Zahir Ebrahim – Response to John Kaminski's 'Why no Jewish writer can be believed'
By Guest Post • Mar 1st, 2010 at 10:28 • Category: Analysis, Features, Hasbara Deconstruction Site, Ideas and Projects, Newswire, Opinions and Letters, Religion, Zionism
In Ref To: John Kaminsiki "Why no Jewish Writer Can Be Believed"
Hello John Kaminski,
I read your article 'Why no Jewish writer can be believed' with much interest. You know, sometimes I feel like that about the Anglo Saxons. Often times, as history is evidence, especially vis a vis the East India Company and its colonial conquests whose enduring shackles of mental servitude are still felt daily in my native nation, can one really tell the difference between the Jewish white Anglo-Saxon and the Christian white Anglo-Saxon race? While the religious rituals may be different, the imperial practices aren't when the reference begins and ends with 'race'! Any conflict between them is often only the white man's burden negotiation between two ubermensch fighting over primacy!
Let me therefore, begin this response by first agreeing that every name which you have mentioned in your article, I too have similarly unraveled some aspects of their narratives which weren't entirely wholesome (to put it charitably). The last one, Gilad Atzmon's, was here:
But that website took down my comment (now why would they do that?)! Fortunately, I had saved a local copy which is cached here:
The above is perhaps only a banal example of what you have argued: "Jewish writers inevitably blur and twist the contours of any argument to invariably shape it into advantage for only themselves."But then, I find the same sort of situation which you have described for the Jews, equally being applicable to many a white Christian Anglo Saxon writer as well. Let's start with your own Anglo Saxon words (I presume you are that from your photograph on your website) which immediately follow the above quotation: "I don't want to be saddled with that taint. Think of the Boer War, where Brits and Dutch died in droves but the Jews wound up with all the diamond mines. That's what happens every time."Look at the brazen omission! There is no mention of the 'untermenschen', the civilian populations who were annihilated in the policies of "scorched earth" on their own soil - and for what? For colonization, and acquisition of the same precious mines under the Anglo Saxons' combined white man's burden!! From your description, it would appear that you only lament that the mines didn't fall in the right set of white hands! But from the viewpoint of the simple indigenous natives, did it make much difference to them which of the marauders enslaved them, or who among the Anglo Saxons harvested their land and tears the most in the name of 'la mission civilisatrice'?Here is a recent missive which digs into this sort of general attitude of the Anglo Saxons:
Often times, as G. Edward Griffin also puts it, the sins of the 'left' are uncovered by their enemies on the 'right', and vice versa. The in-fighting among hegemonic pigs often betrays their criminal secrets. For an astute non-bigoted seeker of truth and justice for all, that's simply the low hanging fruits of the rotten tree to be plucked for forensic analysis. Especially, if they also happen to be the type-3 of Hitler's classification of people:
"In journalistic circles it is a pleasing custom to speak of the Press as a 'Great Power' within the State. As a matter of fact its importance is immense. One cannot easily overestimate it, for the Press continues the work of education even in adult life. Generally, readers of the Press can be classified into three groups: First, those who believe everything they read; Second, those who no longer believe anything; Third, those who critically examine what they read and form their judgments accordingly." (Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter X)
Otherwise, I for one do not have the infinite resources to dig out the dirt on all the hectoring hegemon pigs on the planet. Let them dig it out on each other. I'll only use it circumspectly. I cannot permit my mind, and my guard, to take vacation for even a single moment - for the 'devil' knows no race, color, cast, or creed! Minimally I need to protect myself from being tainted by your prejudices - but I also find your views interesting, and often worth refuting lest they taint the feeble of mind too comfortable in their own adjusted worldview.
So, back to your narrative, I find the race construct disturbing no matter who uses it, the antagonist, or the protagonist.
I quite agree that the Talmud is a major tortuous source of Jews' misanthropic ambitions as god's ubermensch created on earth to lord over the Goy. But not completely. Atheism too is not an unfamiliar imperial driving force in the same vein:
By that token, I could condemn your non-beliefs the same way - couldn't I? It is just logic.
People generally do not lie, cheat, deceive, murder, become water boys or house negroes for the ubermensch, or endeavor to conquer the 'untermenschen' by way of deception, by their race or religion - the political ponerologists advocating the psychopathic view of ubermensch not withstanding. In my humble view, people do so by choice (including perverse indoctrination and the 'banality of evil').
