There was an excellent article posted today by the Canadian blogsite, Gangsters Out, exposing the connections between (what the 'Conservative' Media calls) the West's War for Existence and the 2030 Agenda promoted by the backers of the Great Reset. It seems that our friends at the World Economic Forum have surfaced again on the Gaza Crisis. As typical of the WEF, they don't bother hiding what their agendas and intentions actually are: they can rely upon their stooges in the Media to spin the narrative and 'fact-check' their positions to market them effectively for public consumption.
Shortly before the Scamdemic and the announcement of a Great Reset (which just coincidentally happened within a month of each other), one of the WEF's listening-posts at the United Nations noted "Oil and natural gas resources in the occupied Palestinian territory could generate hundreds of billions of dollars for development. These funds could finance socioeconomic development in the oPt as part of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development." Meanwhile, just as the Israeli Deep State was ordering its death-squads into the Gaza Strip, their Media reported that their Government was already raffling off oil contracts to supranational energy cartels. The various cartels involved include WEF Top 100 Strategic Partners Chevron, BP, and SOCAR, along with WEF associate partners Eni and Dana Gas.
Isn't it interesting how all of these recent foreign and domestic 'crises' arising in Western countries always seem to lead back to the same group? Here in the West, we're conditioned to slough off such suggestions as baseless conspiracy theories---because obviously, all throughout human history, economic and ideological interests have never conspired to do things like control global markets or governments. That, of course, doesn't apply to countries resisting the New World Order: according to the Official Narrative they are involved in a plot to overthrow our freedoms and way of life, and to believe that is not a Conspiracy Theory but to accept a settled fact.
There seems to be a misconception among many Americans that organizations like the WEF do the bidding of politicians. In reality, it is the other way around. One only has to look at the composition of the WEF Board of Trustees and the Corporations making up their 'partnerships' to see that this organization isn't just some glorified version of your local Chamber of Commerce. Side-by-side with the Corporate grandees on the Board sit high-ranking officials of both US political parties, the Canadian Government, various royal families, the European Union, the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank, the Japanese Government, CERN, and the World Trade Organization. The WEF's Corporate Partners include several NGOs, state-owned enterprises, and high-level government contractors.
These wealthy interests likewise hire paid flatters and toadies from Academia to tell them what they want to hear; hire paid henchmen to pose as political leaders to manage and enforce their agendas; and hire media personalities to sell their programs to the public.
In the US, and throughout the Anglosphere and their confederated satrapies in general, the populace is kept divided and distracted through an organized pretense of Controlled Opposition. Currently, the Republican Party is Controlled Opposition in the US, just as the Democratic Party was during the Bush Machine years. As of 2023, the political situation in the US is at an ideal point for the Oligarchy: both sides are bitterly and irreconcilably antagonistic over details while united on supporting the deeper plots and interests of their Corporate and Financial masters.
Aside from the threats to human life, liberty and prosperity inherent in such a system, there is a grave danger just based upon human nature. History and Psychology have shown that there is a fatal tendency among people who reach a certain level of power and unaccountability to start believing their own baloney and, since they never get any pushback from their paid courtiers and lickspittles, start going to greater and greater extremes. This situation is worsened when they maintain a Controlled Opposition, because that segment is always appealing to the worst elements in the populace and egging on even more drastic measures.
Ben Shapiro and Victor Davis Hanson---a pair of Neocon swine of the worst sort---were spouting off in public again today encouraging further New World Order atrocities. Shapiro was especially virulent speaking before Oxford University in Britain. It was extremely painful to watch the current editor of a once-venerable Conservative news journal founded by the genteel and erudite William F. Buckley screaming such hysterical invective as "The only solution for Israel is to annex the Gaza Strip and kill those sons of bitches!" and "Hamas likes living in sewage and blowing things up!"
Shapiro was flanked by AI-generated images of alleged Palestinian atrocities; and when asked refused to condemn the death of innocent Palestinian civilians and actually had unctuousness enough to virtue-signal about it stating that
"Compassion also requires that you obliterate terrorist threats to your own population." He went on to demand that his cohorts in Media and Academia not only censor but terminate employment for and blacklist employees who don't support the Israeli Deep State, adding that "is a Jew hater, full stop, end of story."
