How many Jews does it take to confuse me? : Response to 'How many Rabbis does it take to create a Racist State?'

Extended Version - An Exclusive composition for UK readers via UK Indymedia.

Zahir Ebrahim | Project Humanbeingsfirst.org

December 10, 2010

The answer: Only one. Let me explain:

'In this particular case, it took 50 of them…' -- How many Rabbis does it take to create a Racist State?

'JERUSALEM (AFP) -- Fifty Israeli rabbis have signed an open letter warning Jews not to rent or sell property to non-Jews, saying those who do should be "ostracized," a copy of the letter showed on Tuesday.' -- December 07, 2010 'Don't rent to non-Jews,' Israeli rabbis warn

'Keep in mind that it is the Israeli himself that is the foreigner…. a fact that is way too often overlooked.' -- How many Rabbis does it take to create a Racist State?

But not according to the article by Ari Bussel, 'Israelis, Haters of Israel', appearing on December 9, 2010 at the Zionists' Canada Free Press:

'The Muslims have successfully engaged in deceiving the Western World. Deceit is permitted by their religion, even encouraged if it helps them attain their goals (of spreading Islam and reaching global dominance). It seems there was no one who excelled in it better, in recent history, than Arafat himself. He created the notion of a “Palestinian People,” of some “Nationhood” and craving for Jerusalem as its “eternal capital.” In short, he stole the Jewish-Zionist two thousand year history and rewrote it into his own narrative.

So successful was Arafat, that hardly even three decades later, the world itself stands saluting the idea of a Palestinian Statehood (in the boundaries of what was once known as Israel), with a Right of Return of millions of Palestinians that were kept in refugee camps throughout the Arab world, and with Jerusalem as their eternal capital.'

So, it appears that we have Jews piously arguing among themselves who “is the foreigner” and who has more “successfully engaged in deceiving the Western World”.

Just as the Jews have argued pretty much about everything else under the sun from time immemorial.

Today, it spans the gamut from the invention of the Jewish peoples to the invention of the Palestinian peoples, from the King's Torah showing in how many ways the holy Jews can kill the unholy goy with Rabbinical blessings along with the holy Rabbis' latest Fatwa quoted above, to how many ways to settle the land of Canaan, which, as Shimon Perez put it on the occasion of the 60th Birthday bash when welcoming George W. Bush to Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion Airport: “Welcome to the new Israel: Three thousand years old, and going on sixty”, while they all continue to live on occupied lands granted by imperial fiat.

Imperial fiat? Yes. Both, through one of empire's own instrument of the UN to legally sanction the theft of Palestine, ahem, the 1948 birth of the Jewish State after gratuitously Declaring the bold intention to birth-pang that fact into existence several years prior in 1917, and subsequently, through empire's active and tacit support for de-facto colonization since 1967 by sewing incremental fait accompli, i.e., sowing hard realities on the ground which are then argued as “impractical” to reverse.

So, even when I understand imperial fiat as it is pathetically public knowledge, whose claims can I believe? The guy who claims Jewish people are invented, or the guy who claims Palestinian peoples are invented? The guy who claims “Israeli himself that is the foreigner”, or the guy who claims the Palestinians “stole the Jewish-Zionist two thousand year history and rewrote it into his own narrative”?

What confusion!

Okay, some might say, I can try to think for myself.

But when I try to do that, I run into conundrums and observe rather bizarre and funny things.

For example, the funny thing that I observe in this instance, is that when the Jews argue so energetically either side of dissent or consent, they also continue to live on the lands of the Palestinian peoples.

They continue to pay their taxes and spend their earnings into the Palestinian people's oppressors' economy.

And they continue to lend full legitimacy to the oppressors of the Palestinian peoples by being part of the very system of oppression, from economic to academic to military, by their very act of being there and spending their intellectual and physical earnings into that oppressive system, by their very act of carrying the oppressor state's identification papers, passport and travel documents, and by their very act of accepting the Jewish state's racial hospitality on the mere basis of their presumed Jewish bloodline, and most important of all, by their coming to live there eagerly when they were not themselves born there whereas those not of the right bloodline who were in fact born there are not permitted to live nor visit there!

And I find Palestinian peoples eagerly appreciating the support of these pious Jews in trying to liberate the Palestinians so very much!

I don't know about you, but I find that kinda bizarrely funny, at least in a Kafkaesque sort of way.

Here are two examples which illustrate this Kafkaesque humor more concretely than just the general empirical observations above which refer to no one in particular.