I am unwilling to condemn such misanthropes by their race, religion, caste, or creed � because, by its logic, I would unfairly have to condemn all peoples belonging to those sets. That is guilt by association! I see no difference between that, and the crimes of Nazism, Zionism. I condemn criminals only by their acts. To the extent that misanthropic doctrines from their books, cultural heritage, or tortuous philosophies might motivate them, well, there are at least 60 million white Anglo Saxon ubermensch Christian misanthropes alone in the Bible Belt of America trying to bring on Armageddon and Jesus! I think they far surpass the Jews in sheer numbers. Therefore, should I condemn all Christians for the twisted perversion of such a large number of criminals among them who think bombing other nations will lead to some Rapturous Nirvana? Or, perhaps the entire white Anglo Saxon population by their race alone, for between Jews and Christians, that's the entire Western civilization? By your logic, why not?
I find the following recipe which was legally averred at Nuremberg by Robert H. Jackson rather defining, reasonable, equitable, and wisely applicable to all cases of misanthropic thoughts that transform into inflicting actual harm upon others, whether by bombs, or by debt-enslavement, whether in the quest of Lebensraum, Zionistan, or one-world government:
"The intellectual bankruptcy and moral perversion of the Nazi regime might have been no concern of international law had it not been utilized to goosestep the Herrenvolk across international frontiers. It is not their thoughts, it is their overt acts which we charge to be crimes." (Nuremberg, Closing Speech)
I charge as crimes against humanity, the enactment of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. All those who crafted it, proposed it, enabled it, aided and abetted in its passage as well as in its obfuscation over the past 100 years, and benefitted from its enslaving action of the entire nation, are more appropriate candidates for being accorded the full 'enemy combatant' protocol at Guantanamo Bay than its present indigent inhabitants! For indeed, in that one enabling Act, is accumulated the combined evil of all the evil that has followed over the past 100 years, including all the wars, its 100 million victims, and entire nations entrapped in un-payable debt to steal their public commons! That first monumental crime is independent of the race - all the Congressman who signed the Bill under the stewardship of Bernard Barauch and Col. House, including the President of the United States at the time who approved it, and the vast numbers of newsmedia and PR spokespersons of both political parties who got on the Hegelian Dialectic bandwagon of sloganeering "banking reform" and filled the newspapers with their bullshit, were Christian white folks right alongside the Jewish white folks. (The blacks in America at the time only lived in their ghettos after their escape/emancipation from the clutches of their white Christian Anglo Saxon plantation owners, and therefore can't rightly be counted among the races who contributed to the hijacking of America.)
So, are all the white Anglo Saxons of America guilty of that first monumental crime against the American public, and the world's peoples? Are they all complicit in hiding it, spinning it, obfuscating it? But you have already absolved Eustace Mullins. I apologize for using an obvious truism to make the blatant point that by your criterion of guilt by association, you should have dismissed the good Samaritan Christian Mullins too without reading, just like the anti-Semitic choir does!
In a previous communication regarding another article way back in September 2009, titled: 'Jewish disinfo the specialty of popular Rense columnist', I had also noted your zeal for gross, and what I felt at the time was ignorant, generalization. In that article, you had carelessly maligned Islam in the same breadth as Christianity by asserting: "Throughout human history, the Talmud is the heart of darkness, and the Bible and the Qu'ran are complicit in concealing this fact." I had written to you:
'As a Muslim, I would only like to inquire on your statement: "Qu'ran are complicit in concealing this fact". Would you kindly let me know what you have based that assertion upon? While I might concur with anyone that the Talmud contains some really abhorrent things, nay shocking things, I also wonder who among the Jews really believes in what's in their old books…. but that's not the purpose of this letter to you. It is to only inquire the basis upon which you chose to malign Islam, by asserting that the Qur'an is deliberately complicit in concealing some abhorrence, some distortions in Judaism like its Talmudic teachings. As you surely [must] know [Islam], both Prophet Moses and Jesus are revered in the Qur'an as among the Great Prophets. Qur'an assert that God sent both Moses, and Jesus, among many other prophets, to mankind, to every people, and each time sent a new one to correct the erroneous man-made teachings that had cropped in the previous prescription over time, or to generalize the particularized teachings, as the case between Moses followed by Jesus, with Prophet Muhammad being the last one to correct all past manmade errors, and to generalize God's religion to all mankind. So, while one may not believe in Islam, or any religion [for that matter], the fact of your assertion being false [in the context of Qur'an and Islam] is plainly manifest. Thus I inquire if it was inadvertent, malicious, or merely ignorant. And if none of those, then kindly do enlighten me the reason for your statement. We can always learn from each other � no one has monopoly over knowledge.'
