Letter to Tareq Fatah From Zahir Ebrahim

Friday, February 8, 2019 04:00 pm
Dear Mr. Tareq Fatah,
AOA (as-salamu 'alaykum),
I would like to begin this short letter with a passage from the Acknowledgment chapter of my book as I sense that it perhaps applies to you as much as it applies to any genuine gadfly, but to each in their own way:
Whereas, the Sherlock Holmes of the day first look for the motivations behind events, and gauge the forces, both near and far, that drive them. They strive to unravel all of truth's protective layers. On their profound intellectual courage and strength of character to see through the smoke and mirrors, to boldly proclaim two plus two make four and not five, to take the path not taken, to rise above their own narrow self-interests and to make no personal profit from their labors, this scribe humbly stands, and for which he is thankful that his own physical, psychological, and spiritual makeup endears him to their lonely path on the road less traveled. When the empire applauds, one is serving the interests of empire. When the choir applauds, one is preaching to it. When the people applaud, one is serving their interests. This is self-evident; a universal moral truth that is beyond doubt. So who applauds when one serves the interest of truth? There is no applause on this road not taken by others. Only the hemlock. The slave of truth always stands alone, lonely, and accepts the hemlock. The master of truth is always surrounded by cheers, accolades, prizes, and dies holily in bed. The author is grateful to his fate, destiny, naseeb, and all that in his life's experiences which has brought him to its crossroads, for that small share of loneliness on the road less traveled which is his cherished prize.
I have chosen to believe about you Tareq that you are most sincere in your critiques; that you are not a propagandist, nor an ideologue, but call it as you see it as per your own natural conscience and your own natural reasoning capacity and psyche. Indeed, it takes a great deal of courage to speak on the issues that you do with your sharp counterpoints that shake established views among both the elites and the plebes in our subcontinent.
Some of these views I also share the basis of your analysis and have written about these myself. For instance, on the partition of the subcontinent being an imperial play on the grand chessboard of its time, see: Indian Independence Act 1947 - The Search for Historical Truth: Partition of India and Palestine. When one acquires that perspective on global affairs that led to the Indian subcontinent's blood-partition, the rest naturally follows. Thus, my deconstruction of “Sir” Allama Iqbal's role in driving for separate nation for Indian Muslims as a stooge of Pax Britannia when the two people had lived amicably for a millennia is both factual and self-evident: Sacred Cow: Allama Iqbal - Marde-momin or Superman?. My take on Qadiani-Ahmedi issue and their marginalization you may find similar to yours, but not exactly the same, is here: The Role of Shias in Qadianis' Kafirdom. I also share the same view of separation of church and state for a pluralistic society and have advocated it as the foundation of My Naya Pakistan - Now That We Are Here What Should Be Done.
As you already know and is necessary to state here for completeness, not just many different types of Muslim people, Muslim sects, and racial and ethnic and cultural divides exist in Pakistan, just like in India, each with their own understanding of what is Islam, but also a substantial non Muslim minority also exists in Pakistan --- the white portion of Pakistan's flag. Like yourself, I find this rather discordant with the times. One size antediluvian Islamic Sharia laws (derived 1200 years ago by men now long dead, as you also continually point out to your own fawning flock of secular humanists in both India and Canada), cannot, and do not, suit all Muslim sects today, let alone people of other religions living in that state, and which, by definition, lead to discrimination based on belief system. The band-aid for this in our subcontinent is the still existent Personal Law invented by the British colonizers for ease of colonial governance of a pluralistic multicultural society. Its significance of course is more pertinent in India today than in Pakistan where its Constitution is mostly "Sunni Islamic". Whereas, my understanding is that their respective Personal Law governs Muslims and other minorities in India, while the secular Indian Constitution governs the majority, as well as others when not in conflict with their Personal Law. I am not sure which prevails when these might be in conflict, but I imagine Personal Law would, that being its raison d'être, and that is just absurd in a modern nation-state for both the egalitarian constitution and a parochial system to co-exist. What for, except for intellectual laziness, or primacy, or both!
The British invented the Personal Law for India's many religions in order to pacify the Indian subcontinent so that they could rape and plunder their Jewel in the crown quite peaceably, and continue to exercise their effectiveness as the ruling state of the world for over two centuries. The British empire did not much care which idiotic beliefs (from their point of view), and which azan, the colonized slaves preferred for themselves --- they held them all in equal contempt quite generously as per their la mission civilisatrice --- and they gave to each flavor of their slave their own preference of religious laws so long as these did not interfere with the business of Pax Britannia and the harvesting of their colonies.
The Personal Law was a handy band-aid to administer the slave colonies and this should finally be obvious to the Muslims of the subcontinent. Like all the rest of the vestiges of colonial existence, from our Penal code to street names to education system to language co-option, it also needs to be exorcised in favor of one set of laws for all under one constitution for all, and I cannot agree with you more on that topic Tareq. And this applies to the entire subcontinent.
