to join the nihilist social order of Secular Humanism wrapped in Orwellian Newspeak!
A clear horrid taste of what Secular Humanism actually means in Realityspeak, stripped of its polished Newspeak vernacular which comes decorated in platitudes and the United Nations' Human Rights sloganeering, is captured in this candid statement of a United States Supreme Court Justice:
“Nothing is more certain in modern society than the principle that there are no absolutes, that a name, a phrases, a standard has meaning only when associated with the considerations which give birth to nomenclature. To those who would paralyze our Government in the face of impending threat by encasing it in a semantic strait-jacket, we must reply that all concepts are relative.” -- Justice Vinson, U.S. Supreme Court, 1951 AD
And that rebellion against injustice and oppression by fellow man, that rebellion against moral relativism, is the very raison d'être of Islam! To subvert the genuine teachings of Islam, one has to come through the backdoors of deceit. A detailed exposition on Islam in this context must wait for another day, but the power of this context as the last real deterrence to world government can at least superficially be gleaned in my Letter to Muslims already cited above.
In conclusion:
“trapped in your fetid and toxic dogma. Goodbye. Don't write again.”
Right, Mr. John Kaminski! I have seen far more fetid convolutions at stripping people of their civilization and heritage than yours to get the foolish 'untermenschen' to accept the ubermensch's noble piety – try this from 1835.
The white man's burden may soon become too heavy to carry on the bent backs of even its most ardent exponents, whatever the incarnation, whatever the incantation. Perhaps it already is.... Run!
Run Kaminski Run – perhaps there is still some place to hide under the rock where you crawled out from, before it turns to dust.
Zahir Ebrahim
The Plebeian Antidote to Hectoring Hegemons

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

02/17/2011 14:45:08 5213
Links fixed, title updated to reflect theme, on October 05, 2018

White Man's Burden Getting Whiter With Metanoia: Zahir Ebrahim's Letter to John Kaminski – Are you Jewish? And Response