That moment onwards, I could easily have dismissed you on the same grounds as you have dismissed all the Jews: "[Anglo Saxon] writers inevitably [distort and prevaricate], blur and twist the contours of any argument to invariably shape it into advantage for only themselves."!But I still read your present article with care, and I am even taking the time to respond to you, once again - since it warrants a response - because I refuse to bow to the vagaries of your personal prejudices and myopia lest it infect others. You already may have a great following among the white supremacists I imagine, despite perhaps your own aversion to it - I hope.
Finally, I do thank you Mr. John Kaminski for your often provocative and bold viewpoints, whether or not one agrees with them. I think it is courageous and un-inhibited people like yourself who continually push on the acceptable envelop of thought and its public expression, and thus widen the discourse space for many more ordinary people like myself to have our tiny voice (for what little that's worth). Minimally, the brownshirt thought-police will chase you before they might chase me (or perhaps they will soon lock up all the non-conformists regardless)! Be that as it may, let's not get carried away as the self-proclaimed avantgarde in provocative thought, into realms of moral absurdity, especially in falling prey to the antagonists own vices: guilt by association, the race factor, arrogance, and ignorance.
Thank you.
Zahir Ebrahim
Project Humanbeingsfirst.org
Source URL: http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/02/respto-johnkaminski-jewish-writers.html
Source PDF: http://humanbeingsfirst.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/respto-johnkaminski-jewish-writers-feb282010.pdf
Kaminski article URL: http://www.johnkaminski.info/pages/the_next_chapter/too_late_for_trust.htm
Guest Post is the author as indicated in the tagline. He/she (or the source that is indicated within the post) reserves the rights to the material published.
Email this author | All posts by Guest Post
"I condemn criminals only by their acts."
Admirable! Naive!
I felt that way when the local freemasons locked up all the County snow-plowing jobs, the sort of work us downsized steelworkers would have loved. After all, only the TOP freemasons were in on the fix, the regular guys, the dues-paying lower degree fellows, had no idea.
The trouble kicks in right there: They had no idea but their dues were paying for the fix. WHY did they have no idea their Overclass was rotten?
WHY do wage-slave Americans do nothing about their ENTIRE Overclass, which is both bankrupting them and creating a world of enemies at the same time?
WHY are innocent Jews allowing Zionism to fecklessly imperialize and hang it all on Judaism, which they indeed have done now that ALL criticism of Israel (at least here in the US) are officially considered Anti-Semitic?
Face facts here: Kaminski is onto one valid point: Jews are responsible for what they silently support, as are Americans, as are Freemasons. Kaminski appears to be as fed up with the "innocent majority" as much as I.
I grant: This might appear to many, as it does to you, simple bigotry. I think that is an error. The distinction may be fine, but it is nonetheless implicit. For the moment this argument has me at a bit of a disadvantage as an American who is as disgusted with his regime every bit as much as every Jew should be with Zion.
But this discomfort, at least I know, is a form of awareness that MUST NOT be put down to "bigotry". Anti-Americans have a valid point in the mess all of us citizens bear some responsiblity for. And in like manner all sentient Jews have to consider their responsiblities. Bigotry is not really the issue. Some issues, after too long, must be addressed as broadly as possible. In this Kaminski is correct.
The bigots and the self-denials can be found in every religion, society, culture, gender, history, and even politics.
According to late Israeli historian, professor Israel Shahak, when it comes to religious hatred and bigotry – no religious scripture can beat the Jewish Talmud. Same could be said about some of Jesus’ misquoted statements about the Israelites in the New Testament (NT). However, the greatest anti-Jewish statements were made by no other than the founder of the Protestant Church, Rev. Martin Luther (1483-1546).