I don't quite understand why it is not obvious to Muslims that the antediluvian Sharia laws are unable to keep up with the principal values of modern nation-states to lend egalitarian justice and fairness to all its peoples. As for instance, in the matter of triple talaq debate in India where you most eloquently point out the bizzaredom of antiquity that is so discordant with modernity. The same debate exists in Pakistan, but is more muted, and I am sure also in Bangladesh. Modern world has moved on a bit from that time when women were treated as mostly chattel and for bearing babies, but the foundation of Personal Law that the British empire instituted to pacify the pluralistic population of India have not kept up with the advancements in civilizations and our understanding of our place in the universe.
However, in fairness to the public's rights to choose their own governance and not be dictated from the mount of the white man's burden, it should also be stated that for monolithic theological states where only one type of belief might exist among its peoples, or, where the people have come to agree to live by a min-set of religious beliefs common to them all because they do want to live by their own religious principles for all spheres of life, it is the peoples' right to choose whatever rules and laws they wish to devise for their theological state without discrimination among their own peoples and without exercising primacy upon others. And there is nothing in principle, that might preclude a religion based theocratic state in such a monolithic circumstance. While I think this is largely of academic interest in modern times, it still needs to be stated because the foundation principles of any modern state must be only that which give justice and fairness of opportunities to its peoples, to grow and flourish to the best that they can become. In practice however, all modern nation states, except perhaps Iran, have a pluralistic population and therefore, in our modernity, such a separation between religion and state is mandated by necessity, of having one single set of fair laws for all that give fair justice to all without discrimination. You are at your best Tareq when you make such rational arguments, and I applaud you for your sense of fairness.
Similarly, Tareq your view of Allah's Islam vs mullah's Islam --- I have written a whole book on that topic titled: Hijacking the Holy Qur'an and Its Religion Islam, with the difference that it is neither pandering to MI-6's version of Islam, nor to CIA's version of Islam, and nor to the cultural Islam that history bequeathed to us which you call mullah's Islam under imperial Islam. I invite you to read at least some chapters from my book to understand how the religion of Islam is hijacked not just by the mullahs which you are so vocal about, but also by Pax Americana today that you are entirely silent (or ignorant) about. See Swallowing The Red Pill by Zahir Ebrahim for links to free PDF of my books and pamphlets should my evidence based empirical counter-analysis and re-synthesis of current affairs and history interest you. My views generally do not tend to interest the kulle-ilm and kulle-aqal among the prominent intelligentsia who are empire's favorites, nor among those who seek anointed experts and brand names to be shepherded by for their principal source of epistemology. Perhaps you don't claim either station, I don't know. I abandoned pied pipers in all domains of human affairs, including religion, many years ago.
Your other views Tareq, I don't share at all, and indeed feel that not only are you grossly mistaken at times (such as blaming 9-11 on Muslims as if you are totally blind to the empiricism of the catastrophic demolition of the WTC towers), but that at times you betray the deep seated hatred and anguish that you must genuinely feel in the depths of your soul which makes you appear just as passionately fanatic in your diatribes in public as any two-bit mullah you frown up. That's your shibboleth to bear and I won't pick a quarrel with you on these latter matters --- as for instance, your profound hatred of Pakistan.
Just to introduce myself, I am a Pakistani living in the United States as its permanent resident for nearly four decades. I still carry one singular passport and one singular nationality by choice, my Pakistani passport and citizenship --- unlike you who went and took the Queen's oath to serve and protect her dominions ---- and you called us “gutteristan” which should be “bombed” in one or more of your video conversations, etc.
That's okay Tareq, as you have every right to your unwholesome views and it must take great courage to express these from the safety and sanctuary of Canada and India. Indeed, I think when people are passionate in their views of hostility to the point of irrationality, it is best to leave these topics aside as these don't make for any basis of sensible conversation, or for enhancing understanding of any subject except psychosis. I am not a psychiatrist – and in these times, who doesn't need a couch!
However, I believe that it takes a tad more courage to speak on the issues that you carefully don't speak on, or cunningly take the establishmentarian view in obviously your own self-interest (such as the narrative of empire on 'war on terror'). I deem engaging you on these topics more significant to the existential crisis mankind faces today, as I find it discordant that an intellectual of your capacity and learnedness is unable to understand very straightforward matters as if you are blinded by passion. What are these? I invite you to read my essay: FAQ What is an Intellectual Negro? (an abbreviated version is The Niggers of Pakistan) in which I am as candid as you tend to be when you are at your most rational, without mincing words, and let's talk if you wish on these matters where I believe you distort, perhaps only inadvertently, only unknowingly. For if I believed otherwise, that you were mainly a vulgar propagandist for empire, I wouldn't bother writing this letter, and nor would I ever expect a response.
Tareq, I have observed that you mostly tend to speak to the choir, that all your interviewers already agree with you, or are at least sympathetic to your worldview, that all your conversations with your most ardent antagonists end up in shouting matches in which you seem to carry the loudest voice (read that stick), that you have really never had a civil conversation with anyone even half as intelligent as you not already in agreement with you, and that in your charismatic debates, you wisely exhibit the best example of both self-selecting idiotic interlocutors, and incestuous self-reinforcement. After watching hours upon hours of your conversations on youtube that date back to several years, I have concluded that an intelligent fellow like yourself does not really require a self-selecting conversation as a crutch to make you look good. That, you really do try to stand for truth --- but, and unfortunately so, not always the whole truth that is inconvenient to the massa or your wonderful life in Canada and the West. Here you display your best hypocrisy that only the intellectuals of empire tend to display, but they do this believing in their own integrity and truthfulness as the massa.