This first one is an example drawn from the late prof. Baruch Kimmerling, long time hero of many pious 'Left' Jews who glibly criticize their adopted homeland, the side which forcibly occupied Canaan most recently of course, from my essay: 'The endless trail of red herrings'. This essay was written when prof. Kimmerling was alive, and a draft was emailed to him for his comments which he replied with stony silence.

--- begin excerpt from 'The endless trail of red herrings'

Uri Avnery's confessional "I am an Israeli patriot," explains this enigma in as much clarity as the following gem from Baruch Kimmerling, another Israeli Patriot who calls Israel his land when he wasn't born there, and identifies himself in the oxymoronic category of "Jew, atheist, and Zionist" where the latter two may be consistent, but how does that pertain to being a Jew?

“As a Jew, an atheist and a Zionist, I have two memorial days in my country, Israel. One for the Holocaust and one for soldiers who fell in wars. I also have one day of celebration, the anniversary of the day Israel declared its statehood. [...] Independence Day is a holiday for me, but also an opportunity for intense self-introspection. A person needs a state and land, and this is my land, my homeland, despite the fact that I was not born here. I am proud of the unprecedented accomplishments of this country, and feel personally responsible for its failures, foolishness, injustice, evil, and its oppression of its citizens and residents (Jewish, Arab, and others) as well as of those who are defined and defined themselves as her enemies. I know that my holiday, a day of joy and pride for me, is a day of mourning and tragedy for some of Israel's citizens and, more so, for members of the Palestinian people everywhere. I know that as long as we, all Jews everywhere, do not acknowledge this, we will not be able to live here in safety, every man and woman under their vine and under their fig tree. Happy holidays, Israel.” (My Holiday, Their Tragedy, 2002.)

Disingenuous self interest once again? Neither calling unequivocally for abolishing the apartheid state (as far as I am aware, and if they have already done so elsewhere, I eat crow with pleasure). And neither extending to the displaced Palestinians the privileges they apportion for themselves in Israel – making it their home when not being born there (although Uri Avnery may well have been I don't know, I have never met him) when they don't accord it to those who indeed were and were kicked out by the very founding of the state which Kimmerling is so proudly calling his independence day. He does indeed magnanimously calls for Jews acknowledging the suffering of the Palestinians so that he can live in peace in Israel, but not for remedying the injustice in the only just and moral way – but then, being an atheist, whence the source of morality? God is dead, Nietzsche is alive, and so are his mantle-bearing ubermensch! Witness it in his own essay the vacuous words without the concomitant unequivocal call to abolish apartheid and make it one homeland for those forcibly displaced by his independence day:

"The transformation of the Holocaust into a solely Jewish tragedy, as opposed to a universal event, only weakens its significance and its legitimacy, tarnishing us and the memory of the victims. Likewise, its unnecessary overuse by Jews in Israel and the rest of the world, particularly political bodies, has made the Holocaust banal. Above all, a provocative and dangerous approach has bought a place in our hearts: that Jews, as the victims of the Holocaust, are permitted to treat goyim however they want. Forceful and condescending, "anti-gentile-ism" is identical to criminal anti-Semitism. ... What can I do? A person is closer to his own friends, tribe, and people. Along with that, however, I cannot forget or refrain from mourning the victims of this bloody conflict and feel deep empathy with those who have suffered and still suffer as a result of the fatal encounter between Jews and Arabs in this land. I hope that the day will come when we will commemorate together and mourn together, Jews and Arabs alike, for all of the victims of the conflict. Only then will we be able to live together in this place in safety. ... I know that as long as we, all Jews everywhere, do not acknowledge this, we will not be able to live here in safety, every man and woman under their vine and under their fig tree." (My Holiday, Their Tragedy, 2002.)

I am sorry that I am less than impressed, despite the self-flagellation. "What can I do?" Kimmerling asks? Here are three immediate things a conscionable Israeli can do if he is a Moral-Activist (see example here): 1) Start a campaign to demand genuine justice – not mere words of contrition – by requiring the apartheid nature of the state and the "Berlin Wall" to be simultaneously demolished. 2) Stop paying taxes that contributes to the maintenance of the apartheid state. 3) As a conscionable person, leave Israel until such time that others who have more right to be there, on account of having being born there, and were forcibly evicted, are also allowed to return! To me, it appears that without any of the concomitant actions for Moral-Activism, the only reason Kimmerling calls for the recognition of the plight of the Palestinians is so that he and Zionist Jews like him can live in peace.

