The white man's burden still looks white in color By Zahir Ebrahim
by
Project Humanbeingsfirst.org | 01.16.2011
If non-Jewish Western folks riling against the Jews can only recognize that their problem in the so called "Judeo-Christian" civilization with the Jews is exclusively the baggage of their peculiar history that both are forced to share, and that, this baggage of history not only colors both sides' perceptions of each other, but also does not exist in the Middle East, Iran, India, and elsewhere, except for Zionism, which is indeed a project of the Rothschilds (links below), they might see that the grotesque generalizations made by John Kaminski like “There are no good Jews”, are not only patently false, but patently absurd.
The
white man's burden still looks white in color - Zahir Ebrahim's
Response to John Kaminski's “There are no good Jews”
Zahir
Ebrahim | Project
Humanbeingsfirst.org
Friday,
January 14, 2011 6:00 PM PST | Last Revised Sunday, Jan 16, 2011 noon
PST
So,
since one man's faith is another's cartoon, is John Kaminski out to
insult almost 6 billion theistic peoples on the planet?Because,
that is the only logical conclusion to where John Kaminski's riling
against the Jews will end: “There are no good Jews”.Or,
is it more sensible to judge people solely by their acts, not their
beliefs?The actors today of all the crimes against humanity,
have indoctrinated their flocks equally to 'united we stand' them –
both in the Unites States and the entire West, as well as among the
world's Jewry, into respectively supporting the War on Terror, and
Zionistan.The indoctrinators in both cases, today, I believe,
happen to be the same!!
In
response to John Kaminski's article 'The
moral treason of David Icke',
let me first say that I have never met John Kaminski, but
occasionally correspond with him –
mostly to do with his opinions on religion – and enjoy the
friendly jousting with a free-thinker that I imagine John is.
It
is always good to communicate with rational peoples, and with people
with differing viewpoints, in order to avoid the White House's
incestuously self-reinforcing decision-making process in one's own
worldviews.
But
John Kaminski likes to talk more than listen, unfortunately. Don't we
all?
How
many writers actually listen to another? Or try to see a point of
view which is inimical to their own worldview?
The
following statement of Bertrand Russell, while true for most of us,
is most true for writers, especially the free-thinking sort:
"What
a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index to his
desires – desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If
a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts [or
worldview], he will scrutinize it closely, and unless [and at times
even when] the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe
it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a
reason for acting in accordance with his instincts [or worldview], he
will accept it even on the slenderest evidence." (Bertrand
Russell, Proposed Roads to Freedom, 1919, page 147)
In
his article, I am afraid John Kaminski has not produced any evidence
to explain his belief that most Jews actually believe in the
abhorrent crap in the Talmud. Just because one is Jewish, it is
presumed that they espouse the supremacist crap in their ancient
books.
Secondly,
even if that was the case, and John hasn't proved that, it is
irrelevant.
Why
should one not be free to believe any crap one wants?
One
man's crap is another man's religion.
So
long as that crap doesn't become “la mission civilisatrice”
upon others, a domestic policy pivot to enforce unfair laws upon
others, and a foreign policy pivot to wage wars of conquest upon
others, or shall we call that “imperial mobilization”
from Wounded Knee to Afghanistan, I have no problem with it.
Believe
any god-damned crap one wants – just don't make me and others
feel its pain!
So,
the sensible point then is, criminal acts are crimes, not criminal
thoughts.
Otherwise
the thought-police may have us all locked up!
And
this commonsensical principle was also re-established at Nuremberg
very forcefully:
"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, Robert H. Jackson, Chief Counsel
for the United States, 1946)
John
Kaminski evidently believes that the Jews are the first-cause source
of world's problems because they believe in some abhorrent crap of
supremacy, derived from their scriptures concerning the “god's
chosen people”, and corrupted by their Rabbis in their various
Rabbinical Talmuds to mean: lord over the goy. You want to see
perversion of thought? I can show you that perversity right here
where it is not just the goy the Talmudic Rabbis are supremo to, but
also supremo to god itself. Watch it in Masters of the World:
http://bloghumanbeingsfirst.wordpress.com/2010/10/22/on-jews-becoming-the-masters-of-the-world-the-coronation-of-hashem-from-the-torah/#masters-of-the-world
As
discussed elsewhere, how is it that such rabidly perverted Chabad
have such stranglehold upon the corridors of political power in the
United States and Europe? Witness it visually in the following
photographs:
http://humanbeingsfirst.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/photo-archive-masters-of-the-universe-in-the-corridors-of-earthly-power.pdf
So,
for John Kaminski, the world is in a mess primarily because the Jews
are inspired by their misanthropic dogma of 'god's chosen people' so
appointed to lord upon the goy.