I offer you a different conversation. A civil intellectual one of high potency with a field nigger (myself), to show you where you are perhaps mistaken, or hypocritical, or, have become the house nigger, and giving you the opportunity to correct my misapprehensions if any. This is so because, as I stated at the very outset, I have chosen to believe that you are most sincere in your critiques even when I think you are grossly mistaken for your errors of both omission and commission. Should you visit the Bay Area in California, I invite you to visit with me in person and we can chat at great length in the spirit that is quoted in the lede passage such that the whole shall come out greater than the sum of its parts.
I would have written you an even shorter letter Tareq had I more time. Mark Twain, as you can perhaps tell from my borrowing his sentence, is among my favorite American critics. I am sure you have read his The Diaries of Adam & Eve – just in case you haven't, you will have a most enjoyable read with your wife.
With Regards,
Zahir Ebrahim
California




Open Letter to Tareq Fatah --- The Pakistani-born Canadian Indian at heart Gadfly who Shakes up the Psyche of his People --- From Zahir Ebrahim

Swallowing The Red Pill by Zahir Ebrahim


Caption A gestalt shift in perspective is required to understand primacy (Image courtesy of Desiree L. Rover's Presentation on Vaccinations, Aug 2009)
Caption A gestalt shift in perspective is required to understand primacy (Image courtesy of Desiree L. Rover, Aug 2009)
Swallowing The “Red Pill”
Since you are reading this, you have evidently decided to take the “Red Pill”. If not, please exit now.
So let's swallow it to dive a bit deeper into the rabbit hole and see how primacy engages with political philosophy without a crisp understanding of which, you can never fully comprehend its apparent madness. It is anything but mad --- unless primacy itself is considered mad. It should not be. It is an instinct for unbridled dominance in the higher order primates and arguably underwrites some evolution of the same species on the natural time scale termed “survival of the fittest” through “natural selection” – the nineteenth century cause célèbre of Darwinianists. But social Darwinianists, the neo Darwinian predators who apply “natural selection” to themselves, the Übermensch exercising their “will to power”, wish to accelerate that natural process unnaturally through their quest for full spectrum dominance over all things, all life, all thoughts, and all systems. And that quest for primacy and social engineering poses a real danger to normal peoples and to their civilizations.
That predatory instinct should be treated as the most formidable enemy of mankind and its expression a ruthless virus. Unfortunately, the instinct for primacy has instead been made noble, its expression labeled “foreign policy”, its victims “useless eaters”, its pursuit “sagaciousness”, its scholars “intellectuals”, its strategists “think-tanks”, its authors “national security advisors”, its stooges “terrorists”, its justification just one short sentence: “Hegemony is as old as mankind.”, and its ultimate prize: one-world government. Who dare standup to all that “nobility”?
A majority of rational people among the public who are smart enough to recognize this “nobility”, just slink away from confrontation thinking to themselves that that's how all empires work. All empires throughout history have been driven by their so called “divine destiny”; have harbored no concept of morality except for controlling its public; and pursued their own best imperial interests which have only been checked by other empires doing the same. And they have all disappeared on the sands of time. This present empire is going to be no different, even if it flies the indomitable Stars and Stripes of Pax Americana today. How long will it last? So why bother with who's behind it? Instead, let's just go back to basics of what it means to be human and the purpose of life: to seek the promised Heaven beyond (if religious) and self-actualization (if secular). Either way it is far more productive than standing up to the predators of earth who have always existed, and always shall exist, and also far more rewarding if you go along with their agenda or don't oppose them. All you have to do is to make sure you aren't among the “useless eater” category and you are all set. Only fools with nothing to lose wage revolutions. And where has that got us? We are caught up in even more global tyranny today. So they reason, rather effectively too.
This is the pragmatic crowd of sophisticated survivors who well-understand primacy of the uber privileged class and wish to live for their own narrower self-interests without too much selling of their soul. They easily rationalize away their hearing no evil, speaking no evil, and seeing no evil. These are not ignorant or lazy peoples, but are just too poor in time and inclination to dig any deeper than just that general homey understanding. More often, the few pragmatists who understand the system are themselves so dependent on it feeding them that they have no choice but to be a part of it and to defend its very existence. So thanks for choosing the “red pill” --- if you don't know what that is, see the Hollywood fable “Matrix” where the character Morpheus offers to take the character Neo down the rabbit hole of reality if he took the “Red Pill”, and to let him stay in his dream world believing whatever he wanted if he took the “Blue Pill”.
As the effect of the “Red Pill” kicks in, which it evidently is since you are still reading this, let's dive straight into the rabbit hole to see how deep it really goes and why escaping from it has become so difficult. However, as the Oracle reminds the character Neo in the aforementioned fable: you have to make up your own damn mind!”
