The White Man's Burden appears Uniformly Distributed – How can one tell the difference?
Zahir Ebrahim | Project Humanbeingsfirst.org | 02.20.2011
The pious white man is slipping today. Those majoring in Western hypocrisy might wish to work at layering their common mission civilisatrice with a bit more finesse and diabolicalism than they are doing now. Perhaps as they used to do in the past, when the East India Company created its version of globalism with free trade inflicted upon its colonies. And perhaps when small pox laden blankets decimated entire tribes and nations and genocided them off the face of the earth as a peoples. Today, even an ordinary plebeian is trivially able to call attention to their common bond of pious virtues, and trivially unravel their bullshit. Their Hegelian Dialectic is slipping....
The White Man's Burden appears Uniformly Distributed among Jews Christians and Atheists – how can one tell the difference?
Zahir Ebrahim | Project Humanbeingsfirst.org
Saturday, February 19, 2011 | Last Updated February 20, 2011
This is part7 of my confusion series on trying to think for myself. It is a bloody confusing exercise which I wouldn't wish to inflict even upon my most despicable enemies – they already think plenty for themselves. See earlier episodes here: part1, part2, part3, part4, part5, and part6. This is the final episode as I have promised myself to no longer be plagued by this curse of independent thought. The comfort of following the experts, the know-it-all “illumined ones” from the vast spectrum of leaders offered to the plebes, is much more opiatic, if not completely soothing to the soul. A dead intellect is the best one for the sheep – and of course, the shepherds delight.
I begin by reproducing the famous 1899 poem, The White man's Burden, by Rudyard Kipling. Its full title in syncopation with the actual white man's burden of the time, actually was: “The White Man’s Burden: The United States and The Philippine Islands”. And it went like this:
Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.
Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.
Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.
Take up the White Man's burden--
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark them with your living,
And mark them with your dead.
Take up the White Man's burden--
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"
Take up the White Man's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloke your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.
Take up the White Man's burden--
Have done with childish days--
The lightly proferred laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers! --- Source
According to History Matters' commentary on the poem:
'In February 1899, British novelist and poet Rudyard Kipling wrote a poem entitled “The White Man’s Burden: The United States and The Philippine Islands.” In this poem, Kipling urged the U.S. to take up the “burden” of empire, as had Britain and other European nations. Published in the February, 1899 issue of McClure’s Magazine, the poem coincided with the beginning of the Philippine-American War and U.S. Senate ratification of the treaty that placed Puerto Rico, Guam, Cuba, and the Philippines under American control. Theodore Roosevelt, soon to become vice-president and then president, copied the poem and sent it to his friend, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, commenting that it was “rather poor poetry, but good sense from the expansion point of view.” Not everyone was as favorably impressed as Roosevelt. The racialized notion of the “White Man’s burden” became a euphemism for imperialism, and many anti-imperialists couched their opposition in reaction to the phrase.' --- Source
Because history matters so much – both for understanding the present for the thought bearing, and for confounding the present for the uninitiated in order to get them 'United We Stand', not to mention for forging the future, any future, both good and bad – that Zbigniew Brzezinski had so astutely observed in The Grand Chessboard in 1996:
“The earlier empires were built by aristocratic political elites and were in most cases ruled by essentially authoritarian or absolutist regimes. The bulk of the populations of the imperial states were either politically indifferent, ... or infected by imperialist emotions ...a quest for national glory, 'the white man's burden', 'la mission civilisatrice', not to speak of the opportunities for personal profit – all served to mobilize support for imperial adventures to sustain essentially hierarchical imperial power pyramids. The attitude of American public toward the external projection of American power has been more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in WWII largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. .... After the Cold War had ended, the emergence of the United States as the single global power did not evoke much public gloating but rather elicited an inclination toward more limited definitions of American responsibilities abroad. Public opinion polls conducted in 1995 – 1996 indicated a general public preference for 'sharing' power with others, rather than for its monopolistic exercise.” (24,25)