Jews too have a long history of religious, social and political hatred toward Jesus and Christians – from cursing Jesus and his mother Mary, spitting on the Cross and churches, the New Testament considered being ‘anti-Semitism’. These were some of the reasons that Jewish communities were expelled from every European country.
Religious and political chracter assassination is another art perfected by the West. It comes from Europe’s pagan culture and the distorted message of the Bible. The Bible degrades prophets as adulterers such as Abraham (Genesis 12:19, Genesis 20:12, Genesis 25:1), David (2 Samuel 11:4, 2 Samuel 11:6-25), Lot (Genesis 19:33-35), Jacob (Genesis 35:22), Judah (Genesis 38:15-18); sex manic, Solomon (I Kings 11:3); racist, Jesus (Matthew 10:5-6 & 26:7-11), and a terrorist (Luke 12:49 and 51).
Contrary to Biblical character assassination of those prophets – Holy Qur’an proclaimed them all of highly moral individuals without committing any such sins. Holy Qur’an commands all the believers to respect all earlier prophets like they respect the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and reject all biblical immoral allegations against them. The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) even called Moses and Jesus ‘his cousins’ and advised his followers to observe two-days fasting along with the Jews on Yum Kapur. Though, the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is not insulted in the Bible or Talmud – like some of the other prophets – yet western historian, Montgomery Watt, in Muhammad at Mecca, wrote: “None of the great figures is so poorly appreciated in the West as Muhammad.” Michael Hart in his 1978 book, The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, placed the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) number one, ahead of his Lord Christ – because he was “the only man in history who was supremely successful both on the religious and secular levels”. However, since the establishment of the Zionist entity – the Lucifer-worshipping Zionists are leading the old western hatred toward the Prophet (pbuh).
The credit of putting verses of Holy Qur’an on wall-papers; Imam Khomeini’s picture on toilet papers and publishing insulting Danish Cartoons – all goes to Zionist Jews and their willing ‘Israel-First’ Islamophobes.
History is another victim of such bigots and self-denials. It could be Muslims’ scientific achievements or Muslim rulers’ great tolerance toward their non-Muslim subjects or Native peoples in Americana, Australia, and Palestine or some recent Muslim leaders – the extremists among the Jews, Christians and Hindus – always get offended when someone, even among them, write the truth. And I am not talking about Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama – who have been honored with the titles of being “anti-Semite” and “Jew-hater”. In fact, I have former Indian foreign minister, Jaswant Singh 71 in mind, who has made the “political wrong statement” in his new book Jinnah – India, Partition, Independence – showering praise upon Muhammad Ali Jinnah, called Quaid-e-Azam (the great leader) by the grateful Pakistani nation. As a result, Jaswant Singh got sacked from the pro-Israel Hindu extremist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of India which he served more than 30 years after his retirement from the Indian Army. In the past, BJP leader, L. K. Advani had praised Qaid-e-Azam while paying restpect to the Muslim leader’s tomb in Karachi – calling him a great “secularist leader”. Some of Advani’s fellow racist Hindu leaders demanded his resignation from the party.
“Jinnah was demonized as the villian of 1947 partition by India – while it was India’s first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru whose beliefs in a centralised polity had led to the partion….. I think we have misunderstood him because we needed to create a demon. We needed a demon because in the 20th century the most telling event in the subcontinent was the partition of the country,” wrote Jaswant Singh.
“He (Jinnah) single-handed stood against the might of the Congress Party and against the British who did not really like him. Gandhi himself called Jinnah a great Indian. Why don’t we recognize that? Why don’t we see and try to understand why Gandhi called him that.”
“Jinnah’s opposition was not against Hindus or Hindustan, it was the Congress (Jinnah had been President of All India Congress Party) that he considered as the true political rival of the Muslim League….”
Jaswant Singh’s book has already topped the non-ficrion category. However, the book has been banned inside BJP-governed Gujrat state.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/08/21/the-bigots-and-the-self-denials/
As a preliminary note, your racist attack on "Anglo-Saxons" is misplaced in regard to Kaminski. Whatever an Anglo-Saxon might be in 2010 (could you please give me an example of one of these "Anglo-Saxons"?), a Slav or Jew called Kaminski certainly is not one of them.