When the absolute rule of gods on earth was challenged by plebeian norms, whereby individual rights and personal freedoms were equated by the Renaissance philosophers with inalienable rights; whereby the West, only just emerging from its Dark Ages, started to harken back to the democratic ideals developed by the Greeks at the zenith of the Hellenic Civilization of empowering the “demos”; and even young thinkers in the Middle Ages boldly started proposing end to tyranny of the gods on earth (for example, Etienne de La Boétie, in his 1523 The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude); Machiavelli was introduced to the Prince to enable exercising the same prerogatives as absolute kings but under public illusions of “freedom”.
Political theories from Plato to Hegel illustrate how the state can easily take over the public mind to govern it with an iron fist with even a measure of their own consent, if the reins of suzerainty are held in the hands of Übermensch. As Goethe, the German philosopher, had trenchantly observed: “none are more helplessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free”. Which is why Plato advocated the “philosopher-king” for governing a republic in the best public interest, with the highest moral standards of truth, reaching closest to divine truth, rather than in narrow self-interest. Nietzsche trumped Plato by killing God and advocating man become his own god with his will to power. Nietzsche's one tiny change to Plato's “philosopher-king” has made all the difference to political theories of primacy. It has lent primacy respectability!
Arguably, Nietzsche is effectively Plato except for that one tiny change to “philosopher-king” rule being closest to divine rule. The superman replacing God now defines “truth” itself, and thus its rule is itself “divine”! Reading Plato with that mental substitution of “philosopher-king” being the superman leads to the empiricism of today. Plato had warned of it in his Simile of the Cave where the controllers outside the cave subjecting the cave dwellers to total perception management are indeed Nietzschean superman. Reading Nietzsche with Plato in the backdrop explains a great deal of modernity. It would not be inaccurate to aver that our dystopic modernity is underwritten by the philosophical product of Plato and Nietzsche merged together. The role of state in The Republic was picked up by Hegel with the tiny modification that the state is not defined to serve the people in their own best interest (the platitudinous by the people, for the people, of the people, sold to gullible public), but the people are obligated to serve the state in its best interest. The state is supreme, over the rights of man, and run by superman. This is termed statism. Its continuous growth and expansion with the superman in the driving seat is only natural, and its culmination is automatically world superstate. But at times: (1) illusions of “demos” self-empowerment have to be maintained (“democracy” is usually a good bet); and (2) conflicts and revolutionary times fashioned and manufactured to destroy existing world order in order to raise a new world order from the ashes left behind in the age-old spirit of raising the Phoenix from its ashes (“Hegelian Dialectic”).
The superman often says with his lips exactly opposite to what he does with his hands without any moral compunction. I did not make that up. Here is Arnold J. Toynbee, Director, Royal Institute of International Affairs, (Chatham House) London, in 1931:
“We are at present working discreetly with all our might to wrest this mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local nation states of the world. All the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands, because to impugn the sovereignty of the local nation states of the world is still a heresy for which a statesman or publicist can perhaps not quite be burned at the stake but certainly be ostracized or discredited.” -- Arnold J. Toynbee, The Trend of International Affairs Since the War, International Affairs, Nov. 1931, pg. 809
The alert of mind would immediately ask: (1) what is the Royal Institute of International Affairs, London? And (2) why are they speaking of wrestling away sovereignty in 1931 just as they have dismembered the Ottoman empire into small nation-states after the first World War, and are about to dismember the Indian sub-continent and Palestine in the same way after the next World War?
Well, the RIIA in London is the twin sister of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, both offspring of the defunct Round Table which played a crucial role in international geopolitics. in orchestrating war and peace, in the early part of the twentieth century as the privately funded oligarchic arm of Britannia, just like the East India Company was before it. The Round Table was replaced by its cross-Atlantic twins after World War I to better coordinate the oligarchy's manipulation of world affairs. And do you know what the Round Table was, if you have even heard of it?
Founded with Cecil Rhodes immense largesse to bring the wayward child across the Atlantic that had broken away so impetuously, the United States of America, back into the fold of the British empire; and to orchestrate world affairs for perpetual rule by the white Anglo Saxon race with the invisible oligarchy at the top of the rule chain. Once again, the financial oligarchy behind the scenes, the unaccountable superman, managing world affairs from behind the shadows of their political front-men who are groomed into positions of legislative power to do their private bidding by enacting public legalisms in their favor. That's what the Rhodes scholarship is all about for instance, to select and groom the worthy craftsmen of empire.
As for why speak of extracting sovereignty from nation-states on the one hand while these are being carved into existence from defeated empires and former slave-colonies of the British empire, one has to get deeply into the philosophy of conflict as a means of transformation, and the break-before-remake cycles to incrementally create the ultimate world order in which all nations have lost their sovereignty! Yes, one-world government, and that statement, as a reminder, is circa 1931, well before World War II, the Cold War labeled World War III, and this lifetime of Global War on Terror today which is labeled World War IV.
