While rejecting the PA’s return, Netanyahu has offered few details on what political entity he wants to rule Gaza. His aides have spoken to reporters on condition of anonymity about the idea of “local Palestinian clan leaders” governing the Strip.

Other right-wing members of the coalition, though, have been more forthcoming about their visions for Gaza after the war, expressing support for encouraging Palestinians to emigrate from Gaza and reestablishing settlements there.

Netanyahu has not personally addressed the uproar over such calls, which in recent days received a major boost from Smotrich and Ben Gvir, but his office has issued statements insisting they do not represent government policy.

“We want to encourage willful emigration, and we need to find countries willing to take them in,” Smotrich told Channel 12 on Saturday

“We cannot withdraw from any territory we are in in the Gaza Strip. Not only do I not rule out Jewish settlement there, I believe it is also an important thing,” Ben Gvir said in a faction meeting on Monday.

The war presents an “opportunity to concentrate on encouraging the migration of the residents of Gaza,” Ben Gvir told reporters and members of his far-right Otzma Yehudit party, calling such a policy “a correct, just, moral and humane solution.”

Responding to these comments following the long holiday weekend in the US, the State Department’s spokesman said Tuesday, “We have been told repeatedly and consistently by the government of Israel, including by the prime minister, that such statements do not reflect the policy of the Israeli government. They should stop immediately.”

Miller’s statement came days after US President Joe Biden reportedly took Netanyahu to task on a phone call for failing to stand up to the hardliners in his coalition, which he said he’s done with the far-left flank of the Democratic party that is urging a ceasefire in Gaza. Biden was taking particular issue with Israel’s decision to withhold tens of millions of dollars in Palestinian tax revenues from the PA. Smotrich reiterated his refusal as finance minister to transfer a single shekel to the PA.

Biden called out Ben Gvir publicly last month, lamenting that “Ben Gvir and company and the new folks don’t want anything remotely approaching a two-state solution.”

As for the US position on Israeli settlements in Gaza, Miller reiterated, “We have been clear, consistent and unequivocal that Gaza is Palestinian land and will remain Palestinian land, with Hamas no longer in control of its future and with no terror groups able to threaten Israel.”

That stance appeared to put the US at odds with mainstream Israeli leaders such as Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and war cabinet minister Benny Gantz, who have called for the IDF to establish a security buffer zone in Gaza after the war.

“That is the future we seek in the interests of Israelis and Palestinians, the surrounding region and the world,” Miller added.

While Smotrich did not immediately respond to the US statement, Ben Gvir quickly issued a retort brushing off the criticism.

“I really admire the United States of America but with all due respect, we are not another star in the American flag,” Ben Gvir tweeted, repeating the same phrase he has previously used to respond to criticism from Washington.

“The United States is our best friend, but before everything else, we will do what is good for the State of Israel: The emigration of hundreds of thousands from Gaza will allow residents [of the border area] to return home and live in security and protect IDF soldiers,” the far-right minister added.

The State Department’s criticism was echoed by US Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield, who tweeted, “There should be no mass displacement of Palestinians from Gaza, and we reject the recent inflammatory statements from Israeli Ministers Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir.”

Also calling out Smotrich was Rabbi Rick Jacobs, who heads the the Reform movement, the largest US Jewish denomination.

“We condemn Israeli Minister Smotrich’s call for ethnic cleansing,” Jacobs wrote on X. “Along with most major American Jewish leaders, we have refused to meet with him to sanction his politics and beliefs.”

[…]

Via https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-slams-irresponsible-calls-by-smotrich-and-ben-gvir-for-emigration-of-gazans/

Scene from the Marriage of Figaro

Episode 2: Privilege in Old Regime France

Living the French Revolution and Age of Napoleon

Dr Suzanne M Desan

Film Review

Eighteenth century French Enlightenment philosophers were the first to publicly argue that the privileged role of kings and aristocrats should be based on merit rather than birthright. France’s most popular 18th century play, Beaumarchais’s Marriage of Figaro by Beaumarchais, openly mocked traditional European notions of hereditary power. After government censors outlawed its public production, intellectuals disseminated it widely in private salons. It eventually became so popular that the censors relented in 1784. It immediately became a smash hit.