“It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is defense spending), and the human sacrifice (casualties even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization.” (35,36)
“Public opinion polls suggest that only a small minority (13 percent) of Americans favor the proposition that 'as the sole remaining superpower, the US should continue to be the preeminent world leader in solving international problems'. ... Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat. .... More generally, cultural change in America may also be uncongenial to the sustained exercise abroad of genuinely imperial power. That exercise requires a high degree of doctrinal motivation, intellectual commitment, and patriotic gratification. ... Mass communications have been playing a particularly important role in that regard, generating a strong revulsion against any selective use of force that entails even low levels of casualties .... In brief, the U.S. Policy goals must be un-apologetically twofold: to perpetuate America's own dominant position for at least a generation and preferably longer,...” (211-215)
So, how to embark on “imperial mobilization” when the American white man (and the Western white man in general) are no longer themselves “infected by imperialist emotions ...a quest for national glory, 'the white man's burden', 'la mission civilisatrice',” kept engaged, and ensnared, as they all are, in chasing their respective 'American Dreams'? Which, for the vast majority of 'white trash' among them, have their dollars, pounds, and euros, sucked out of their pockets even before it can reach their dinner tables and their perpetual debt collectors? The political science principle of achieving “imperial mobilization” under such conditions is to engineer consent – just as one might engineer technology, or engineer the voyage to the moon. It takes a great deal of expertise, and very deep pockets. This social technology is examined in the Preamble of my 2008 report Weapons of Mass Deception, where it is explained how consent, as well as dissent, both must to be manufactured in order to be effective, employing different categories of deceptions tailored to the different audiences and their mental acumen.
This variance of having a differing audience, also necessitates making the manufacturing process, and its products, different at every level. From simple big lies for the vast majority, to complex layered ones which mix verifiable empirical truths, half-truths, and outright lies characterized by clever omissions, layer by layer, so that the remaining few, as well as institutions and organizations with group-think, can also find something believable to suit their own individual propensities. Myths and mantras are cleverly fabricated and presented to each audience according to their own limited world views and selfish priorities which are often shared with their respective political, social, cultural, and religious groups. These engineered myths and mantras always motivate people to act in accordance with those implanted beliefs. The end result being that the history's actors are able to get away Machiavellianly sowing their irreversible faits accomplis amidst all the confusions which follow.
Different and often opposing myths also naturally seed the interesting Technique of Infamy among antagonist domestic groups, keeping people and cabals fully embroiled in vehemently debating who is right, who knows more, who is more intelligent, who is more pious, who is more peaceable, who is the avantgarde in thought and who are the sheep, etc. Such opposing “truths” deftly implanted among groups automatically enables setting one group against another – political philosopher Hegel's recipe for creating new order from old by orchestrating the continuous clash of the opposites known as Hegelian Dialectic – and we see this false Left--Right political paradigm orchestrated along those very lines, with almost an infinite layers in between, for that very purpose. And in the limit, internationally, it enables seeding total wars among nations – the key Machiavellian modus operandi for tearing down any old world order to create a new world order. Very powerful stuff. Such confabulations, hegelian mind-fcks I call them, were examined in depth in my essay on the Mighty Wurlitzer and the power of crafting enabling myths: Wikileaks and Imperial Mobilization.
My essay Unlayering the Middle East War Agenda: Making Sense of Absurdities demonstrated that Brzezinski's prima facie motivation for inflicting American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives upon the world as expressed in The Grand Chessboard, which was chauvinistically stated as: “to perpetuate America's own dominant position for at least a generation and preferably longer,” was itself only a motivating myth. It was necessary for motivating America's vast military-industrial complex and the Pentagon warriors who all thrive on even small wars, and therefore would just love the idea of thriving endlessly in a Total War waged endlessly, the World War IV that will last “at least a generation and preferably longer,”.