Furthermore you keep referring to various Anti-Christs as "Christian". For example, you cite the phrase, "white man's burden" as somehow typical of Christian thinking. In fact, the phrase was coined by Kipling, a Freemason, and therefore Anti-Christ. And most (or all?) of the people whose actions and attitudes you refer to were equally Anti-Christ: Disraeli, Rhodes, Churchill, Lloyd George, etc.
+ + +
Anyway, Kaminski talks a complete pile of shit when discussing Church history. He’s an idiot when it comes to such things. It’s a full-time job countering his sort of Masonic Satanic bullshit.
A typical example of Kaminski’s Judaic lies and lunatic ravings:
“The creation of the Christian bible is actually the principal template for deception that has been followed ever since its clumsy conception in 325 AD by a group later called “a synod of fools and madmen.” Uttered as it was by the Empress Irene, a Khazarian Jew serving as de facto Pope in 787 AD, one can only wonder what from the original Bible was lost as she changed the lineage of Jesus from Galilean to Jewish.”
Kaminski’s errors:
1. The canonicity of the Bible was established centuries before Nicea. It was never “conceived” anywhere at any time. Therefore Kaminksi is in eror when he asserts that “the Christian bible [had a] clumsy conception in 325 AD.
2. The Seven Ecumenical Councils were: 325: Nicea; 381: Constantinople; 431: Ephesus; 451: Chalcedon; 553: Constantinople; 680: Constantinople; 787: Nicea. It was the INVALID council of Constantinople in 785 A.D. that was denounced as “a synod of fools and mad men” at the VALID Council of Nicea in 787 A.D. Therefore Kaminski is in error when he incorrectly refers to the canonical 325 Nicaean council by a term that was canonically applied to the uncanonical 787 Nicaean council. He’s obviously just regurgitating the kind of anti-Christ nonsense of the Freemason Lyman Stowe (1907: “Bible Astrology: The Bible Founded on Astrology”) and the Blavatskyites and Gourdieffites and Albert Pike and Eliphas Levy ad nauseum.
3. Kaminski alleges that an Athenian woman was a Khazari “de facto” pope. His error, or lie is based on a confusion of the Athenian Empress Irene Sarantapechaina, with Princess Tzitzak, whose baptismal name was Irene. How could the Empress Irene Sarantapechaina the Athenian have been a Khazar? She was thoroughly Greek, married to Leo IV. Leo IV's mother, Tzitak, was a Khazari princess. And this a century before any Khazar became a Jew. The liar Kaminski describes the Empress Irene as “Khazarian” in an attempt to imply that she was somehow disreputable and somehow Jewish. The point of all this “Khazar” nonsense (regarding Irene & Leo) that the Jews spread, is to imply or assert that the Christian Roman Empire and the Orthodox Church were controlled by Jews. How this could have been is never really explained. The reason they do it is because the Christian Roman Empire (“Byzantium) was the most successful and powerful Christian nation, and it kept Jews out of education and politics. It’s “Khazar nonsense” because Princess Tzazak/Irene died in 750. In fact, the Empress Irene the Athenian was in constant conflict with the enemies of Orthodoxy, including her husband, his brother, and her son. All of them were iconoclasts and she is together with St John of Damascus known as the greatest defender of icons and the monasteries. Therefore the suggestion that she was in any sense Jewish or Judaic is especially ridiculous. And how on Earth was she “the de facto Pope”? The ecclesiastical authority in the empire was the Patriarch of Constantinople. Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne as “Holy Roman Emperor” precisely because Charlmagne refused to recognize Irene as Empress. How could she be the “de facto” pope when Leo III was pope, and anyway the ecclesiastical authority in the empire was the Patriarch of Constantinople, not the so-called pope. To summarize: It’s absurd to suggest that Empress Irene was in any way “de facto pope” when (a) Leo III was “pope” [i.e Bishop of Rome] (b) the Bishop of Rome had no authority whatsoever over the Church of Constantinople, and (c) the canonical authority in the Church of Consataninople, and the chief cleric of the empire, was the Patriarch of Constantinople. And how could she have been the “de facto pope” (or anything) in 787, when she only reigned from 797 to 802? And how could she “utter” anything about a single word in the Bible when she had absolutely no authority to do so, and besides that she never did. Nor was the text of the Bible altered in any way at the Council of Nicea in 787! [In other rants, Kaminski also confuses the Emperor Leo IV (750–780) with Pope Leo IV (847–855).] Kaminski attributed actions and a role to Empress Irene, the Athenian wife of Emperor Leo IV, that she neither did nor was ever in any position to do. His chronology is at least ten years off, anyway. His purpose is also to make stupid people believe that the New Testament was “uttered” (?) by Empress Irene ten years before she became Empress and also somehow, magically, in 325.