The plot concerns the traditional right feudal of feudal lords to sleep with their peasants’ brides before their husbands id. The role of Figaro, portrayed as a crafty servant who repeatedly outwits his master, was extremely effective in channeling popular anger about the immoral behavior of French aristocrats.

Belonging to the French aristocracy gave you numerous special privileges. One of the most important was exemption from all taxes. In 1789 (the date of the French revolution), all peasants still signed contracts to provide game, livestock and produce to their feudal lords. In addition, they were charged dues to use their lord’s mills, ovens and wine presses.

Other Factors Driving the French Revolution

The anger driving the French Revolution (which occurred near the end of the Little Ice Age) was also fueled by years of poor harvests and high food prices. Owing to heavy rains and short growing seasons, all European peasants experienced repeated crop failures. Their struggle to find sufficient food to survive was aggravated by a simultaneous population boom.

There was also an extensive urban poor during the late 18th century, half of whom were too poor to be listed on the tax rolls. Global capitalism officially came into existence during the 1700s, creating increasing wealth for urban professionals (bankers, merchants and slave traders). Most of this wealth derived from booming overseas trade in slaves, sugar, coffee, calico and muslin from India, Persian carpets and porcelain and painted cabinets and screens from China.

According to Deson, capitalism itself called into question the old system of privilege as rich urban traders bought (or acquired by marriage) aristocratic titles while nobles married into merchant families to acquire a share of France’s new wealth.*

*If a noble himself engaged in business, they lost the tax-free status enjoyed by the aristocratic class and had to pay tax like commoners.

Film can be viewed free with a library card on Kanopy.

https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/video/149323/149327

Kit Knightly

Offguardian

Global government is the endgame. We know that.

Total control of every aspect of life for every single person on the planet, that’s the goal.

That’s been apparent to anyone paying attention for years, if not decades, and any tiny portion of remaining doubt was removed when Covid was rolled-out and members of the establishment started outright saying it.

Covid marked an acceleration of the globalist agenda, a mad dash to the finish line that seems to have lost momentum short of victory, but the race is still going. The goal has not changed, even if the years since may have seen the agenda retreat slightly back into the shadows.

We know what they want conceptually, but what does that mean practically?

What does a potential “global government” actually look like?

First off, let’s talk about what we’re NOT going to see.

1 – They are not going to declare themselves. No, there will almost certainly never be an official “world government”, at least not for a long time yet. That’s a lesson they learned from Covid — putting a name and a face on globalism only foments collective resistance to it.

2 – They’re not going to abolish nationhood. You can be sure Klaus Schwab (or whoever) isn’t ever going to appear simulcast on every television in the world announcing that we’re all citizens of ze vurld now and that nation states no longer exist.

In part because that is likely to focus resistance (see point 1), but mainly because tribalism and nationalism are just too useful to all would-be manipulators of public opinion. And, of course the continuing existence of nation states in no way precludes the existence of a supra-national control system, any more than the existence of Rhode Island, Florida or Texas precludes the existence of the Federal government.

3 – There will never be an overt declaration of a change of system. We will not be told we are united under a new model, instead the illusion of regionality & superficial variance will camouflage a lack of real choice across the political landscape. A thin polysystemic skin stretched tight over a monosystemic skeleton.

Capitalism, communism, socialism, democracy, tyranny, monarchy…these words will steadily dilute in meaning, even more than they have already, but they will never be abandoned.

What globalism will bring us – I suggest – is a collection of nation-states largely in name only, operating superficially different systems of government all built on the same underpinning assumptions and all answering to an unelected and undeclared higher authority.

…and if that sounds familiar, it’s because it’s essentially what we have already.

The only major aspects missing are the mechanisms by which this rough model can be transformed into a flowing network, where all corners are eroded and all genuine sovereign powers become entirely vestigial.

That’s where the three main pillars of global rule come in:

1. Digital Money
2. Digital ID
3. “Climate Action”

Let’s take a look at each one in turn.