The nihilistic notion of Total War similarly pushed by Brzezinski's confrere, Michael Ledeen, ostensibly to usher in regime changes throughout the New Middle East, is similarly absurd when one pauses to reflect that the old Middle East – ripe with installed dictators and implanted kingdoms oppressing their own peoples in service to the sole superpower along artificially contrived borders carved out from the remnants of the Ottoman empire at the conclusion of World War I – is entirely the orchestration of the same imperial masters now advocating the next cycle of regime changes:
“No stages. This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq… this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don’t try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war… our children will sing great songs about us years from now.” -- Michael Ledeen, speaking at the AEI (American Enterprise Institute), 10/29/2001, source
Why is Ledeen selling Total War? For the same covert motivation Zbigniew Brzezinski is selling America's preeminence in The Grand Chessboard. Everyone in the military-industrial complex is sold what they want to hear. But the real intent behind the chauvinism, as empiricism testifies, is to bankrupt America, to demoralize its public, while sowing chaos and destruction in the previous world order they had themselves established after the two World Wars. Disguised in polished vernacular and under the farcical pretext of regime changes, is the nihilism to seed chaos and demoralization among the public throughout the world. This is even apparent when one un-layers Michael Ledeen even with an ounce of forensic thinking, especially in the light of empiricism:
“Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our own society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. Seeing America undo traditional societies, they fear us, for they do not wish to be undone. They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very existence—our existence, not our politics—threatens their legitimacy. They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission.” -- Michael A. Ledeen, The War Against The Terror Masters: Why It Happened. Where We Are Now. Wow We'll Win, 2003, pgs. 212-213
This is textbook Hegel. One can see this nihilistic theme being repeated over and over again, only the latest incarnation being the Egypt Revolution. This was examined in my article: Egypt and Tunisia – The 'arc of crisis' being radicalized!.
The agenda behind constructing all these “revolutionary times” along Zbigniew Brzezinski's “arc of crisis” using Michael Ladeen's “total war” for “creative destruction” wherein, the children of the white man, in Ladeen's own words: “our children will sing great songs about us years from now”, is to make the final push for the globalists' one-world government. The white man has very clearly understood that which most 'untermenschen' have not, in David Ben Gurion's own words: “what is inconceivable in normal times is possible in revolutionary times”!
To launch this renewed white man's burden for world government, entirely through deception, many many ruses, and many many peoples, from mercenaries to patsies, from manufactured ideologues to fabricated stooges, and from all walks of life and profession have been engaged.
Infiltrations are at every level, from physical to cognitive as per the old COINTELPRO style, and even at the level of the sub-conscious mind through both flag-waiving indoctrinations, and propaganda techniques pioneered by Edward Bernays. The latter had been successfully utilized by him to wage psy-op wars upon the peoples of all nations throughout World War I and World War II. Now refined to the level of science, this art of persuasion has been taken to new heights.
So, we have the Zionist Jews murdering the Palestinians to the sound of their trumpet while urging the superpower to wage endless war upon the world – the so called neo-cons. Then we have the American and its Allied Christian soldiers murdering the Iraqis, Afghanis, and Pakistanis, in large numbers, and again to the sound of even greater trumpets. Today, the blame for this Total War is entirely laid at the doorstep of the Jewish neo-cons who have visibly taken over almost all of the United States Government which is evidently being run from Tel Aviv.
But, is this mission of Total War through Total Deception hell of a lot different from the white man's burden of the not too distant past, when plain folks, quite genuinely “infected by imperialist emotions ...a quest for national glory, 'the white man's burden', 'la mission civilisatrice', not to speak of the opportunities for personal profit – all served to mobilize support for imperial adventures to sustain essentially hierarchical imperial power pyramids.”?
The settlement of the Americas by genociding its native inhabitants, is the best example of genocide of the indigenous peoples as the noble Christian white man's burden. The conquest of the sea trade routes by the East India Company and the physical colonization of the Indian subcontinent, is the best example of colonizing an indigenous peoples into subservient bondage to the noble Christian white man's la mission civilisatrice. The unfortunate native populations of the Americas, Australia, etc., weren't so fortunate, as the noble Bible thumping white man actually coveted their land. In India they only coveted her vast riches – the Jewel in their crown!