These are FACTS. A few simple internet searches for those who are not very knowledgeable about history would be enough to ascertain the veracity of my statements and the foolishness of Kamanski’s.
But instead we are treated to Talmudic “arguments” based on ad hominem, ipse dixit, and argumentum ad verecundiam fallacies. This is how Jews operates.
The FACTS, for review, are:
- Emperor Constantine V lived from 718 to 775, and reigned from 741 to 775.
- Emperor Constantine V was married to the Khazar Princess Tzitzak, daughter of Bihar. (They married in 732.)
- Princess Tzitzak was baptised as Irene.
- Emperor Constantine was an Iconocalst. He was opposed to icons of Christ (i.e. he took the Judaic and Muslim position (later also the puritanical position)). He assaulted monks, monasteries and the Church in general. His wife Tzitzak/Irene was a true Orthodox Christian, and defended the Church, the monks, and the Iconography of Christ.
- Emperor Constantine V and his wife Tzitzak/Irene had a son, who became Emperor Leo IV.
- Because his mother was Khazarian, Leo IV is referred to as “Leo the Khazar”.
- Emperor Leo IV lived from 750 to 780. He was ceremonially co-emperor from 771, and actually emperor from 775 to 780.
- Leo IV married Irene Sarantapechaina in 769.
- Irene Sarantapechaina was a Greek, and is known as “Irene the Athenian”
- Leo IV began his short reign as an Iconoclast, and persecuted the Church, just as his father (Constantine V) and grandfather (Leo II) had done. Leo IV was very influenced by his wife to become slightly more tolerant of Orthodox teachings regarding iconography, monasticism, and so on.
- When Leo IV died in 780, his wife, Irene the Athenian, became guardian of the infant Emperor Constantine VI (771–797). She was the empress of the Christian Roman Empire 797 to 802. She is blessed in the Church as one of the Church’s greatest defenders.
- Khazars converted to Judaism sometime between 790 and the early ninth century.
+ + +
Kaminski appears to be stoned when he writes:
“The letter J had yet to be invented in 325 AD. Hesus was a Druidic divinity, the Emperor Constantine was a Brit, Krishna was the oldest god on the planet. This is where the name comes from. Any stories about JC flying around and doing anything are fiction. Occasionally, good fiction.”
“Jesus” is “Iesus” in Greek and Latin, so the letter “J” has nothing to do with anything. Furthermore, Iesus derives from Yeshua. Heus was a Gaulish deity. The two names are completely unconnected. Only neo-pagan “druids” (i.e. Freemasons) say otherwise.
Does Kaminski mean that "Christ" is from "Krishna"? Spare us this lunacy! English “Christ” is derived from Greek Χριστός; from the Greek for anointing; "Christ", "The Messiah", i.e. "The Annointed One".
+ + +
More pure Masonic Anti-Christ shit from Kaminski:
“The idea that we gained something when Christianity was established is ultimately false, because, even as it pacified and standardized churlish populations, it limited the possibilities of expanding our consciousness to pre-approved role models.”
+ + +
John Kaminski: “All that can be said about Daryl’s shrill iamthewitness.com is that he runs good stories by Hufschmid and others.” And after writing that, he was again a regular guest on Smith's ridiculous disinfo site. Mind polluters: Huffshit, D.BS., Kaminski et al: A bunch of monkeys throwing crap at each other and anybody who gets in their way.
One thing these lying “truthers” seem to have in common is so to lie about Henry Makow, who is doing a great job exposing Jewish evil. Kaminski repeatedly spreads lies like this:
“…many websites stopped running my stuff when I turned up the volume about Jewish influence. The quote that throws people over the edge is this one: “Everything Zionists do is justified by the Talmud.” No wiggle room there. No chance to use the deceptive terms “New World Order” or “Illuminati” or “Frankists.” These are strategems used by Henry Makow and his ilk of supposedly objective critics of social issues that obscure the actual root of most of these problems, which can almost always be traced to some person or group which is undeniably Jewish.”