1. Digital money

Over 90% of the nations of the world are currently in the process of introducing a new digital currency issued by their central bank. OffG – and others – have been covering the push for a Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) for years now, to the point where we don’t need to rehash old talking points here.

Simply put, entirely digital money enables total surveillance of every transaction. If the currency is programmable, it would also allow control of every transaction.

You can read our extensive back-catalogue on CBDCs for more detail.

Clearly CBDCs are a potentially dystopian nightmare which will infringe the rights of anyone forced to use them….but how are they a building block of global government?

The answer to that is “interoperability”.

While the world’s national CBDCs will notionally be separate from one another, the majority are being coded to recognize and interact with each other. They are almost all being developed along guidelines produced by the Bank of International Settlements and other globalist financial institutions, and they are all being programed by the same handful of tech giants.

A June 2023 report for the World Economic Forum noted the importance of “Central Bank Digital Currency Global Interoperability Principles” and concluded:

It is crucial for central banks to prioritize interoperability considerations early in the design process by adhering to a set of guiding principles. To facilitate global coordination and ensure harmonious implementation of CBDCs, the development of a comprehensive set of principles and standards becomes imperative. Drawing upon previous research and collaborative efforts, this set of principles can serve as a robust foundation, guiding central banks to proactively consider interoperability from the outset of their CBDC initiatives. By adopting these principles, central banks can work towards creating a cohesive and interconnected CBDC ecosystem.

Commenting on the report, the World Economic Forum website noted [emphasis added]:

To ensure successful implementation and promote interoperability, global coordination becomes paramount […] adhering to interoperability principles, CBDCs can advance harmoniously, leading to efficient and interconnected digital payment systems.

It doesn’t take a genius to decode “global coordination”, “cohesive ecosystem”, “harmonious advancement” and “interconnected payment systems”.

There is no practical difference between 195 “interoperable” and interconnected digital currencies, and one single global currency.

In fact “interoperability” is the watchword for all globalist power structures moving forward. Which leads us neatly onto…

2. Digital Identity

The global push for mandatory digital identities is even older than the digital currency agenda, dating back to the turn of the century and Tony Blair’s “national identity cards”.

For decades it has been a “solution” posited to every “problem”.

Terrorism? Digital identity will keep you safe.

Illegal immigration? Digital identity will secure the border.

Pandemic? Digital identity will keep track of who is vaccinated and who is not.

AI? Digital identity will prove who’s human.

Poverty? Digital identity will “promote financial inclusion”

Clearly, just as with CBDCs, a far-reaching digital identity service is a threat to human rights. And, just as with CBDCs, if you interconnect national digital identity platforms you can build a global system.

Again, it’s all about “interoperability”. They use the exact same language.

The World Bank’s Identity4Development program claims:

Interoperability is crucial for developing efficient, sustainable, and useful identity ecosystems.

The Nordic and Baltic Ministers for Digitalization publicly called for “cross-border” operational digital IDs.

NGOs like Open Identity Exchange(OIX) are publishing reports on “the need for data standards to enable interoperability of Digital IDs both in federations within an ID ecosystem, and across ID ecosystems.”.

The list of national governments introducing digital IDs, “partnering” with corporate giants to do so and/or promoting “cross border interoperability” is long, and growing longer all the time.

In October 2023 the United Nations Development Program published their “guidelines” for the design and use of digital identities.

There is no practical difference between 195 networked digital identity platforms and one single global identity program.

OK, so they have global currency and identity programs in place. Now they can control and monitor everyone’s movements, financial transactions, health and more. That’s surveillance and control mechanism, all handled in a distributed model designed to obfuscate the very existence of a global government.

But what about policy?

How does this global government hand down policy and legislation without giving away its existence?

Climate change, that’s how.

3. “Climate Action”

Climate Change has been at the forefront of the globalist agenda for years. It is the Trojan horse of the antihuman technocrat.

As long ago as 2010, noted Climate Change “experts” were suggesting that “humans are not evolved enough” to combat climate change and that “It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”

More recently, in 2019, Bloomberg was publishing articles with headlines like “Climate Change Will Kill National Sovereignty As We Know It”, and academics are telling us:

States will remain unable to solve global crises like climate change until they let go of their sovereignty

For years climate change has been sold as the reason we might be “forced” to abandon democracy or sovereignty.