But
wait just a second – even so, how are the Jews able to do it?
What
gives them that “iron wall” protection which opens for
them all the political doors in almost the entire Western world?
I
have discussed this elsewhere
in the context of Palestine. Here, the only point I wish to make is
that these ill-begotten mullahs of zionism
are representatives of a power so immense, that the errand boys in
the front offices of governments across Europe, the United States,
and Great Britain, recognize these perverted shlomos
to be the emissaries of that immense power – no differently
than the ordinary pale-skinned colonel in knickers could brow-beat an
Indian Maharaja into handing over the previous year's harvest simply
be demanding it!
Because,
the Maharaja knew that the measly
chicken-shit colonel who couldn't stand a chance in a boxing match
with his Indian servant, represented an un-challengeable
imperial power from across the seas! If the Maharaja wasn't nice to
empire's errand boys with an open smile and open backside, the
imperial power would bring on even greater munificence
than simply the demand for the proceeds of last and this year's
crop!!
That
power, variously represented today by the "hectoring hegemons"
rather than the pale-skinned colonel in knickers, and who eagerly
front for a similar greater power of the oligarchs who rule from
behind the scenes, happen to be self-proclaimed Jews across the
hierarchy of power. And just like
yesterday, many a white man from Christian lands,
still willingly carry his own white Anglo-Saxon's pale-skinned burden
of "la mission civilisatrice", upon his own tortuous
back! As is reported in Edwin C. Knuth's The Empire of 'The City':
“Geopolitics,
the study of the struggle for space and power, forms a well-developed
science with an extensive bibliography, which conclusively impeaches
the superficial fabrication, with which the American people in
particular have been implanted with consummate cunning, that the
great World Wars are caused by brutal attacks upon world law and
order, instead of being the fully anticipated consequences of the
most diabolical double dealing and planning by the secret 'One World'
order of 'The City.' ... '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.'” (Edwin C.
Knuth, The Empire of 'The City', 1944 AD)
I
have previously responded to John Kaminski in an article
sufficiently, which was a response to his own previous article: "Why
no Jewish Writer Can Be Believed", to warrant rehashing it
again. His present article is really more of the same, just going the
next logical mile for John Kaminski to now condemn all Jews, writer
or not. I'll just leave a link to my previous response below. I
remain entirely un-persuaded by my
free-thinker friend John Kaminski, as I do on many of his other
points on religion as well. But my new friend and interlocutor is
just as entitled to his beliefs as the Talmudic Rabbi. Just don't
force its enactment upon others.
Incidentally,
I will note as a Muslim, that Muslims have lived with the Jews for
centuries and don't share such dismal sentiments of John Kaminski:
“There are no good Jews. Except for extraordinarily infrequent
exceptions, there ARE no good Jews. They take a vow every year never
to tell the truth. They believe other people are animals, and that
Jews can steal other people’s property with no penalty (as long
as they don’t get caught by a gullible goy lawman).” And:
“That’s why Jews make such bad neighbors, because we’re
only just animals.”
The
reader might take my opinion more than a tad seriously – since
Muslims are the people today bearing the full brunt of the largesses
of the Jewish Lebensraum in Palestine, and World Government in the
'untermenschen' nations, and if anyone should be upset, its us. And
those largesses are being visited upon us in our cold red blood on
the backs of the Christian white man now bringing us 'untermenschen'
their Jesus (
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hVGmbzDLq5c
). The same white man who previously colonized my lands and left me
English to write these comments with:
Begin
Excerpt
[9]
What then shall that language be? One-half of the committee maintain
that it should be the English. The other half strongly recommend the
Arabic and Sanscrit. The whole question seems to me to be-- which
language is the best worth knowing?