That is a complete web of lies. In fact, Makow always points out the Jewish origins of the New World Order and the Illuminati and Freemasonry. Makow has always argued that everything Zionists do is rationalised by the Talmud.
For example, Henry Makow in 2004:
QUOTE
“A bill requiring the State Department 'to monitor incidents of anti-Semitism around the world' passed the U.S. Senate last week. The State Department would also monitor each government’s efforts to pass and enforce measures 'to protect Jewish religious freedom as well as endeavours to promote anti bias and tolerance education.' A strong court case can be made that the Talmud, considered the basis of modern Judaism, is hate literature. (Most secular Jews are unaware of this.) Is the Senate equally vigilant to anti-gentile hate by Talmudic Jews? Why not?
“THE TALMUD: HATE LITERATURE PROTOTYPE?
“According to Israel Shahak, a Professor Emeritus at Hebrew University, the Talmud treats non-Jews as 'sub human' and directs Jews to discriminate against them. … [T]he financial cabal portrays opposition to their tyranny as 'anti Semitism.' Later, I will ask why don’t they consider the Jewish Talmud to be hate literature. Is it because some of them are Talmudists? It appears that legitimate opposition to the Orwellian New World Order is stigmatized as “hate. …
"THE TALMUD IS UNDOUBTEDLY THE ANSWER TO THE RIDDLE OF ANTI-SEMITISM.”
UNQUOTE
Repeat: Henry Makow, 2004:
“THE TALMUD IS UNDOUBTEDLY THE ANSWER TO THE RIDDLE OF ANTI-SEMITISM.”
So clearly — and contrary to Kaminski's lies — Makow does in fact identify the Talmud and Talmudic thinking as the source of Zionist corruption, lies, scams, plots, etc.
Furthermore, Makow is not a “born again Christian” as Anti-Christ Kaminski alleges, but an agnostic secular man who is ethnically Jewish, but believes that Jews went seriously wrong by rejecting and hating Jesus Christ. It’s a pity he’s not a Christian. Makow is a gentle, honest and considerate man trying to find out the truth and EXTREMELY critical of Judaism and of Zionism. Kaminski is a stupid, arrogant, desparate, lying cunt who’s filled with hate, and has no sense of decency or loyalty.
+ + +
Besides trying to discredit decent people who happen to have been born into Jewish families, Kaminski's main mission is is mostly to attack Christ. That’s why he turns everything into an attack on Christ, Christians, Christianity, the Church.
Muckrakers and scumbags like Darryl Bradford Smith, Eric Huffshit, and John Kaminski love to just throw around ahistorical, anachronistic and illogical nonsense like “Pope Leo IV the Khazar!” and “Empress Irene the Khazar!” to confuse dummies about history, and to imply that Christian teachings have been corrupted by Jewish interlopers, and that the New Testament is a product of Imperial Rome. This is their assigned mission. They spout their rubbish all the time. And if you try to inform people of historical facts, of reality, they’ll say you’re “splitting hairs.”
They are of their father, the devil, the Prince of Lies.
In reference to the comment:
'As a preliminary note, your racist attack on "Anglo-Saxons" is misplaced in regard to Kaminski. Whatever an Anglo-Saxon might be in 2010'.
There is a good question buried in that statement, what is an Anglo-Saxon in 2010?
Does it still carry the white man's burden of yesteryear?
But this question must equally apply to the Jew in 2010 as well – does it carry the abhorrence of yesteryear's Talmudic tortous philosophies today?
Do many Jews even know what's in their own books anymore than the Anglo Saxons know what's in theirs?
Those accusing the Jews of particularism with a victim face for what's in their olden books of generations past might perhaps first abandon their own chutzpah – read what's recorded in their own books of their own ancestors' genocidal and colonizing exploits and of their own forefathers abhorrent aspirations for the future, without resorting to apologetic re-semanticizing their monumental crimes against the 'untermensch' humanity as merely the crimes of the "Anti-Christs":
“It is the destiny of the pure Aryan Anglo-Saxon race to dominate the world and kill off or else reduce to a servile status all other inferior races.” — William Allen White, quoted in E.C. Knuth's The Empire of “the City”
Please read the cited essay for more clarity, and do pay particular attention to the excerpt from the speech made to the British Parliament in 1835 by Lord Macaulay. Here is that link again:
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/02/white-anglo-saxon-race-obsession.html
Back to the comment, if the unstated argument buried in it is that that's no longer the general Anglo Saxon man's and woman's burden in 2010, why do people make the same sort of crap out to be the burden of the general Jew man or woman in 2010?