Alongside this, there is a prolonged propaganda narrative dedicated to changing “climate change” from an environmental issue into an everything issue.

At this point all national governments agree “climate change” is an urgent problem requiring global cooperation to solve. They host massive summits at which they sign international agreements, binding nation states to certain policies, for the sake of the planet.

Having established that model, they are now widening the “climate change” purview. Changing “climate change” into the answer to every question:

Obviously, “climate change” was always going to impact energy and transport.

Following Covid, “climate change” has already been re-branded a “health crisis”.

Now we’re being told “climate change” is generating a food crisis.

We’re being told that international trade needs to be climate conscious.

We’re being told by the World Bank that education reform will help the fight against climate change.

We’re being told by the IMF that every country in the world should tax carbon and, in a recent cross-over episode, that CBDCs can be good for the environment.

See how it works?

Agriculture & food, public health, energy & transport, trade, fiscal & taxation policy, even education. Almost every area of government is now potentially covered by the “climate change” umbrella.

They no longer need a one-world government, they just need a single panel of “impartial international climate change experts” working to save the planet.

Through the lens of “climate change”, these experts would be empowered to dictate – sorry, recommend – government policy in almost every area of life to every nation on the planet.

[…]

Via https://off-guardian.org/2024/01/01/2024-the-year-global-government-takes-shape/

By Iain Davis

Offguardian

[…]

Questioning The Bias of the IPCC

When we consider who funds the scientific bodies that provide the IPCC and “climate scientists” with the raw data for the climate models favoured by the IPCC, a political bias is evident.

[…]

The IPCC is biased exclusively toward Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory. The IPCC was established with the following remit:

The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change [AGW], its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

The IPCC makes no attempt to “understand the scientific basis” for any other natural process that may impact climate change. As far as the IPCC is concerned, AGW theory is the consensus settled science. Assuming an AGW theory based analysis of climate change, the IPCC focuses upon how society should adapt to and mitigate the projected—or modelled—socio-economic impacts. The IPCC is focused upon advising political policy in other words.

The “intergovernmental” IPCC is an overt political, not a scientific body.

[…]

Questioning AGW Theory Related Climate Alarm

The AGW theory modelled predictions of catastrophe are, at best, guesses based upon a single questionable theory and speculative computer models, not scientific fact. As stated by the IPCC, long term climate predictions are impossible.

[…]

Virtually none of the historical, alarming prediction made by the IPCC and other AGW theorists have materialised. In 2005 the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP)—IPCC co-founders alongside the UN’s World Meteorological Organization (WMO)—claimed that environmental disasters would create 50 million ‘climate refugees‘ by 2010.

[…]

Moving into the 21st century, the best “climate disaster” data currently available comes from International Disaster Database (EM-DAT) maintained by the Belgium Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED). When Professor Roger Pielke Jr. checked the EM-DAT data he found that between 2000 and 2021 the general trend in recorded global weather and climate disasters showed an approximate 10% decline.

[…]

IPCC predictive models stated that global warming would severely reduce snowfall. When Connolly et al. (2019) compared the IPCC models with real world data they found that there had been a slightly larger decline in spring snowfall than the IPCC projected but this was more than offset by a notable increase in winter snowfall.

[…]

The models may be uncertain but, in fact, there isn’t that much uncertainty about Antarctic ice sheet collapse. Assuming the current warming trend continues, research led by field scientists from the Potsdam Institute of Climate Research—who physically inspected the ice sheets to assess their stability—was reasonably certain.

As we are in a warming interglacial period, the ice sheets are melting. The question is how fast and what the impact might be.

Professor Ronja Reese from the Potsdam Institute said:

While a number of glaciers in Antarctica are retreating at the moment, we find no indication of irreversible, self-reinforcing retreat yet, [. . .] our calculations also clearly indicate that an onset of an irreversible retreat of the ice sheet in West Antarctica is possible if the current state of the climate is sustained.