[10]
I have no knowledge of either Sanscrit or Arabic. But I have done
what I could to form a correct estimate of their value. I have read
translations of the most celebrated Arabic and Sanscrit works. I have
conversed, both here and at home, with men distinguished by their
proficiency in the Eastern tongues. I am quite ready to take the
oriental learning at the valuation of the orientalists themselves. I
have never found one among them who could deny that a single shelf of
a good European library was worth the whole native literature of
India and Arabia. The intrinsic superiority of the Western literature
is indeed fully admitted by those members of the committee who
support the oriental plan of education.
[11]
It will hardly be disputed, I suppose, that the department of
literature in which the Eastern writers stand highest is poetry. And
I certainly never met with any orientalist who ventured to maintain
that the Arabic and Sanscrit poetry could be compared to that of the
great European nations. But when we pass from works of imagination to
works in which facts are recorded and general principles
investigated, the superiority of the Europeans becomes absolutely
immeasurable. It is, I believe, no exaggeration to say that all the
historical information which has been collected from all the books
written in the Sanscrit language is less valuable than what may be
found in the most paltry abridgments used at preparatory schools in
England. In every branch of physical or moral philosophy, the
relative position of the two nations is nearly the same.
[12]
How then stands the case? We have to educate a people who cannot at
present be educated by means of their mother-tongue. We must teach
them some foreign language. The claims of our own language it is
hardly necessary to recapitulate. It stands pre-eminent even among
the languages of the West. It abounds with works of imagination not
inferior to the noblest which Greece has bequeathed to us, --with
models of every species of eloquence, --with historical composition,
which, considered merely as narratives, have seldom been surpassed,
and which, considered as vehicles of ethical and political
instruction, have never been equaled-- with just and lively
representations of human life and human nature, --with the most
profound speculations on metaphysics, morals, government,
jurisprudence, trade, --with full and correct information respecting
every experimental science which tends to preserve the health, to
increase the comfort, or to expand the intellect of man. Whoever
knows that language has ready access to all the vast intellectual
wealth which all the wisest nations of the earth have created and
hoarded in the course of ninety generations. It may safely be said
that the literature now extant in that language is of greater value
than all the literature which three hundred years ago was extant in
all the languages of the world together. Nor is this all. In India,
English is the language spoken by the ruling class. It is spoken by
the higher class of natives at the seats of Government. It is likely
to become the language of commerce throughout the seas of the East.
It is the language of two great European communities which are
rising, the one in the south of Africa, the other in Australia,
--communities which are every year becoming more important and more
closely connected with our Indian empire. Whether we look at the
intrinsic value of our literature, or at the particular situation of
this country, we shall see the strongest reason to think that, of all
foreign tongues, the English tongue is that which would be the most
useful to our native subjects.
[13]
The question now before us is simply whether, when it is in our power
to teach this language, we shall teach languages in which, by
universal confession, there are no books on any subject which deserve
to be compared to our own, whether, when we can teach European
science, we shall teach systems which, by universal confession,
wherever they differ from those of Europe differ for the worse, and
whether, when we can patronize sound philosophy and true history, we
shall countenance, at the public expense, medical doctrines which
would disgrace an English farrier, astronomy which would move
laughter in girls at an English boarding school, history abounding
with kings thirty feet high and reigns thirty thousand years long,
and geography made of seas of treacle and seas of butter.
[14]
We are not without experience to guide us. History furnishes several
analogous cases, and they all teach the same lesson. There are, in
modern times, to go no further, two memorable instances of a great
impulse given to the mind of a whole society, of prejudices
overthrown, of knowledge diffused, of taste purified, of arts and
sciences planted in countries which had recently been ignorant and
barbarous.