That should also answer the next question to pop into the alert mind: who is it that the famous British historian Arnold J. Toynbee is referring to as the director of RIIA? Who do they represent who “are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands”? The oligarchy that finances the organization through its tax-exempt foundations and private trusts. An alert mind may also wonder how they can lie like that and openly admit to it so unabashedly in specialized publications like International Affairs (and Foreign Affairs, its New York twin)? Because, these are typically only read by the elites involved in the game of international primacy who are more used to the higher order thinking of the higher order primates than the ordinary common man suffering his morals. But the agenda is not a closely held secret, it's all in the open. Yet the public mind is fed on the fodder of nationalism and patriotism in battle fields across the world while global governance is orchestrated behind the scenes by the oligarchic instruments quite openly.
The rich bibliography on this subject goes back to several hundred years, to the natural philosophers, but I am only aware of the actual evidence of conspiracy being unearthed going back to Adam Weishaupt of Bavaria in 1775, at the very founding epoch of the United States of America, and it shows a remarkable continuity of agenda, motivation, and secret cabals across generations and continents, all sharing in one common goal: global primacy of the superman. The empiricism du jour of the unrelenting drive towards global governance under the pretexts of managing crises and conflicts, speaks factually to that long running sport of the gods:
“We are living through exceptionally difficult times. Financial crisis and its dramatic impact on employment and budgets, the climate crisis which threatens our very survival --- a period of anxiety, uncertainty, and lack of confidence. Yet these problems can be overcome, by a joint effort, in and between our countries. 2009 is also the first year of Global Governance with the establishment of the G-20 in the middle of financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the Global Management of our Planet. Our mission, our presidency is one of hope, supported by acts, and by deeds.” -- Herman Van Rompuy, EU Council President, press conference Nov. 19, 2009
And why not, as the superman argues? As god, the superman is at liberty to define the social values, laws, rules, morality, news for others, but not be bound by these himself – for he is no longer beholden to, or bound by, the ordinary moral standards of good and evil. He is beyond all that humdrum normalcy introduced by religions which interferes with evolution to create a higher order being and higher order society based on man's reason. He is above all others who subscribe to any divine prescription since he knows that God is dead. He, as god himself, can define morality for others, termed Secular Humanism, but not be bound by it himself as the age-old privilege of gods and supergods. We see that moral relativism in the statement of the United States Supreme Court justice quoted earlier. This is poignantly caricaturized in the Greek myths of the pantheon of gods who treated man as sport, to be played with, often for their own rivalries. Doesn't that have an uncanny resemblance to the gods of modernity, secular and religious, on the throne and the pulpit, elected and inherited, who demand obedience from man, create wars, pestilence, pandemics, financial boom and bust cycles, predictable financial collapses, as sport at the expense of the bewildered public who easily comply with their life and labor under illusions which have been carefully fed to them? Instead of rivalry among themselves, the gods today appear to be rather cooperative among each other in playing their game of primacy for the whole earth as the prize.
An episode of this sport of gods was even witnessed on live television in the Untied States in 2008, when the instruments of the oligarchy compelled the superpower Congress to bailout the financial institutions with trillions of dollars in public debt despite wide spread public resistance to giving such subsidy to the financial oligarchy at the public's expense. Few comprehended the game at that time for none of the financial experts and most read financial rags analyzed the real diabolical purpose for which the bailout was given legally by the United States legislature – to create such unpayable national debt, secured of course with public taxation, that the superpower and its public would forever remain in the clutches of oligarchic control, to be played at will. There is a diabolical Talmudic theory of interest on unpayable debt, forbidden in all religions except in predatory theology, that underlies the empirical control over state and political succession seen time and again throughout history until today:
“Give me control of a nations money supply and I care not who makes it laws.”
The United States Congress and President participated in that sporting subversion of their own nation contrary to public interest – and it would not have mattered who were occupying those positions. Every set has, since the founding of the Federal Reserve System in 1913, and will in the foreseeable future, comply with the will of the oligarchy. That oligarchy today proudly extols the virtues of national debt on the Treasury website as the price of liberty:
Caption The United States debt, foreign and domestic, was the price of liberty.
Caption “The United States debt, foreign and domestic, was the price of liberty.”
What can the hens do when all positions to guard the hen house are always held by foxes who legislate for the superman? No one can rise to those positions of political power except wolves and foxes beholden to the superman.