Well, that same exercise with only minor syntactic sugaring, is being inflicted by the holy Jews and noble atheistic soldiers of irredentist Zion upon the 'untermenschen' of Palestine today. Is it much different? Not according to the two Christian and Jewish statesmen, respective leaders of their nations. On the festive and felicitous occasion of the 60th anniversary of Israel's existence which was celebrated with much fanfare from Tel Aviv to Washington D.C., President George W. Bush along with his notable wife landed at Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion airport on May 14, 2008, to the warm greetings of Shimon Perez:
“Welcome to the new Israel: Three thousand years old, and going on sixty”
President Bush had effusively replied:
“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. We built strong democracies to protect the freedoms given to us by an Almighty God”
And the late Tanya Reinhart, the Leftist Jew and respected dissent chief of many a rebel, made the exact same comparison after she experienced her metanoia and tried to explain to the world the indoctrination and false justifications she was infected with while growing up as a Zionist in Israel:
“The state of Israel founded in 1948 following a war which the Israelis call the War of Independence, and the Palestinians call the Nakba – the catastrophe. A haunted, persecuted people sought to find a shelter and a state for itself, and did so at a horrible price to another people. During the war of 1948, more than half of the Palestinian population at the time – 1,380,000 people – were driven off their homeland by the Israeli army. Though Israel officially claimed that a majority of refugees fled and were not expelled, it still refused to allow them to return, as a UN resolution demanded shortly after 1948 war. Thus, the Israeli land was obtained through ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Palestinian inhabitants. This is not a process unfamiliar in history. Israel's actions remain incomparable to the massive ethnic cleansing of Native Americans by the settlers and government of the United states. Had Israel stopped there, in 1948, I could probably live with it. As an Israeli, I grew up believing that this primal sin our state was founded on may be forgiven one day, because the founder's generation was driven by the faith that this was the only way to save the Jewish people from the danger of another holocaust.” -- Tanya Reinhart, Israel/Palestine – How to End the War of 1948, source
An honest comparison which evidently learned rebels like Alan Hart, another favorite rebel of the dissent space, who keep comparing the Zionist enterprise in Palestine to the Nazis, fail to make. I examined this inexplicable failure in response to Alan Hart's characterization of Israel as “The New Nazis”, in No, No - Not the 'New Nazis', January 2009.
Therefore, concluding the preceding analysis, I have to wonder how comes the brilliant white man is suddenly so naive that he fails to see the parallel white man's burdens in all his holier than thou blanket Jew bashing? I hope I may be forgiven today, in 2011, that I am entirely unable to differentiate one white man's burden from another. Can you tell them apart in the images below? Please click on the image and it will take you to a more detailed exposition in case you feel you are able tell the difference:
Caption Hidden no longer: Genocide in the Americas by the pious Christians bearing the gift of the white man's burden to the native Indian tribes hiddennolonger.com
Caption Genesis to Genocide in Palestine by the pious Jews bearing the gift of the white man's burden to the Arabs and Muslims
Caption Exodus, destruction, death and chaos, inflicted by the pious bearing gifts of Western civilization's new white man's burden, the war on terror, to Pakistan with copious help from the Pakistani House Negroes
Caption Exodus, destruction, death and chaos, inflicted by the pious bearing gifts of Western civilization's new white man's burden, the war on terror, to Afghanistan
Caption Exodus, destruction, death and chaos, inflicted by the pious bearing gifts of Western civilization's new white man's burden, the war on terror, to Iraq
Caption Jesus has come in May to Afghanistan: US troops urged to share faith in Afghanistan - 04 May 09
Caption US Soldiers in Afghanistan Told to “hunt people for Jesus... so we get them into the kingdom” rebelreports
The foolish 'untermenschen' better understand the insidious breadth and depth of the common la mission civilisatrice bond among the white man when they come, individually, and in groups, wearing different colored labels of Left, Right, Liberal, Conservative, Progressive, Atheist, Christian, Jew, whatever, bearing gifts of pious virtue in various Hegelian Dialects. Zbigniew Brzezinski justified the primacy of the powerful with “Hegemony is as old as mankind” in The Grand Chessboard only as the latter day secular version of that same white man's burden.
There is more.... you may continuing reading at the links below:
Source URL: http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2011/02/white-mans-burden-uniformly-distributed.html
Source Mirror: http://bloghumanbeingsfirst.wordpress.com/2011/02/19/white-mans-burden-uniformly-distributed-by-zahirebrahim/
Source PDF: http://humanbeingsfirst.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/white-mans-burden-uniformly-distributed-by-zahirebrahim-2.pdf