[34]
In one point I fully agree with the gentlemen to whose general views
I am opposed. I feel with them that it is impossible for us, with our
limited means, to attempt to educate the body of the people. We must
at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters
between us and the millions whom we govern, --a class of persons
Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in
morals and in intellect. To that class we may leave it to refine the
vernacular dialects of the country, to enrich those dialects with
terms of science borrowed from the Western nomenclature, and to
render them by degrees fit vehicles for conveying knowledge to the
great mass of the population. --
http://columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00generallinks/macaulay/txt_minute_education_1835.html
End
Excerpt
The
above excerpt is from a speech made by Lord Macaulay, dated the 2nd
February 1835, in the British Parliament, and soon afterwards, we had
the brown-sahibs cultivated in the Indo
sub-continent, who became, just as Macaulay architected it for the
British colonies: “a class of persons Indian in blood and
colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in
intellect.”
Yes
mes amis – la mission civilisatrice – the white
man's burden.
I
am not clear how many of those were Jews? Can you perhaps inform me?
And
how many were Christians?
And
how many were the Anglo-Saxons, who, inter alia, killed 10 million of
the inhabitants of the native Americas, forcibly settled it with
genocide, with General Sherman regrettably
expressing to his son before he died:
“the
very same army that had recently conquered and occupied the Southern
states – led by Generals Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan –
mass murdered Indian men, women, and children during the winters,
when families would be together, with massive Gatling gun and
artillery fire. In a letter to his son a year before he died (1889),
Sherman expressed his regret that his armies did not murder every
last Indian in North America.”
(Press Release Gaza-Palestine, Fake Wars and Manufactured Enemies:
What’s it all about? January
21, 2009
)
And
how many were the pale-skinned Anglo-Saxons, who, again inter alia,
physically and mentally colonized the 400 million peoples of India?
And
pray tell how do I tell them apart – they all look white to me
– from those pilgrims coming to America to kill the 10 million
of its inhabitants, to the ones coming to India under the banner of
free trade with the East India Company, and through
deception and divide et impera, taking over the entire lands
for almost 200 years? Just as the new white man, the Ashkenazi,
has today taken over Palestine with support from the same Anglo-Saxon
Christian civilizations employing the same principles as used to
settle the New World. This was even un-abashedly
admitted by George W. Bush on the occasion of the 60th
Birthday bash in Zionistan which was
enthusiastically attended by most Western European Christian heads of
state: “Our two nations both faced great challenges when
they were founded. And our two nations have both relied on the same
principles to help us succeed.”
Perhaps
John Kaminski has a litmus test of piety for the white man –
beyond his specious and outright facile "jew" vs. "gentile"
demagoguery?
Also
see my perspective article linked below: The Obsession With Purity
Of The White Race For The White Anglo Saxons – What's to Be
Proud Of In The Race Construct for Civilization? Its Record Is Only
Dismal!
The
white man is in no position to spout hypocritical morality, when now
faced with an even more diabolical foe – as also directly
expressed in my letters to Dr. David Duke and Professor Kevin
MacDonald noted at the end. These two gentlemen also rile against the
Jews, inter alia, for the multiculturalism and open immigration
policies the Jews subversively introduced into the United States, and
also into Western European countries, diluting what these Christian
white man perceive as their white man's culture. In his
extraordinarily perceptive book the Culture of Critique, Kevin
MacDonald very eruditely analyzed 'multiculturalism' as the tribal
dynamics of survival in a singular majority culture which has, at
times, been inimical to the well-being of the minority Jews.
To:
Prof. Kevin MacDonald, Professor of Psychology, CSULB
Date:
Friday, December 17, 2010
Subject:
Multiculturalism diluting the White Man's Burden?
Hello
Prof. Kevin MacDonald,
I
wonder if you might comment on my letter to Dr. David Duke,
specifically the last main paragraph. You are an outspoken critic of
multiculturalism yourself. Several years ago I read your interesting
book CoC. I also read some of your essays every now and then.
What you share with Dr. David Duke, is in that last passage of my
letter to him. Most of the authors who write for Vdare.com
(submission noted below) also evidently hold that view. And so did
Eustace Mullins, as evidenced in his glorification of Shem in
his book The Curse of Canaan, as the only distinguished
harbingers of world civilizations. The white man today bemoans his
loss of advantage at the altar of multiculturalism, an advantage
often gained, which history tells us, at the point of perfidy and
sword. From the East India Company bringing the white
man's burden to my lands, perfidy, to the noble white man
settling the New World by exterminating its indigenous inhabitants,
sword. Yet, when I point this inconvenient fact out to the outspoken
harbingers of white man's civilization bemoaning the loss of their
primacy advantage to an even greater hegemon, they entirely ignore
me thus adding to my confusion-space. I hope you will not do the
same.