--- end excerpt from 'The endless trail of red herrings'

The second example is drawn from the recent new hero of many Palestinians, prof. Shlomo Sand, from my essay 'Palestine: The Struggle Forward'.

--- begin excerpt from 'Palestine: The Struggle Forward'

Recognizing such convolutions for what they are, is such a crucial and contemporary matter that it requires further elaboration. Professor Sholmo Sand is the new rage in the Palestinian town. Who hasn't heard of him or his book: The Invention of the Jewish People. He is a new hero among the Palestinians – well, among some at least, and like Professor Noam Chomsky before him, some excitedly carry him upon their head and shoulders just like they carry Professor Norm Finkelstein and many others. In fact, anyone from among the Jews who will sympathize with them becomes a new showcase for the Palestinians. Anna Baltzer is only the most recent example of that. Her leading performance with Dr. Mustafa Barghouti on American television left much to be desired. It is deconstructed here. [18] The indiscriminate attachment to Jewish sympathizers of Palestinian plight and permitting them to become the leading spokespersons for the Palestinians has been great for ensuring that the Palestinian narrative before the Western public is also controlled by the Jews – even though they be most earnest in their show of sympathy. The “soft Zionists” on the “left” have largely set the boundaries, or the book-ends, for the discourse on resolving Israel-Palestine in the West. Only a colonized mind accepts the victimizers to be their liberators. This is also a rather murky area and it is not easy to always know where to draw the line. Or whether there should even be a line in an honest common struggle when one sees enormously courageous Jews of conscience laying down their own precious lives on a matter of principle, like those in the ISM bearing witness to crimes against humanity and being shot dead by the Israelis. But let's just stay with the imposing Jewish academic in this article.

Look what Professor Shlomo Sand says in the following interview – and incidentally, after reading this interview, I lost all interest in reading his book which doesn't contain anything new for me anyway beyond what was revealed in The Thirteenth Tribe: Khazar Jews – The revelation of another Jewish hoax, By Arthur Koestler, 1976. It can be read here. [19]

Shlomo Sand's statements in Ha'aretz, 21/03/2008, Shattering a 'national mythology' By Ofri Ilani, can be read here. [20]

Begin Excerpt

“My initial intention was to take certain kinds of modern historiographic materials and examine how they invented the 'figment' of the Jewish people. But when I began to confront the historiographic sources, I suddenly found contradictions. And then that urged me on: I started to work, without knowing where I would end up. I took primary sources and I tried to examine authors' references in the ancient period – what they wrote about conversion.”

“The supreme paradigm of exile was needed in order to construct a long-range memory in which an imagined and exiled nation-race was posited as the direct continuation of 'the people of the Bible' that preceded it,”

“I started looking in research studies about the exile from the land – a constitutive event in Jewish history, almost like the Holocaust. But to my astonishment I discovered that it has no literature. The reason is that no one exiled the people of the country. The Romans did not exile peoples and they could not have done so even if they had wanted to. They did not have trains and trucks to deport entire populations. That kind of logistics did not exist until the 20th century. From this, in effect, the whole book was born: in the realization that Judaic society was not dispersed and was not exiled.”

[Interviewer]: If the people was not exiled, are you saying that in fact the real descendants of the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Judah are the Palestinians?

“No population remains pure over a period of thousands of years. But the chances that the Palestinians are descendants of the ancient Judaic people are much greater than the chances that you or I are its descendents. The first Zionists, up until the Arab Revolt [1936-9], knew that there had been no exiling, and that the Palestinians were descended from the inhabitants of the land. They knew that farmers don't leave until they are expelled. Even Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, the second president of the State of Israel, wrote in 1929 that, 'the vast majority of the peasant farmers do not have their origins in the Arab conquerors, but rather, before then, in the Jewish farmers who were numerous and a majority in the building of the land.'”

[Interviewer] Why do you think the idea of the Khazar origins is so threatening?

“It is clear that the fear is of an undermining of the historic right to the land. The revelation that the Jews are not from Judea would ostensibly knock the legitimacy for our being here out from under us. Since the beginning of the period of decolonization, settlers have no longer been able to say simply: 'We came, we won and now we are here' the way the Americans, the whites in South Africa and the Australians said. There is a very deep fear that doubt will be cast on our right to exist.”

End Excerpt

If Professor Sand himself argues that there is no such thing as a Jewish people, and the Arab Palestinians are the original inhabitants of Palestine, then on what basis does he say the following:

Begin Excerpt

[Interviewer] Is there no justification for this fear?