The financial bailout by the venerable American Congress is veritable proof of that empirical statement. Even the blind academic experts should be able to see it. But evidently don't. And for good reason. Here is W. Cleon Skousen, a former FBI agent, commenting on Carroll Quigley's revelations in Tragedy and Hope of the financial oligarchy orchestrating world government, and explaining how so few can so easily purchase the silence and cooperation of so many:
“The real value of Tragedy and Hope … [is the] bold and boastful admission by Dr. Quigley that there actually exists a relatively small but powerful group which has succeeded in acquiring a choke-hold on the affairs of practically the entire human race. Of course we should be quick to recognize that no small group could wield such gigantic power unless millions of people in all walks of life were “in on the take” and were willing to knuckle down to the iron-clad regimentation of the ruthless bosses behind the scenes. As we shall see, the network has succeeded in building its power structure by using tremendous quantities of money (together with the vast influence it buys) to manipulate, intimidate, or corrupt millions of men and women and their institutions on a world-wide basis.” -- W. Cleon Skousen, The Naked Capitalist, 1970, pg. 6
Like Plato had argued for his “philosopher-king” being the natural shepherd of the public 2500 years ago because of his virtue of being closer to truth, Nietzsche too argued in the 19th century that this modern superman knows best due to his higher intelligence and reliance on reason rather than superstition; except that the superman knows best in his own self-interest rather than necessarily public interest now that there is no God and no absolute code of moral conduct. And that is just natural selection at work. The superman is more intelligent, more self-empowering, more adept, than ordinary man. Therefore, he is naturally privileged to become the shepherd. Or, as some argue, the wolf, in sheep clothing. It is admitted openly by the wolves themselves: “some are sheep while others are wolves, we are the wolves”.
Here is one of the wolves at work constructing our “contemporary history” before our very eyes by putting all the preceding political theory of primacy to good use and expecting only rejoicing by future generations for what is ultimately to be raised from the ashes of “total war” – and hopefully you now understand what it is that the wolf claims “our children will sing great songs about us years from now”:
“No stages. This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq… this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don’t try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war… our children will sing great songs about us years from now.” -- Michael Ledeen, speaking at the AEI (American Enterprise Institute), 10/29/2001, via historycommons.org
For the superman, ends justify the means. The calculus of primacy permits no moral considerations to interfere, which are left mainly as a lip-service for those too squeamish or feeble-minded to accept higher order thinking of achieving objectives in the military-style. The ends are therefore beyond the calculus of morality, beyond good and evil, and determined solely by will to power. Therefore, any means can be adopted to reach those objectives – because, by definition, the ends are now “noble” since these are defined as such by the new god, the Übermensch, using his superior intelligence and reason. Lies, deception, deceit, in that path is merely “noble lies”. Any mayhem is “noble mayhem”. The invasion of Iraq was based on such “noble lies”, for instance, and even admitted and dismissed by empire as merely an “oops – intelligence failure”! All of 9/11 narrative and concomitant acts of barbarism by empire is based solely on this “noble” ideology of the superman. It affords those flushed with the hubris of unassailable power the license for primacy as “legitimate” social Darwinianism. As they say, only the king can wear the crown, legally. And the king made that law himself.
Ask yourself: does a shepherd ever worry about slaughtering sheep if he has to supply mutton to his customers or for his own feast? The sheep is just a herd, a resource to be managed, bred, controlled, and harvested. And, for that matter, as the aristocratic British philosopher of the oligarchy, Bertrand Russell stylishly observed of the public mind that is reduced to serfdom: it is as likely to revolt against its chains as the sheep revolt against the habit of mutton eating!
Indeed, virtually all of modernity is run by supermen who have killed off God and rule for their own primacy objectives that are now global, by employing diabolical recipes laid out by political philosophers dating as far back as Plato, to Machiavelli, Nietzsche, Hegel, Leo Strauss et. al. These techniques span the full gamut of creating opportunities and situations in the form of crises, catastrophes, war; all harbingers of controlled chaos also called “revolutionary times”. Only during these revolutionary times what is inconceivable in normal times is made realizable. The control of the public mind is key to the successful harvesting of these opportunities for major social transformation. If the superman fails to capitalize on these rare moments, a whole world is lost. I did not just make that up. Here is David Ben-Gurion:
“What is inconceivable in normal times is possible in revolutionary times; and if at this time the opportunity is missed and what is possible at such great hours is not carried out – a whole world is lost.”
There is more empirical reality captured in that short description of political theory of modern primacy than in the venerable platitudes of the Holy Bible and the Holy Quran combined --- that's tabulating the belief system of close to three quarters of the earth's population. For it explains virtually all of modernity which no Heavenly Book can. The divine theological prescriptions of virtue of every religion which seemingly occupy so much of man's time to escape from reality, do not claim to be political treatise on techniques of primacy. But rather, as for instance, the Holy Qur'an claims itself to be moral guidance for the virtuous, the Bible is claimed to be moral guidance for sinners, etc. You cannot really comprehend how the mind of modern infamy works by studying virtue. Those seeking to understand the twisted times they live in by studying holy books and in holy sermons, which evidently are many if full occupancy of mosques, churches and temples of every sort throughout the world in this resurgence of spirituality in the age of nihilism is any indication of how people are using their free time, may be better off studying political philosophers instead. Beginning with Plato's Simile of the Cave in The Republic, one would immediately realize that religion in the hand of superman is just another tool of primacy. Mosque occupancy since 9/11 for instance has increased many fold --- and what do they rehearse there? The 'good Muslim' vs. 'bad Muslim', 'moderate Islam' vs. 'militant Islam' Hegelian Dialectic (!) without a clue as to how that controlled narrative being broadcast from the pulpit is in fact the imperial narrative manipulating their mind. And consequently, controlling their behavior in getting the Muslim public alongside the world public “United We Stand” with empire's barbarianism.