Judge people of today by their own acts of today – not by what they may have inherited as historical baggage. As for beliefs, one is entitled to harbor any – including abhorrent ones. Freedom of belief is as fundamental as freedom of thought . How can the twain ever be separated – except in a totalitarian Orwellian sort of system, the one we are beggetting as we speak whereby thought crimes are punishable in room 101 while destruction of entire civilization is handed the Nobel Peace Prize? No, only its virulent expression that inflicts harm upon others, which usurps rights of others, whether through bodily decimation with bombs, or economic decimation through sanction-strangulation, or monetary decimation through perpetual debt, or psychological decimation through mind-control, indoctrination and psyops, etc., is a crime. And the criminals of today have plenty to not only be condemned for, but hung at the highest gallows several times over – with all their wealth and power confiscated and their aiders and abettors held for paying full and fair restitution to the victims – from among both Jews and Christians.
One need not dredge out their cultural-historical-religious past to condemn an entire people for the crimes against humanity being perpetrated today by the handful of monumental criminals among them who have now openly revived that very Anglo Saxon's white man's burden, and whose main brunt is being borne by Muslims today.
My kith and kin, my civilizations, which were, in yesteryear and in couple of centuries past, brutally colonized by the Anglo-Saxons to harvest our wealth, and who reduced us to servile 'negroes' and destroyed our way of life because they carried upon their long white bent backs their "la mission civilisatrice". And who are, even as I write this, bombing us to smithereens with their renewed burden of world government in the guise of bringing us what's once again staged as being beneficial for us. Our own bondage and servitude!
I am the victim, my people are the victim, and yet, I am unwilling to condemn all of white color or of Christian religion or of Jewish religion. Only those who are guilty – and guilt by association through common race or common heritage is not in any sensible fair-minded person's law books. And neither was it even in administering the victor's justice to the Nazis at the Nuremberg Military Tribunals which set a precedent for International Law in modernity. Nor do I accept it being imputed to us by those posing as our friends and sympathizers.
No polemics, nor false accusation of racism due to inability to read tone and text accurately, as in the comment cited above: "your racist attack on "Anglo-Saxons"…", can alter this basic commonsense.
Since English is my second language, thanks to Lord Macaulay, I am sure the native speakers of English can read-write-understand their own natives' penmanship far better. Therefore, I hope the above explains sufficiently in a simpler vernacular for those unable to parse the aqcuired English of the once colonized brown man. No longer colonized, and the hectoring Anglo Saxon's worst nightmare: many have now learnt to read their own books from that same "single shelf of a good European library [which] was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia." And from what has been gleaned, Lord Macaulay surely "could [have done a tad more] to form a [more] correct estimate of their value."
Thank you.
Zahir Ebrahim
Project Humanbeingsfirst.org
Thank you, Zahir, for your informed comments. I appreciate the insights, and accept your corrections, but not your analyses. The reason I lump Christianity and Islam in with Judaism is that both religions accept Moses and Jesus as legitimate historical personalities, which they are clearly not. In Moses and Monotheism, Freud clearly points out that Moses was a composite character who probably was fictitious and apocryphal. Perhaps there were three or four Moseses, all of whom appear to have been murdered by their own followers, according to Freud. Any student of history realizes that Jesus is the same, a composite construction of a variety of previous sources, cobbled together by Hebrews Peter and Paul to pacify and exploit a docilized populace. That Islam accepts these two fictional characters as authentic historical figures infers to me that Islam is as fictional as Christianity and Judaism. Your comments, I insist to you respectfully and logically, are inauthentic, because you seek not to uncover the truth but merely to defend your own dogma. That said, I will insist to you that God, especially an anthropomorphic god, is nothing more than a human projection to anesthetize your fear of death. And that said, I will insist to you that I believe in God as an unfathomable collection of laws and principles which govern all life in the universe, that the holy books merely misrepresent as some kind of talking head to control gullible populations.