“No. I don't think that the historical myth of the exile and the wanderings is the source of the legitimization for me being here, and therefore I don't mind believing that I am Khazar in my origins. I am not afraid of the undermining of our existence, because I think that the character of the State of Israel undermines it in a much more serious way. What would constitute the basis for our existence here is not mythological historical right, but rather would be for us to start to establish an open society here of all Israeli citizens.” (emphasis added)

End Excerpt

It is common among this breed of scholarly Zionists – which is perhaps why they also remain light-years ahead of the Palestinians – to argue among themselves not just whether Palestinians are a people (as both Moshe Katsav, Israel's former President, and Raphael Eitan, former Chief of Staff of the IDF, have variously pondered; it can be read here [21]), but also whether even Jews are a people. It's even reported in the New York Times: Scholars Debate Roots of Yiddish, Migration of Jews, October 29, 1996, which can be read here. [22]

There is nothing new Professor Shlomo Sand has to offer Palestinians in the Zionist's endless cycle of their own myth-constructions and their own myth-destruction, except a new twisted justification for the invaders to continue to occupy Palestine, despite himself arguing that he does not have any roots there! But wait, he is not packing up to leave as a matter of conscience, as a matter of principle, after learning all that truth about the myths he had been fed. Now, it is the new mantra of “establish an open society here of all Israeli citizens.”!

It's akin to a robber comes into my house, takes over on the pretext of an asinine justification that god gave this land to his ancestors and I am the illegal occupant of his house; me and my children spend all our lives trying to show that world that the robber is not only criminal taking over my house but also an expert liar; then, a few years later, the robbers' children and grandchildren create a different drama, some showcasing books variously showing a) that there is no god and “in the age of atheism, the Jewish people can no longer base its existence on God but only on itself alone, on its labor, on its land, and on its state”, and b) that even there is no Jewish people; but the current crop of legatees still want to stay in my house which he illegally occupied to start with?

Is that absurd? But not in Alice in Wonderland.

--- end excerpt from 'Palestine: The Struggle Forward'

I find these specific cases and those like them both perplexing and funny when I begin to think for myself. I don't rightly know what to make of it.

Perhaps it is easiest to forget such paradoxes, chalk them up to life's minor inconsistencies, and just move on?

It's evidently too costly to think anyway. It can cause one to lose valued friends and allies, comfort zones and treadmills, heroes and hero-worship.

But I would like to ask Jews who evidently think for themselves, what should I make of such funny conundrums? What do you make of them?

And since many respectable Palestinian thinkers demonstrate such sympathy and solidarity with Jewish dissent emanating from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, perhaps I can ask them too what do they do with such paradoxes. Do they simply ignore them?

Or do they take the easy way out like me and seriously consider stopping the onerous burden of thinking for themselves? The Jews most eloquently think for both sides of the divide anyway, thus certainly sparing the Palestinians any trouble.

I am most confused!

How many Jews does it take to confuse me?

Certainly not 50 pious Rabbis hell bent on exercising their chosen people's imperatives.

That categorical imperative I can quite understand.

It draws upon the ancient custom known as 'might is right'.

All rational and independent thought, all moral sense, all commonsense, must ultimately bow before that categorical imperative by definition.

No, it takes only one moral Jew to confuse me.

One single Jew who lives in Israel, is not born there, and proclaims Palestinian rights!

I would, I believe, be considerably less confused if all the pious Jews not born in Palestine but still living there – just because they are Jews and were given priority to immigrate there on that basis alone over those Palestinians who were born there, whose parents and grandparents were born there and forcibly evicted under state sponsored terrorism, and prevented from returning to their own ancestral continuously inhabited place of birth by the same state sponsored terrorism – were to first vacate their own personal occupation of another's home and rightfully return back to where they came from, BEFORE they started clamoring for Palestinian rights. It might be less confusing, and also more convincing, to those who dare to think independently.

I hope I may be forgiven this transgression of independent thought – it is surely a minefield and has confused the hell out of me – and I do believe the Rabbis have also forbidden the goy from thinking independently from the Jews precisely for that reason. We tend to get confused easily when we think on our own.

Isn't there also a clause in the King's Torah that any goy found thinking independently from the Jews should be immediately killed as he or she represents a potential threat to the very existence of the Jewish State? I do in fact recall statements from the King's Torah reproduced in several articles by other Jews including Gilad Atzmon's, that any goy who poses any threat to the legitimacy of the Jewish State, or to the Jews, can legally be killed by the Jews, preemptively.