[…]

As shown by Bell et al. (2011), the ice sheets are thickening in east Antarctica. This will potentially counteract any possible sea level rise caused by melting ice sheets in west Antarctica.

Glaciers are retreating just as they once advanced. As they move they tend to grind away whatever is beneath them. “Ice patches” are static and have a complicated relationship with glaciers. During extremely cold periods, such as the Little Ice Age, they can expand and become moving glaciers, or they can be compressed by glaciers moving above them. But virtually all glaciers start as ice patches and ice patches are the last thing that remains when glaciers melt.

The legacy media constantly cites the melting glaciers as evidence of the supposedly “catastrophic” and, crucially, “unprecedented” climate crisis. It uses alarming analogies, for example by comparing meltwater volume with the volume required to submerge a country. Ice archaeology casts significant doubt on the basis for these scary media stories.

[…]

Questioning the Legitimacy of AGW Theory Climate Science

[…]

The greenhouse effect was a largely forgotten scientific theory until 1988 when then director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) James Hansen told the US Senate Energy committee “the greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now.”

Speaking in 1999, the year the “adjustment” of GISS data started, James Hansen told his GISS colleagues:

Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934. Global temperature, in contrast, had passed 1930s values by 1980 and the world has warmed at a remarkable rate over the last 25 years [following adjustment]. Yet in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country.

[…]

Questioning the AGW Theory Sceptic’s Bias

Most well know AGW sceptical scientists, such as the astrophysicist Willie Soon, lead author of Soon et al. (2015)—referenced in Part 2—are regularly accused of funding bias by climate alarmists.

In Soon’s case he received some funding from interests linked to energy companies, such as the Charles G. Koch Foundation. Of course, it is reasonable to consider a potential conflict of interest with Dr Soon’s or anyone else’s work.

Yet these concerns about possible conflicts of interest seemingly only extend to AGW sceptics. Those who advocate AGW theory and climate alarm, such as the Sierra Club, and the American Geophysical Union, also receive funding from the fossil fuel and energy industries, but aren’t questioned.

Fossil Fuel companies are also funding “official” climate change research. Saudi Aramco, the largest oil company on Earth, is committed to “reach net zero emissions by 2060” and is “accelerating the country’s transition to a green economy.” To this end it has invested “more than $186 [billion]” in “collaboration and innovation” to help achieve “sustainable growth” in keeping with “global goals.” Saudi Aramco has made a massive capital investment commitment entirely contingent upon continued acceptance of AGW theory.

As we’ve already discussed, the “official” AGW climate science is often funded by groups like the BMGF. The BMGF Trust manages the BMGF endowment fund. As you might expect, the BMGF “Trust” is heavily invested in pharmaceutical and agri-chemical corporations, such as Moderna and Bayer. In turn, Bayer is pushing the production of biofuels through its effective subsidiary CoverCress.

Rodrigo Santos, Bayer’s Crop Science Division president, said:

CoverCress is exciting because it has the potential to become an important source for biofuel production.

Bayer is set to profit handsomely from the increasing use of biofuels, and so too its major investors, such as the BMGF Trust. This explains why Bill Gates has long been an investment partner with oil companies in bio fuel development. Yet when DeCicco et al. (2016) looked at the US production cycle of biofuels they found:

U.S. biofuel use to date is associated with a net increase rather than a net decrease in CO2 emissions.

It seems the BMGF couldn’t care less about increased CO2 emissions, yet it is funding the consensus AGW climate science which informs sustainable development and net zero policies. The BMGF Trust are also set to profit from technological solutions to the “climate emergency.” This is not a potential conflict of interest for “the Climate Science™” that anyone seems particularly interested in.

Moreover, the “official” AGW climate science is overwhelmingly funded by tax payers via their governments. Funding projects like the EU’s Horizon Europe will only invest its €95.5 billion budget into research that “helps to achieve the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals” (SDGs). The UN states that SDGs are entirely hung upon the assumption that AGW theory is an established, scientific fact:

Climate change is caused by human activities and threatens life on earth as we know it. With rising greenhouse gas emissions, climate change is occurring at rates much faster than anticipated. Its impacts can be devastating and include extreme and changing weather patterns and rising sea levels. [. . .] Saving lives and livelihoods requires urgent action to address the climate emergency.