Obedience is the operative watchword in whatever “ism”, statism, barbarianism, patriotism, nationalism, religionism, secularism, globalism, communism, socialism, and yes, also capitalism which is dominated by global MNC sharks today as the corporate army of Western power bloc much like the East India Company was an instrument of power for Britannia for over 200 years. Some argue that MNCs are indeed the new rulers of the world but they misperceive. The MNCs are only the supra-national instruments alongside the UN, the World Bank, the IMF, the WHO, by which the oligarchy rules not just our national but also our daily lives.
Insights as you have hopefully gained in this short space already, you cannot, do not, and never can, get in any normal academic setting, or from the news, or from the intellectuals of empire unless you are being groomed for the role of primacy, for all live off the largesse of empire manufacturing both consent and dissent to control the public mind. Normal people don't read any of that stuff, let alone understand it, but the superman does! Which is why it is hard for the public mind to fathom the mind of superman, or comprehend its tortuous scripts of mass behavior control.
A straightforward and rather objective litmus test of the real existence of this ubiquitous control system is readily available to anyone. After all, empiricism is an easily verifiable adjudicator of truth or falsity of any falsifiable proposition. Try pursuing a free inquiry into the HolocaustTM in any academic, professional, or arts and letters setting in any nation in the West. I believe in Europe and Canada you are still put in jail as of 2014 if you reach an intellectual conclusion other than the one legally sanctioned. In the United States you at least cannot find professional employment afterward if you can even survive the ordeal at the hands of the ADL. All the vaunted freedoms of the West which permit burning the Holy Qur'an, making fun of the Prophets of Islam, including Jesus, suddenly stop at the doorsteps of the HolocaustTM gas chambers. The same sacred cow sanctification process is being applied to 9/11. Apart from what the public is made to believe through ubiquitous narrative control, what they so easily subject themselves to at American airports is open for all to see. The added force of the President of the United States, Barack Obama, issuing a stern warning to skeptics hasn't quite helped that great intellectual and personal freedoms of the West being shoved down every nation's throat:
“I am aware that there is still some who would question, or even justify the offense of 911. But let us be clear. Al Qaeeda killed nearly 3000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women, and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaeeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries, to try to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated. These are facts to be dealt with.” -- President Obama, Cairo Egypt, June 4th 2009
Few comprehend that diabolically scripted play of obedience training for complete conformance to authority in the new world order. In fact, virtually all choose to just accept it as the new fact of life without a second thought --- as expected, that from Act I, if you can get the public mind to accept absurdities, you can get it to accept any atrocity, including its own servitude, and those born afterward will know nothing better. It is already well understood by social engineers that none will even have the inclination to put it all together after it has been in play a few years as it would have become force of habit, sort of like Pavlovian training. Taking shoes off at long security check-posts automatically, without being asked, is evidence of the success of this instance of training. So is the number of protests launched with the TSA by the traveling public. The last time I checked the statistics reported on TSA website, which was in 2010 or 2011 I believe, shockingly less than 0.5 percent of the millions of people going through US airport body scanners or enduring the physically intrusive pat-downs and body searches, had filed a complaint.
The easy acceptance of that vile absurdity is an undeniable fact of engineered obedience training, like all the rest of social engineering the world has witnessed since 9/11. And it all began by simply accepting the official narrative of 9/11 of threat from “militant Islam” spun ubiquitously by the Mighty Wurlitzer and its assets. Just like the HolocaustTM before it, this too has quickly become a presuppositional axiom behind every public thought as well as public policy, both domestic and international, in virtually every nation on earth --- even including Iran and Russia which judiciously refrain from calling the Big Lie for what it is in all their opposition to the hegemony of the United States. I have never understood this --- if they were real antagonists of the superpower, this Big Lie is the singular Achilles' heel of all liars for any nation to call a spade a spade and initiate its effective take-down.
Its absence worldwide only indicates that all international enmities themselves are fabricated, controlled, synthetic, WWF style wrestling having freedoms only in saber-rattling and orchestrated warfare following the convoluted political theories of crisis creation and responding to the crisis with premeditated plans which are pivotal in social engineering for seeding transformation to the new one-world. Whether the manufactured crisis is real and existential, or remains mythological and mainly propaganda, is immaterial as both require that the public mind believe it to be real and posing an imminent danger to its well-being. Its success relies on two plus two making five to the public mind. And all efforts are made in that direction. Therefore, two plus two making four is suppressed, just as we see is transpiring in the ubiquitous narrative control which is now global, across civilization and national boundaries. It is the one thing which unites earth minds today: the threat of 'al-Qaeda', once stateless, now rising in the form of 'IS'. Thus creating more opportunities for “total war” for Oceania.
Which is precisely why all of newsmedia, all establishmentarian scholars, and all dissenting con-artist intellectuals controlling the permissible range of opinions to exclude what's not convenient to the ruling powers and their agendas, mainly focus the public's attention at the events themselves wrapped in narratives upon narratives. It's called freedom of speech and democracy, and the public rejoice at the openness of their Western society, while the colonized nations rush to emulate Western standards. Which is how the public mind is made so easily and uniformly across the world.