Desire for such preemption, the killing of the goy in cold blood, in self-defense of course, was precisely expressed by Lawrence Kulak, writing for ’5 Towns Jewish Times’ 5tjt.com, 11/12/2008 (cached here):

'“Muslims believe in the literal interpretation of the Biblical doctrine of an eye for an eye, and they do not have respect for anything perceived as a lesser standard of justice. They killed our innocents, and unless we kill theirs, they will go on killing ours. The Torah, however, preaches a doctrine which, if implemented by the West, could finally put an end to all Islamic terror: If somebody is coming to kill you, rise up and kill him first.”'

Such humble attempt at independent thinking as demonstrated here, surely poses a threat to the very existence of the Jewish state – for what if hundreds of thousands of Jews of the 4.5 million living on usurped lands, choosing not to be damn hypocrites anymore, suddenly left the Jewish state and renounced their ill-gotten citizenship of the racist oppressive state?

What if that number swelled to a million? Two million? They all, or most of them anyway, retain their original nationalities and passports, and there is no practical difficulties for them returning back once they recognize the very immorality of their being there due to their race alone when those who were born there cannot return!

Lighting such a fire in the mind of moral Jewish men and moral Jewish women of Israel, their Metanoia, surely qualifies as a dire threat to the very existence of the pariah Jewish State?

And thus easily become their target of assassination – who can hide from the almighty Mossad hitman anywhere in the world if Victor Ostrovsky is to be believed?

Could such precariousness of independent thought possibly be the reason why Palestinians often like the Jews to think for them and thus never encounter such funny absurdities in all their struggles from the safety of their forced Diaspora?

Is this also why courageous Palestinian leaders on ground zero who shy not from taking a bullet to their brains from the Israeli soldier who may or may not fire at them for their physical defiance, somehow prefer to not be assassinated for sure by Mossad for demonstrating their intellectual defiance?

For, these brave Palestinians evidently prefer to be accompanied by a beautiful Jewish voice, and principally permit her to plead for the Palestinians, as this chap, Dr. Mustafa Barghouti, did on prime time television. As I said, I get easily confused when trying to think for myself. From coast to coast, and continent to continent, excited Palestinians and their Jewish supporters cheered that finally the Palestinians' plight was heard on mainstream American television from a most beautiful and most eloquent American Jew who had suddenly woken up to the grotesque reality in the Holy lands and therefore had no reason to be biased. In fact, the narrative of the Jewish voice was almost mirrored by the Palestinian leader as well, sharing all the same axioms with precision. I must evidently be a very lonely fool to have tried this experiment of actually thinking for myself, because I came away rather confused by all this amidst the roaring applause of the supporters. That episode is narrated at length in 'Rescuing a Failed Struggle From Its Narratives'.

I could go on and on about my strange experiments with independent thinking. But I'll just end now with one final example below. I will sheepishly admit though that I certainly used to enjoy life much better when I permitted others to think for me. My confusions then were much less about absurdities and almost entirely about whom to believe. It didn't matter if they were Jews, or Muslims, Christians, or atheists. Even a monkey was fine provided it came wearing a robe with 'expert' tattooed upon its forehead. I only had to choose from among the many competing experts, often going with the ones who represented my a priori world views the best. I never needed to forge my own thoughts independently.

Now, even a single moral Jew can send me off into deep convulsions of Kafkaesque proportions, as does most every other expert I encounter. Perhaps I am going about this free-thinking business all wrong? Perhaps there is some happy halfway compromise to fully independent thinking which will also help me gain friends and influence people?

Let me highlight this socio-political conundrum with one final example of what I mean. This example almost always loses me friends, tempting me to stop experimenting with independent thought altogether. I believe it is a miracle that I still dabble in it every now and then.

I obseved the following conundrum in 'Of Ostriches and Rebels on The Hard Road to World Order'

Begin Excerpt 'Of Ostriches and Rebels on The Hard Road to World Order'

The blood-drenched transformation stage that we find ourselves in today – the wreckage of civilizations – is truly “Between Two Ages”. That brilliant description is not mine, but the title of Zbigniew Brzezinski's seminally self-serving 1970 book which [presumably] got him appointed as the Executive Director of David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission. There are more than a dozen Trilateralists and CFRs in President Obama's Administration too, pushing the banksters' globalist agendas finally to fruition across multiple fronts simultaneously. The money behind them, at least in the United States, is primarily the Rockefellers' who own the majority stake in the New York Fed, which in turn largely controls the Federal Reserve System. In Europe, the money is primarily the Rothschilds' who control all the world's private central banks (including America's Federal Reserve and international lending-policing agencies such as the World Bank IMF tag-team and the WTO) with complex interlocking relationships among a closed-knit tiny fraternity who exercise their will upon international banking and global finance and thus upon all nations of the world, through their largely unknown Bank for International Settlements ( http://BIS.org) located in Basle, Switzerland.