Funding initiatives such as Horizon Europe raise the possibility of an enormous scientific conflict of interest for AGW theory science. Like the IPCC, Horizon Europe funding is exclusively biased toward just one scientific theory. But the finger is only pointed at the AGW theory sceptical science.

Influential climate change activist groups, such as Just Stop Oil, are funded by some of the richest oiligarchs on Earth. Extinction Rebellion is funded by, among others, the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF).

CIFF invests more in “climate change organisations” than in any other lobby sector. The BMGF, the Rockefellers and the European Climate Foundation—the largest single donor—are among CIFF’s leading financial backers.

The European Climate Foundation is also backed by, among others, the Rockefellers Bothers Fund. Having amassed a staggering fortune from fossil fuels and banking, the Rockefellers are now supporting the “climate change activists” calling for a switch away from fossil fuels to “renewable energy.” The Rockefellers are heavily invested in renewable energy and the envisaged low carbon economy.

Climate activists, like Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion, are campaigning on behalf of oiligarchs. Again, all based upon the continued acceptance of AGW theory.

CIFF, the European Climate Foundation, Horizon Europe and formerly the Rockefellers—who actually still invest via CIFF and the European Climate Foundation—directly fund the global Climate Bond initiative. Climate bonds will enable investors to profit from a new global economic model based upon the mobilisation of “global capital for climate action.” All based upon AGW theory.

The Climate Bond initiative’s partners are multinational banks and investment management corporations including BlackRock, HSBC, State Street, Credit Suisse and Barclays, etc. They report their collective mission:

Climate Bonds aims to educate, inspire, convene, and steer a global collaboration of institutional investors, governments, development banks and industry to shift capital toward low-carbon and resilient investments. [. . .] We are at the forefront of advances in sustainable finance, collaborating with numerous global stakeholders, including governments, investors, banks, and large companies.

The ambition is to create an investment market worth $5 trillion (USD) annually:

Governments must signal clear support for net-zero by initiating a supportive policy environment for transition. [. . .] To reach 1.5°C society must undergo a transition. [. . .] The climate challenge offers a political opportunity to steer the real and financial economy towards a green future. [. . .] Investors have been supporting the transition since 2007, and appetite is growing as illustrated by the rapid expansion of the green bond market.

An entire new global economy is being constructed on the back of AGW theory. AGW theory is the “scientific basis” for the UN’s Agenda 2030 which aims to transform the world:

All countries and all stakeholders, acting in collaborative partnership, will implement this plan. [. . .] We are determined to take the bold and transformative steps which are urgently needed to shift the world on to a sustainable and resilient path.

Governments, intergovernmental organisations, global NGOs and philanthropic oligarchs, the biggest polluters on Earth, including global oil and energy corporations, global financial institutions and billionaire investors are exerting their financial might to support the AGW theory “climate scientists.” There is no comparison with the relatively minuscule levels of funding received by the scientists labelled “climate deniers.”

Frankly, it is absurd that climate alarmists accuse AGW sceptical scientists of funding bias while simultaneously ignoring the staggering conflicts of financial interest behind all AGW theory “climate science.”

Why?

At the 2022 WEF Sustainable Development Impact Meeting, Melissa Fleming, Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications at the UN, told delegates that the UN had partnered with several big tech companies—TikTok , Facebook (Meta), Google, etc.—to censor and control what she called “climate change narratives.”

[…]

Via https://off-guardian.org/2024/01/02/climate-change-the-unsettled-science-part-3/

Matthew Ehret

Speaking on Israel’s future in 2012, Kissinger sent shockwaves of confusion through the world when he said, “in 10 years, there will be no more Israel.”

Why would Kissinger, a man who devoted such a major part of his life to the cause of Zionism, believe with certainty that Israel would no longer exist in 10 years? What was supposed to happen under a Hillary Clinton regime that would have resulted in Kissinger’s prediction unfolding in 2022?

Did Kissinger not want the Middle East stability he so often spoke so highly of?