What
I humbly request is that you kindly publish my letter to Dr. David
Duke, since evidently neither Vdare is going to do it, nor is David
Duke going to respond, and offer your cogent refutation of its
pertinent passage if you feel I am indeed confused in thinking that
principally, the grapes are sour! Otherwise, I hope you can
straightforwardly admit your own narrow self-interests have as much
to do with objective scholarship and moral supremacy as the narrow
self-interests you critique of your nemesis, the Jews. As an
'untermensch' having long endured the munificent largesses of the
white man's burden, I am never confused by hectoring hegemons
and their pious doctrines of conquests which often come wrapped in
profound scholarship – they live and perish by the same values
they espouse. It is only the pious complaints when they lose which
confuse me. I quite anticipate the indomitable Zionists to be making
similar arguments someday as the pious white gentile is making
today.
I
look forward to you, as a public scholar at a publicly funded
university, to gently remove this fog of confusion which tends to
surround me in the West anytime I try to think for myself. No one
else is ever willing to address a plebeian's confusions which, I
dearly suspect, may be quite endemic among the silent
'untermenschen' comprising the great multicultural milieu in what
was once a peaceful mono-cultural land of the native Americans.
Sincerely,
Zahir
Ebrahim | Project Humanbeingsfirst.org
The
following is what I wrote Kevin MacDonald for instance, inviting him
to interlocution, which was greeted by the usual enthusiastic silence
– as I noted above, which erudite pundit with a bullhorn likes
to listen to the 'untermensch's' perspective, especially among the
self-righteous who have performed their hajj after eating 900
mice! My letter to professor MacDonald, who is evidently a
favorite of many a white supremacist now repackaging their age-old
white man's burden as merely protecting the white man's
culture from cultural contamination, gets directly to the heart
of the matter of Western hegemons now faced with an even greater
hegemon out to conquer them. Their la mission civilisatrice
now spans the gamut of Kaminski's inimical infighting: “There
are no good Jews” to their collaboration: “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.”
Yes,
I am so impressed with this Hegelian mind-fck!
If
non-Jewish Western folks riling against the Jews can only recognize
that their problem in the so called "Judeo-Christian"
civilization with the Jews is exclusively the baggage of their
peculiar history that both are forced to share, and that, this
baggage of history not only colors both sides' perceptions of each
other, but also does not exist in the Middle East, Iran, India, and
elsewhere, except for Zionism, which is indeed a project of the
Rothschilds (links below), they might see that the grotesque
generalizations made by John Kaminski like “There are no
good Jews”, are not only patently false, but patently
absurd.
If
these generalizations were universally perceived to be true, then the
Muslim societies where Jews have lived peaceably for centuries after
centuries, and thrived at the same time, before the onset of Zionism
which has today indoctrinated the world Jewry in no small a measure,
would also share in that outlook. But we, the Muslims, generally
don't. We are more than 1.25 billion Muslims, and more than 3/5 of
all humanity lives outside the West who don't share such 2000 year
old burden upon our cultural ethos. Hence, these bizarre
generalization are false!
Okay,
so if these are generally false, then are they particularly true
merely in the West? I'll let the white man sort out their internal
squabbles on who might carry the greater burden of la mission
civilisatrice!
As
for Lord Macaulay, despite his admission “I have no knowledge
of either Sanscrit or Arabic.”, he bequeathed
us more than just English, he bequeathed us the 'brown sahib', “a
class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes,
in opinions, in morals and in intellect.”! The fifth columnist
in our developing nations like Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh, our
feudal classes, and most of our ruling elites, are largely drawn from
this cess-pool of brown-sahibs and Uncle
Toms.
And
I am supposed to be all riled up against the Jews - who I believe to
be as much victims of Zionism as any Islamofascist is of empire's
cultivation, "tickling", and harvesting?
As
any "Good American" is today of their own indoctrination?