The drive for the standardization of worldviews and values is no less strident than the drive for the standardization of global laws. Both are necessary predicates for the standardization of human behavior --- from its natural diversity divided into tribes and nations, beliefs and values, all humming and vibrant in their own local cultures like the birds in a thriving forest and therefore difficult to control all at once, to its uniform and streamlined servitude long desired by the oligarchy. The honest to goodness observation made by Aldous Huxley to the students at the University of California, Berkeley, more than half century ago is even more empirical today:
“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.
And this is a problem which has interested me for many years, and about which I wrote thirty years ago a fable, A Brave New World, which is essentially the account of a society making use of all the devices at that time available, and some of the devices which I imagined to be possible, making use of them in order to, first of all, to standardize the population, to iron-out inconvenient human differences, to create so to say mass produced models of human beings arranged in some kind of a scientific caste system.”
In all this drive for the standardization of human beings to be ruled just as theologically by an all powerful financial oligarchy from the top of the control pyramid as in any predatory religion which puts man in the service of fellow man while paying all the lip-service to high-minded morality, there is no room in established scholarship, politics, press, or religious fervor, for unraveling truth's protective layers. Duh!
Whereas, the Sherlock Holmes of the day first look for the motivations behind events, and gauge the forces, both near and far, that drive them. They strive to unravel all of truth's protective layers.
On their profound intellectual courage and strength of character to see through the smoke and mirrors, to boldly proclaim two plus two make four and not five, to take the path not taken, to rise above their own narrow self-interests and to make no personal profit from their labors, this scribe humbly stands, and for which he is thankful that his own physical, psychological, and spiritual makeup endears him to their lonely path on the road less traveled. When the empire applauds, one is serving the interests of empire. When the choir applauds, one is preaching to it. When the people applaud, one is serving their interests. This is self-evident; a universal moral truth that is beyond doubt. So who applauds when one serves the interest of truth? There is no applause on this road not taken by others. Only the hemlock. The slave of truth always stands alone, lonely, and accepts the hemlock. The master of truth is always surrounded by cheers, accolades, prizes, and dies holily in bed. The author is grateful to his fate, destiny, naseeb, and all that in his life's experiences which has brought him to its crossroads, for that small share of loneliness on the road less traveled which is his cherished prize.
The author thanks the reader for even reading this far. This work is certainly not intended to be the last word on the oligarchic primacy for world government and their diabolical modus operandis, but the mere introduction to the subject in completely honest terms to the best of the author's limited abilities given the reign of universal deceit and full spectrum control of the narrative in support of the mantras du jour. No other point of view is permitted to exist outside that narrative space of “respectability”. It is neither published by the “respectable” intelligentsia press nor given a fair hearing in their literary review spaces. The author fully expects his point of view to be met with resentment and denigration in some quarters. But the author believes that any such overt intellectual resentment can only translate to fostering a greater awareness and motivate further discovery of the topics only barely dealt herein. This would be a good thing. Therefore, what the author fears will happen instead is that the work will be completely ignored rather than intellectually refuted --- for silence on truth is the stronger method of controlling the narrative. Why draw attention to these matters even with their most eloquent denunciation and needlessly open the Pandora's box of public consciousness for the new generation growing up in total darkness of the predators scheming behind the scene? Thus, any overt resentment will likely take the un-intellectual form as it took during the French and Russian revolutions: “Beware of that man for he has written a book!” (heard in the streets of Paris, quoted by Nesta Webster). And: “Writers must be proscribed as the most dangerous enemies of the people” (Robespierre, quoted by Nesta Webster).
Click to Download PDF: The Poor-Man's Guide to Modernity  By Zahir Ebrahim | Project Humanbeingsfirst.org Revised and Expanded 9th Edition, September 11, 2015 Click to Download PDF: Pamphlet Undoing The Theft Of Palestine - From Genocide to Genesis in Zero Compromise (printable Pamphlet 8.5x11) By Zahir Ebrahim | Project Humanbeingsfirst.org Click to Download PDF: Hijacking the Holy Qur'an and Islam  By Zahir Ebrahim | Project Humanbeingsfirst.org Revised 2nd Edition, September 11, 2015
Click to Download PDF: The Global Warming PsyopsThat People Don't Get - Primer on Global Warming For Intelligent People  By Zahir Ebrahim | Project Humanbeingsfirst.org Click to Download PDF: Jerusalem: Reality vs Impracticality – The Protection Racket of the Jewish State One State For All  By Zahir Ebrahim | Project Humanbeingsfirst.org Click to Download PDF: Pamphlet The White Man's Burden  By Zahir Ebrahim | Project Humanbeingsfirst.org
For what its worth, this humble effort is dedicated to all who care — to lend them courage to reshape tomorrow's world. Or tomorrow's world will be an age of servitude far worse than today.
Zahir Ebrahim









Swallowing The Red Pill By Zahir Ebrahim