His apparent dual support for Zionist empowerment on one hand and his belief in the impending destruction of Israel on the other is not a glitch in the matrix nor a contradiction in Sir Kissinger’s thinking. Rather, it represents two sides of one bloody program that ultimately involves purging the Holy Land of both Jews and Arabs.

Since Kissinger’s 2012 opinion provided such an important, ironic crack in the machinery of oligarchism, I’d like to take a moment to invite you to join me as we peek through this crack into a story that may take us as far back as Babylon…

‘Greater Israel’ as a British Imperial Project

In 1914, the man who later became Israel’s first president, Chaim Weizman, stated:

“Should Palestine fall within the British sphere of influence, and should Britain encourage a Jewish settlement there, as a British dependency, we could have in 20 to 30 years a million Jews there-perhaps more; they would. . . form a very effective guard for the Suez/Canal.”

These words indicated a deeply underappreciated value that leading Jewish Zionists had for the British empire’s plans for global control over a century ago; these Zionists believed the empire could further their own plans for a Jewish state.

Lord Shaftesbury’s Zionist project was launched in 1839, the British Empire created the Palestinian Exploration Fund in 1865, and the founder of modern Zionism, Theodor Herzl, joined the cause of convincing the world’s Jews to live in the desert, but the role of British intelligence’s hidden hand in shaping the state of Israel, as well as international fascism more broadly, is often ignored. [1]

It wasn’t ignored by Sir Winston Churchill, then Lord of the British Admiralty during WWI. He wrote forcefully about the international Jewish conspiracy to take over the world on one hand, but he also spoke proudly of Zionism, saying in 1917:

“If, as it may well happen, there should be created in our own lifetime by the banks of the Jordan a Jewish state under the protection of the British crown … [it] would be especially in harmony with the truest interests of the British Empire.”

While Churchill could not be said to be a supporter of Hitler’s National Socialism, up until 1935, he loudly proclaimed his admiration for Hitler and also spoke fondly of Mussolini’s Black Shirts. Churchill was also a rampant racist who presided over the mass extermination of ‘lower races’ as displayed in the controlled Bengal famine (killing three million Indians) in 1943. Like most other dominant Round Table leaders of Britain at this time, Churchill was an ‘imperial socialist,’ which has always been at the heart of 20th-century fascism.

Without the force of numerous antisemitic fascists throughout the last two centuries, Zionism would have never been possible.

Take as an example the case of Lord Arthur Balfour, a leading strategist of the Rhodes-Milner Round Table Group. Balfour co-authored the Balfour Accords in 1917 alongside Leo Amery, Lord Milner, and Walter Rothschild. It shouldn’t surprise anyone to learn that, like Churchill, Lord Balfour was also a devoted white supremacist, Zionist, and supporter of fascism.

Prime Minister Lloyd George, who oversaw the project at this time, was an ardent social imperialist (aka international fascist) who openly praised Nazism alongside another pro-Nazi royal named King Edward VIII.

While Leo Amery was not openly antisemitic, his son John was a devoted supporter of British Nazism and Adolph Hitler. His other son, Julian Amery, worked closely with unreconstructed Nazis after World War Two as part of Operation Gladio. It was under Julian Amery [2] that Nazis like Otto Skorzeny, Walter Rauft, and Alois Brunner were transplanted to the Middle East and even worked for the Mossad after the CIA played a direct role in establishing that organization in 1951.

Additionally, Leo Amery was a close collaborator of pro-fascist Zionist leader Vladimir Ze’ev Jabotinsky during the former’s management of British Mandate Palestine (1925-1929) and co-founder of the Jewish Legion, which Jabotinsky went on to control. More than a Zionist, Amery was a believer in Cecil Rhodes’ vision for “a Church of the British Empire.”

Amery stated of his peculiar religion: “The Empire is not external to any of the British nation. It is something like the Kingdom of Heaven within ourselves.” (Take note that the term “Kingdom of Heaven” was the name of the Templar Kingdom of Jerusalem, which will play a larger role in this story).