The difficulty in posing a reasoned response to this kind of outburst is that there is no actual reason inherent in Shapiro's statements. Shapiro's speech was no different essentially in form to most of those delivered on other issues by the Whacko Left Wing in that it is raw emotion, canards, and packaged disinformation. Actually, the message itself doesn't even deviate much from the standard Left-Wing talking points: calling for political suppression of dissent, labeling opponents as racist Anti-Semites, demonizing stereotyped imagery of the alleged 'enemy,' virtue-signalling, etc. Anyone who compares Shapiro's speech with any speech from the anti-Trump Left will see that the rhetoric is exactly the same.
Conservatives once would have blushed with shame over a speech like this, whether they agreed with Shapiro's pro-Israel sympathies or not. This is the same kind of thing that crackpot extremists used to shout on city street-corners---and the real disgrace is that it's coming from the editor-in-chief of an internationally respected publication before one of the world's most prestigious universities.
Victor Davis Hanson's recent article is saying basically the same thing, although in a more measured tone. Hanson is basically trying to make the case that Bush Machine Foreign Policy of eschewing diplomacy as weakness and imposing our so-called 'national will' by force is justified.
Citing Theodore Roosevelt's maxim about "walking softly but carrying a big stick" Hanson misapplies it to the current world situation and says: "Our current diplomats have unfortunately forgotten that golden mean of guarded language backed with credible warnings of overwhelming force."
What Hanson is willfully ignorant of is that world has changed considerably since the dawn of the 20th Century. In President Roosevelt's time, it made sense for the United States to have a military at parity with other major powers. Back then, the Royal Families of Europe and East Asia had their larcenous eyes on the Western Hemisphere and keeping their hands out of the region was a constant struggle. Roosevelt's policy was about defense, not imposing America's will everywhere on the globe.
What our current diplomats actually have forgotten is actual diplomacy. During WW2, we had diplomatic networks with our current 'enemies' including Russia, China, and Iran. The post-War diplomats like Dulles, Rusk, and Kissinger hadn't forgotten the hecatomb that was WW2; and with the advent of atomic weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles realized that a Third World War would end in what they termed Mutually Assured Destruction. During the Cold War, they maintained these previous 'backdoor' diplomatic channels with these countries---whose diplomats likewise understood the consequences of another global conflict. They would negotiate behind-the-scenes solutions away from the heated political rhetoric to avert a war that nobody really wanted. Both sides usually came away with some face-saving compromises.
Today, the New World Order of a universal Pax Americana proclaimed by Bush Sr. in 1990 have eliminated all of those networks. We have no one talking to Russia, there's nothing but a few functionaries of low standing in China, and we haven't talked to Iran except through intermediaries in 44 years. What passes for 'diplomacy' in the US today is simply characters like Hanson sitting around think-tanks like the Hoover Institute and drawing up position papers for the State Department to demand on other governments. Their credible threats of overwhelming force is the ultimate argument behind everything without the slightest concern for what these other countries' grievances might be. This is a recipe for inciting a war. If we look back to WW2, Germany, Italy, and Japan all took the same approach to Foreign Policy: that they were invincible and could achieve their ends through fear and threats because democracies were supposedly squeamish about fighting wars.
After reciting the usual pro-Israeli talking-points, Hanson says: "In a recent Foreign Affairs essay, the authors argue that prior to the current bloodletting, Hamas was increasingly unpopular among Gazans. But, they insist, Israeli bombing and proposed ground invasion will sadly have the unintended effect of gaining lost sympathy for a once-loathed Hamas among the people of Gaza, and therefore only intensify Israel’s problems and isolation." Hanson takes issue with this conclusion, although that is precisely what happened. Maybe if Hamas was so unpopular in Gaza, a more measured and humane response from Israel would have won popular support instead? No: Hanson pooh-poohs the idea, stating that "As for global opinion, it is now anti-Israel as never before, as the stronger power is currently shown to be the weaker." Again here we see the distinctly Fascistic belief that human beings only respond to power---that Americans and Israelis need to be more Alpha.
Even more revolting, Hanson resorts to the same virtue-signalling as Shapiro, claiming that "the tragedy is that realist deterrence is moral, while naïve appeasement is immoral. Yet the former is unpopular and falsely dubbed cruel as it saves lives, while the latter is praised as humane as it dooms them," and throws out the anti-Semitic smear against anyone who believes that the Palestinians might actually have Rights worth respecting.
Shapiro and Hanson are further proof that we don't really have an organized Conservative opposition in America today. Conservatives are simply Liberals with cut-and-pasted terms plastered throughout the same Narrative. It's not only this way in Foreign Policy: it's this way across all domestic issues and controversies as well. Meanwhile, the Great Reset marches on while the political circus marches on at an increasingly high price.