Entirely coincidentally of course, BIS is located in the same secretive banking capital where Theodor Herzl had earlier made his notorious Jewish manifesto, Der Judenstaat public in the First World Zionist Congress in 1897 to set the public stage for the creation of the exclusively Jewish state of Israel in 1948. Also entirely coincidentally, the British Empire had gratuitously issued its famous 1917 Balfour Declaration in the name of Lord Rothschild, the principal owner and founder of the international financial system who had controlled the Bank of England since Waterloo. And again entirely coincidentally, America's entry into World War I was facilitated after the founding of its own 'Bank of England', i.e., the Federal Reserve System principally by Paul Warburg, the banking fraternal twin of Lord Rothschild in whose palace the Treaty of Versailles was signed after World War I to enable the British Mandate over the lands of historic Palestine.

These remarkable coincidences have today made the Rothschilds the most revered family name in Israel. Some call them the King of the Jews – and to live up to that Solomon-ly title, the Rothschilds have architected, financed and built the Jewish state's principal hall of Justice, the Israeli Supreme Court in Jerusalem. The Jewish State today enjoys the unparalleled privilege of an “Iron Wall” that none can breach. The Rothschild's frankenstein can with brazen impunity exterminate, assassinate, and bomb, to the applause of the world leaders (see 'Pamphlet: How to Return to Palestine'). And yet, strangely, the Rothschild's role in seeding and orchestrating the affairs of the modern world is consistently downplayed almost universally. No media, no academic, no scholar, no historian, no dissent-chief, no corporate executive, no billionaire on Forbes list, the Forbes list itself, and of course no politician and world statesman, dare utter that name publicly – and so long as they don't, they can say anything else they want. Elusive power such as this is not a figment of someone's imagination.

Prof. Carroll Quigley was permitted to openly state the following in his 1966 book Tragedy and Hope, and his controlled revelations which continued that tradition of downplaying the name of the Rothschilds, only came on the heels of the free-wheeling Eustace Mullins' well-documented exposé of how the Federal Reserve System in the United States was conspiringly created by forces representing the same globalist banking elite, and he had not spared the Rothschild name; this was followed by a series of books and documentary films in the 1970s by many others including Gary Allen, W. Cleon Skoussen, G. Edward Griffin, Antony Sutton et. al.

End Excerpt 'Of Ostriches and Rebels on The Hard Road to World Order'

I dared to think about that on my own, inviting both confusion and loss of friends.

And I asked: why was that most distinguished and singular Jewish family name, Rothschild, never permitted any significant mention not just in the Western press, but in the worldwide mainstream presses? It surely wasn't only because the AP and other news agencies, newspapers, newsmedia, were interlocking owned/controlled by the uber financiers of the world, the House of Rothchild.

Even the brave president of Iran, Dr Ahmadinijad, and the brave president of Venezuela, Chavez, courageously challenging the status quo of the world anytime they acquire a microphone in their hands have not dared to mention that name. It is evidently still risk free to waive Noam Chomsky's 'Hegemony and Survival' from the UN podium and speak out against the criminal excesses of the sole superpower and its Allies du jour, but not okay to wonder out loud why was the Balfour Declaration issued in the House of Rothschild name?

Hmmm.... What sort of elusive omnipotent power did that magical name command such that it had erected an equally magical "Iron Wall" around Der Judenstaat which protected its grotesque re-settlement and extermination project for Jewish Lebensraum being conducted with brazen impunity, often under thunderous applause of the Western leaders themselves who continually renew their vows to support the expansion of the Jewish State created in the very name of Lord Rothschild, that none living dare mention and investigate that name while they continue to pay lip-service in support of the Palestinian peoples and can investigate and indict dispensable Israeli leaders who come and go every election, but not its founder who evidently goes on forever?

Is that absurd once again?

Well to me, it is as confusing as Alice was in Wonderland.