After leading the passage of anti-Jewish immigration laws in England in 1905 that prevented persecuted Russian Jews from coming to the UK, Balfour wrote in 1919 that Zionism would “mitigate the age-long miseries created for Western civilization by the presence in its midst of a Body which it too long regarded as alien and even hostile, but which it was equally unable to expel or to absorb.”

Balfour saw the creation of Israel as one stone that could kill two birds by 1) providing an excuse to purge the Jews from Europe and 2) creating a perfect weapon for destabilization in the geopolitical pivot of Halford Mackinder’s Heartland and the cross-section of all major civilizational forces on the earth.

The Silk Road trade routes of the Han Dynasty were revived again under the Tang Dynasty and have historically played a major role in disrupting systems of global empire by encouraging trade, cooperation, and understanding around diverse cultures (in opposition to the Crusader agenda that has promoted ‘clash of civilizations’ ideologies).

In his book Der Judenstat, Theodor Herzl openly admitted this when he said:

“We should, there, form a portion of the rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism. We should, as a neutral state, remain in contact with all Europe, which would have to guarantee our existence.”

Herzl was clear that like his British Imperial (and typically antisemitic pro-fascist sponsors), he envisioned Israel’s borders to extend “from the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.”

In the 1890s, Herzl was not yet settled on the specific location of the Jewish national homeland. William Eugene Blackstone, a devotee of John Nelson Darby, leader of a British sect called “The Plymouth Brethren,” sent him a voluminous report justifying Jerusalem as the only location ordained by God. This earned him the title of “the father of Zionism” by American Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis. In 1891, Blackstone drafted a memorandum dubbed “Palestine for the Jews,” which called for US leadership in establishing a homeland for the persecuted Jews of Russia. The memorandum was signed by 413 prominent Americans, including John D. Rockefeller, J. P. Morgan, Supreme Court Justice Cyrus McCormick, the heads of dozens of major newspapers, the Speaker of the House, and many members of Congress.

[…]

Via https://www.globalresearch.ca/sir-henry-kissinger-midwife-new-babylon/5844581

Iran’s Foreign Minister, Hossein Amir-Abdollahian (IRNA)

During a meeting with members of the Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee on Sunday, Amir-Abdollahian characterized Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, initiated by Palestinian resistance groups against “Israel” on October 7, as a pivotal moment in regional developments.

Zohreh Elahian, a committee member, quoted Amir-Abdollahian as saying that the United States, acting as “Israel’s” primary backer, is in a state of desperation as public resentment continues to rise both domestically and internationally.

The legislator pointed out that Amir-Abdollahian also discussed Iran’s diplomatic endeavors to assist the Palestinian people, which involve engaging in negotiations with officials from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, and Jordan.

‘Israel’ would have fought with sticks, stones without US suppo

Israeli Channel 12‘s political analyst, Amnon Abramovich, said, on December 30, that had the United States not provided “Tel Aviv” with weapons and ammunition or sent messages to Iran and Hezbollah, “Israel” would have had to “fight with sticks and stones.”

Abramovich pointed out that this reflects “Israel’s” absolute reliance on the United States, recalling that US President Joe Biden stood by “Israel” at the beginning of the war, sending unprecedented support, including aircraft carriers, a nuclear submarine, and an airlift of ammunition.

He pointed out that, through this support, the US conveyed a message to Hezbollah and Iran that if they initiated a war against “Israel”, their fight would be with the US forces.

Israeli Maj. Gen. (Res.) Aharon Ze’evi Farkash emphasized that “Israel” cannot continue and achieve its goals in Gaza without the US military, political, and strategic support.

This comes as the United States last Friday announced the approval of a $147.5 million sale of 155mm high-explosive artillery munitions and related equipment from US Army stocks to the Israeli occupation under an “emergency” provision that waives the usual congressional review.

The same provision was used earlier this month to approve the sale of nearly 14,000 rounds of 120mm tank ammunition to “Israel”.

At the time, the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency said in a statement that Secretary of State Antony Blinken had determined that “an emergency exists that requires the immediate sale to the government of Israel” of the weaponry, thereby waiving the normal requirement for review by Congress.

[…]

Via https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/iranian-fm—israel-s–allies-planning-for–post-israel-era