Is Zionism a sophisticated Hegelian Dialectic?
Excerpt:

print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/09/is-zionism-hegelian-dialectic.html

"Notice that in any critique of Zionism or Israel, [2] the names of International bankers is seldom uttered. And yet, the Balfour Declaration was issued to Lionel Rothschild, and Moses Hess, the reformer of Messianic Judaism who ushered in the notion that Jews don't have to wait for a Messiah in order to return to their Promised Land, was presumably bankrolled by the Rothschilds."

Excerpt

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

The visible politicians running governments are merely the 'errand boys' who implement only their great benefactors' agendas. While Theodor Herzl and the World Zionist Federation are credited with founding Israel, the fact that it was done with Rothschild money is rarely if ever mentioned. Even by the antagonists of Israel! Notice that the Balfour Declaration was issued to Lord (Lionel) Rothschild. Why to him? The world’s financial powers control both nations, as well as those of the European continent.

And I ask: How many people who write on Israel-Palestine, and especially from among the Palestinians themselves, and mainly among the generation born in the Palestinian Diaspora, or those born since 1967, have actually read the Balfour Declaration in the original, or even know that it is addressed to a Rothschild?

Read its full text here: avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/balfour.asp

See the image of the original letter here:
humanbeingsfirst.wordpress.com/files/2009/05/balfour-declaration-addressed-to-rothschild-1.jpg

And ponder on that question in the first excerpt: why does no one mention that sacred-cow untouchable name in any contemprary context?
Do search for that name on this august think-tank forum and see what comes up?

Has that name, or the oligarchs bearing that name, become extinct?

Or do they, in fact, control the crucial lever which controls the world?

Who participates in masking that name from public view?

Just take a look at the so called dissent space. Almost 100% of its dissent-chiefs!

The "almost" is left there as the measely exception for that tiny number of odd malcontent in the ocean of the supposed bullies to power, who are labeled the 'conspiracy theorist', and also the ones to only be administered the Hemlock. Academic respectabilty, tenure, and many other things are denied if one dares to go there.

Because then, god forbid, there might in fact be some real efficacy to dissent – to hectoring power while not masking its real levers nor echoing its axioms – of really unpeeling the masks off the faces of those who criminally conspire to stamp their jackboot on the human face.

Truth-tellers far more educated and learned, and most certainly far more intelligent and motivated, than an ordinary plebeain can surely do a far better job than merely point out their disagreement on an insignificant issue – what did JFK do for the Palestinian people. I gladly concede, to avoid incessant debate on a red herring, that JFK was perhaps the best President the American people could have had, despite his many failings. The fact that his head was blown-off does indeed carry some weight. The fact that like Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln before him, and when there was no Zionist State and no Israeli Lobby, when he took on the banksters on their own turf and issued EO11110, and ordered the printing of the silver dollar directly from the US Treasury by-passing the Federal Reserve, that a continuity of gangsterism becomes visible, and that continuity was empircally visible in October 2008 (print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/09/no-exits-on-this-super-highway.html )

Let us together re-focus our collective energies on that which can make a real change to our condition. Rehearsing the history of faits accomplis, and of glorified (or demonized) dead people who play no significant role today in molding contemporary events, while certainly useful, if not just for selling books – and being accorded lofty apellations from none other than the kings' vassals themselves – then surely, at least for the wisdom of Bernard Shaw: "We are made wise not by the recollections of our past, but by the responsibility for our future."

If diabolicalness be the real-agenda behind manufactured dissent ( print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/06/wmd-master-social-science.html ), of side-tracking the handful of conscionable energetic peoples with inefficacious pursuits and mindless debate, of accurate narration of the puppetshows without discovering the strings of the puppetmasters, of merely paying lip-service to "responsibility for our future" while running the flock on a treadmill of ZERO efficacy in the million vacuuous words and plentiful anemic marches which are subsequently outright dismissed by the king as "focus group", then, making a clean break from that container full of red-herrings might be a tad useful. No?

Being a think-tank surely ought to be more than merely regurgitating-narrating-writing-debating history, and whose version is more correct, articulating laments in voices more poignant than a canary's, commemorating anniversaries with spirit events imbued with lofty moral high-grounds and sloganeering, and adopting the nom de guerre of "thinktank". But notice that almost all think-tanks, individual or institutional, and all people on the jackboots of the tyrants who rise to challenge the tyrany of the rulers, do exactly just that. Or they are taught to do just that. Victims are calculatingly awarded prizes for their narration of their plight while permitting what is being narrated about to continue un-abated ( print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/05/letter-toguardian-2008-orwellprize.html ). And so on….