So, while searching for a way out of this confusion, I found this really bizarre interview asking similar questions for the first time in modern times, about the House of Rothschilds, and I transcribed it. Please see what you make of such attempts at independent thinking. Also please feel free to advise me how one ought to go about this independent thinking business, the much wonted contribution of Western civilization to modern man, or so they say, without stepping on censor toes - never mind without losing friends. Even this last thought is causing me a great deal of confusion. Aaaaaah, confusion, confusion, no wonder why the goyem don't think much, and it is not recommended for them to think by the doctors who conveniently do all the thinking for us to save us the burden. Here is the problem: if one avoids tabooed thoughts for fear of censorship, loss of friends, needlessly being indicted and incarcerated under the thought-crimes Bill pending in many a legislature's quarters worldwide, is that still considered 'independent thinking', the gift of Western civilization to mankind? Perhaps it is so under NewSpeak, the newly revised gift of Western civilization to the Dawn of the New Age? The Age being hasteningly beckoned by Zbigniew Brzezinski as cited above? And that, very well could be the elusive key I have been searching for to the door past which I can't see.

Here is that interview transcription. It is also at:

 http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/03/davidicke-rothschild-connection-zionism.html


Rothschild Connection to World Government and Zionism: David Icke – Origins and Symbolism of the EU

Transcription of Red Ice Creations' David Icke's video interview by Project Humanbeingsfirst, segment on The Rothschild Connection to World Government and Zionism, Parts 6 & 7 [Parenthesis: Transcriber's notes]



Begin Transcription:

'They are all connected, and they are connected through the House of Rothschild. See, if people just took a breadth, and looked at the whole scene, they would ask serious questions:

The Balfour Declaration November 2nd 1917

[ Why is the Balfour Declaration addressed to a Rothschild? ]

Rothschilds' Monument to Justice in Zionistan

[ Why is Israel's Supreme Court in Jerusalem built by the Rothschilds? ]

Why does that slither of land, called Israel, and I have driven around it, and you can virtually drive around it in a day, why does it have so much power?

Why is it the biggest by far recipient of American aid when it is one of the richest per capita countries in the world?

Why does it have the biggest F-16 fleet outside America?

How come it can have a very considerable arsenal of nuclear weapons, refuse to sign a Non Proliferation Treaty, and have a breadth taking agreement which has just been confirmed by Barrack Obama in the last few months, that they have a policy in terms of America and other countries in Israel, that they don't ask whether they have got nuclear weapons. And therefore, Israel does not have to say if they have or not. This is an official policy!

Why, when they pepper-bomb the most crowded piece of land in the world, and instigate slaughter on a shocking scale, does the international community, apart from one or two people, say nothing?

[  http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/05/celebrating-israels-60th-birthday.html ]

Simple.

The House of Rothschild controls Israel. It created Israel. And more than that, it created a political philosophy, note a POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY, called ZIONISM.

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

What they have brilliantly done, though it's breaking down, is they have equated Jewish people as a race with Zionism, which is a political philosophy. And at its core is a secret society, connects into the other secret societies.

And, so if you challenge Zionism, and its horrors, and its impositions, and its hypocrisy, and its slaughter, you are equated with being prejudiced against Jewish people.

What they don't tell you is significant number of Jewish people are actually appalled by Zionism. And actually openly protest against it.

[  http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/11/genesis-to-genocide-golem-not-jewish.html ]

And there is some fantastic young people in Israel that refuse to serve in the military, and end up in jail because of it. And you, know they are incredible people to have that sense of value.

The questions that I have just posed can be answered very easily.

[  http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/10/respto-what-cost-israel-lobby-jeffgates.html ]

The House of Rothschild control American politics. They control the neo-cons, they control Bush, they control what I call the demo-cons that control Obama.

[  http://humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/10/not-voting-is-yes-vote-to-reject-system.html ]

And in the White House as I speak, we have the White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, who is the puppeteer, immediate puppeteer of Obama, [ Just like Bush's Brain was Karl Rove ] and his father actually served in an Israeli Zionist terror group called Irgun, which, with others, bombed Israel into existence and forced 750,000 to 800,000 Palestinians to leave their homeland after 1948.

The reason, therefore, that Israel is the biggest recipient of American aid and military support, is because this hand [points to right hand] called the House of Rothschild, takes the money from the United States and hands it to this hand [points to left hand] called Israel of the House of Rothschild, and says thank you very much!

The reason that there is no questioning of Israeli nuclear capability, that they get away literally with mass murder, time and time again, is because the House of Rothschild controls the countries of the European Union, and controls the European Union. I mean, Tony Blair is a "yes sir no sir, three bags full sir, how high would you like me to jump sir" front man for the House of Rothschild.