If
one can accept that Christian and secular Americans are indoctrinated
from birth into a perverse flag waiving 'united we stand' asininity,
what makes one reject that the Jews are also similarly indoctrinated
since birth to their own perverse flag waiving for 'zionistan'?
Why
the special exemption for the Jews from that acute understanding of
social and political science?
Should
the Americans be asked to give up Christianity and the phantasmal
material in their Bible? They are bombing the world aplenty to surely
warrant it! Then why are the Jews being asked to give up what's in
their phantasmal books?
As
a Muslim, I find much to critique in both faiths' scriptural texts
that exist today, just as atheists find the entire lot rubbish,
including my faith, Islam, and my holy book, the Qur'an; just like
Jews didn't accept the Messiah, the Jews and Christians together
didn't accept Prophet Muhammad, and the modern atheist thinks all of
it is bunk and he knows best – the illuminated one!
Also
see link below for my perspective article, Islamofascism -
Zionofascism - Judeofascism - Christofascism - Neofascism etc. An
equitable distribution of Collateral Language!
So,
since one man's faith is another's cartoon, is John Kaminski out to
insult almost 6 billion theistic peoples on the planet?
Because,
that is the only logical conclusion to where his riling against the
Jews will end!
Or,
is it more sensible to judge people solely by their acts, not their
beliefs?
The
actors today of all the crimes against humanity, have indoctrinated
their flocks equally to 'united we stand' them – both in the
Unites States and the entire West, as well as among the world's
Jewry, into respectively supporting the War on Terror, and Zionistan.
The
indoctrinators in both cases, today, I
believe, happen to be the same!!
Their
plan, for world government, for making a
"Zion that will light up all the world", has common
financiers as most already know. But do see the study links below to
learn from an 'untermensch' what he has
learned perusing the fabulous “intrinsic superiority of the
Western literature”!
http://palestinethinktank.com/2010/03/01/zahir-ebrahim-response-to-john-kaminskis-why-no-jewish-writer-can-be-believed/
---
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-confusion-invisible-rothschild-usa.html
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2011/01/omnipotent-rothschilds-where-is-proof.html
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-many-jews-does-it-take-to-confuse.html
---
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-confusion-pt4-davidduke-metanoia.html
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-confusion-pt5-kevinmacdonald-wmb.html
---
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/02/white-anglo-saxon-race-obsession.html
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2007/12/islamofascism-zionofascism-judeofascism.html
---
I
would just like to mention in conclusion, without harboring any false
sense of modesty, that Lord Macaulay also
made a mistake. Alongside the 'brown-sahibs' and assorted 'house
negroes' and Uncle Toms, he also spawned English-speaking 'field
negroes' who, albeit in a tiny minority, can today go head to head
with any white man without adopting the white man's burden!
The latter is a humble gift of my faith, and some commonsense. In
fact, commonsense alone is sufficient when the heart is permitted to
guide the reasoning of the head:
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/12/morality-from-intellect-is-enslavement.html
Thank
you for reading – if you got this far!
Zahir
Ebrahim
Project
Humanbeingsfirst.org
Source
URL:
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2011/01/white-mans-burden-still-looks-white.html
Mirror
URL:
http://bloghumanbeingsfirst.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/the-white-mans-burden-still-looks-white-in-color-by-zahir-ebrahim/
PDF
URL:
http://humanbeingsfirst.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/the-white-mans-burden-still-looks-white-in-color-by-zahir-ebrahim-response-to-john-kaminskis-there-are-no-good-jews-2.pdf
The
author, an ordinary researcher and writer on contemporary
geopolitics, a minor justice activist, grew up in Pakistan, studied
EECS at MIT, engineered for a while in high-tech Silicon Valley
(patents here),
and retired early to pursue other responsible interests. His maiden
2003 book was rejected by six publishers and can be read on the web
at http://PrisonersoftheCave.org.
He may be reached at http://Humanbeingsfirst.org.
Verbatim reproduction license at
http://www.humanbeingsfirst.org#Copyright.
01/16/2011 12:00:05
4829
The
white man's burden still looks white in color - Zahir Ebrahim's
Response to John Kaminski's “There are no good Jews” 13
/ 13
.jpg)
Comments
Post new comment