Let us together change it with a gestalt shift. For I sure hate the jackboot to be permanently etched on my children and (future) grandchildren – as I am certain we all do, the lonely activist, and the silent bystanders. There is today, as there has been over the past 100-400 plus years, only one prime-mover enemy of mankind which has transcended generations, it is still living, still breathing, still hiding only in plain-sight, and still orchestrating events by controlling the essential lever which controls all derivatives: "Give me control of a nation's money supply and I care not who makes its laws".

Let's focus on them, and only them. The path to Israel-Palestine resolution goes through BIS. Not through the United States, not through the Israeli Lobby, not through American Presidents, and not through the United Nations. Please take the 2-minutes to watch this short clip of discovering the Zen of all things:

youtube.com/watch?v=roY9SaqM0mo

And bringing that crucial Zen back to the presently inefficacious fight of the true patriot is the focus of this recent letter to Pakistan's Washington Ambassador as well:

print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/11/bringing-back-thelost-zen-to-pakistan.html

Thank you for your time in reading this long (rant?).

Salaam Alekum – peace be unto you all.

Zahir Ebrahim
Project Humanbeingsfirst.org

Noam Chomsky is son of Zionist Jewish parents. He, as ayoungman, even made Aliya to Israel and lived there in a Jewish settlement built on stolen arab land. The target of his criticism is always American imperialism – and the Zionazi state of Israel.

As far the iron grip of Jewish Lobby (AIPAC, ADL, AJC, CFR, etc.) is concerned – only a fool will believe that its members are more loyal to the US than Israel.

Amira Hass: “A remarkable failure for a journalist”
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/11/07/amira-hass-a-remarkable-failure-for-a-journalist/

Both the public and private record, now declassified and available at the National Security Archives website, shows that Kennedy was adamantly against Israel acquiring nuclear weapons and was repeatedly disturbed by the lies being fed him by Ben-Gurion. His successor, LBJ, surrounded on all sides by wealthy and influential Zionists, would look the other way.

Secondly, JFK supported both publicly and privately, as again revealed in declassified documents, the Palestinian right of return (Res. 194), the only and last president to do so.

Finally, JFK had his Justice Dept., under his brother and attorney general, Robert, actively pressing the American Zionist Council, the precursor to AIPAC, to register as a Foreign Agent (see Grant Smith's excellent "America's Defense Line," an effort that petered out with his death and the takeover of Justice by Nicholas Katzenbach.

All three of these issues were red lines that Israel would not allow to be crossed. Something had to be done to prevent JFK getting his way. It was. Nov. 22, 1963.

Why none of this is not more widely known one could point to the Zionist's gatekeeper, Noam Chomsky, who not only has never written about any of these issues, his famous Fateful Triangle, long considered the "bible" for pro-Palestinian Middle East activists, does not even mention him once and RFK appears only in a footnote having nothing to do with the Israel-Palestine issue.

Well, Zahir may be "quite certain" but he has offered his readers nothing to support his contention. In fact, one has to buy into the dubious notion that Iran is a mortal enemy of the US for this assertion to be sensible in the least. No Zahir, nuking Iran serves no Western interest, only Zionist aims would be furthered. It is bad enough that an endless parade of Zionists like Chomsky have our ears and endlessly push Israeli goals as beneficial to the West, must we also repeat these mantras ourselves?

America doesn't need a "nuclear armed extension in the M. E." America has ICBMs and aircraft carriers as well as strategic nuclear submarines. None of these assertions about Israel serving the West withstand minimal critical analysis.

"We can be the vanguard of culture against barbarianism"

Why would Zahir base his views on US Middle East policy on this outdated sales pitch for Zionism? Does he truly regard Islam as barbaric? Does he accept Western exceptionalism as his own worldview?

I do concur with this statement of Zahir's:

"The world's financial powers control both nations, as well as those of the European continent."

However the conclusion I draw from this reality is different from his. It seems as though true Western interests are being violated by the dominance of a financial elite. Lets not conflate the interests of a transnational financial elite with the interests of Western nations. The late Giovanni Arrighi wrote a book on the history of capitalism titled The Long Twentieth Century. In this book one learns that empires rise and fall while capital is mobile and enduring. Yes even empires serve a master, great powers with armies have always required access to finance. So let's not pretend that the racist aims of the transnational financial elite are in the service of the peoples of Europe or North America or even their empires. Jewish supremacism does not even serve the interests of the vast majority of those who self identify as Jews, it does serve the transnational financial elite though.

In any event, I also do concede that Gate's view that Kennedy challenged Israeli primacy is far from being a solid fact, we simply don't have a conclusive proof. It falls into the realm of a possibility, and an improbable one at that.