[  http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/11/rescuing-thestruggle-for-palestine.html ]

So who do they put in after he left the British Government, as negotiator of peace in Israel - Tony Bloody Blair! 'What should I say Mr. Rothschild, thank you very much, thank you thank you' [mimics Tony Blair]. That's it.

So when you have got the same force controlling all these different agencies, than of course they are gonna be coordinated.

That's the way Israel gets away with what it gets away with.

And if people think its anti-Semitic, well actually anti-Semitic means anti-Arab by the way, then they'll have to take it and shove it somewhere where the sun don't shine 'cause I ain't shutting up about this because it is fundamental to understanding the world, and to understanding the European Union and world events!

The Jewish people, in general, have been mercilessly used by the House of Rothschild, and their front secret society, satanic secret society, called Zionism, as a front which they can hide behind.

[  http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/09/is-zionism-hegelian-dialectic.html ]

So it is House of Rothschild organizations like B'nai Brith, Sons of the Covenant, who created an organization called the Anti-Defamation league, which goes around defaming everyone ironically, who have not just campaigned for hate laws that stop you exposing these people, they have actually written the bloody legislation in America, in North America and Canada.

And so, these hate laws which say you can't say this you can't say that, because that's prejudiced and all that, they are not there to protect gay people - everyone ought to their own I say, I couldn't care less - they are not there to protect Jewish people, or minorities.

They are there, simply, to stop legitimate investigation of the Rothschilds and its network. That's what they are there for.

[  http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/10/respto-what-cost-israel-lobby-jeffgates.html ]

And, they are in so many ways the Rothschilds. At operational level, the center of the spider's web.

And they need to be exposed.

[ 'Therefore, focussing on Jewish political action groups like AIPAC, ADL, JDL, Chabad Lubavitch Hasidics, et. al., who put Israel first to influence the superpower's policies, or the hundred Jewish-dominated opaquely funded private think-tanks like the AEI, CFR, et. al., who ab initio construct the polices of war and hegemony favoring Israel, without betraying any comprehension of the actual prime-movers behind them, is not only an exercise in futility, but these visible magnets are deliberately there, and manifest themselves with their inexplicable arrogance, precisely in order to draw fire away from the prime-movers!' --  http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/05/palestine-theway-forward.html ]

Because if they get exposed, and they go, when I say go [I mean] they are removed from their positions of power, 'cause to be honest, if they went to jail, for what they have been responsible for, the House of Rothschild, they would have to reincarnate hundreds of times to complete the sentence!

[ 'If fair punishments are ever to be awarded for their crimes against humanity for just the past 100 years in any Just court of law, Adolph Eichmann would have to be retroactively let go by resurrecting his soul from his grave with high honors and awarded multiple peace prizes plus compensation, in order to administer hanging and extraction of restitution as the graduated scale of ultimate punishment for the ultimate prime-movers of all wars and pestilence before which their errand boys' and patsies' crimes against humanity pale in comparison.' --  http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/11/rescuing-thestruggle-for-palestine.html ]

And, we've ignored them. Or we have not ignored them, people have ignored their power for long enough because they have brilliantly hidden it. It needs the light to be shone on it because when they come down, in so many ways, the House of cards comes down!

[  http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/04/resp-abusitta-rothschild-not-zabara.html ]

Thank you very much.'

End Transcription by Project Humanbeingsfirst.org, Parts 6 & 7 [Parenthesis: Transcriber's notes]



- ### -



Title: How many Jews does it take to confuse me? Extended version By Zahir Ebrahim, An Exclusive composition for UK readers.


Summary: The UK, home to the Balfour Declaration and Lord Rothschild in whose name it was gratuitously issued thus becoming the first-cause of the Jews' oppression in Palestine. Also the home to the Bank of England which the House of Rothschild has controlled since Waterloo. And home to the City of London that is dominated by the House of Rothschild and controls the world's financial superstructure, and therefore, the home to the world's financial crisis as well. And today, the UK is also the home to '1984' belated, with surveillance and Newspeak at every corner, secular humanism at every turn. Is it permitted in such a mighty home to refer to a people by their own name while examining their behavior? Or, are such liberties only available when being taken upon the Muslims? I wanted to see how quickly does my article get hidden by UK Indymedia in such a home where a mouse can't speak without permission but elephants can trumpet silly in the bridal suite without being noticed. An Exclusive composition for UK readers via UK Indymedia.