Brilliant discussion on the Duran - esp as you point out the last 20 min or so. The (in)famous Rand report should have been titled “Extending Nato,” and then edited in 2008-2014 years to read “Over-extending Nato.” Ploughing ahead with coertion, bribery and war (Caucuses, Georgia, Serbia and now the latest victim, Ukraine), defying the warnings by any number of senior statesmen, (Clinton, Keennan, Nitze and Burns to name a few) while at the same time significantly reducing, as in Europe, militaries (production and readiness), has led to, what else?, this horrific and appalling destruction of Ukraine. For it is the West (US/Nato) that has so obviously over-extended itself in terms of military industrial capacity - getting over its skis without any intellectual (or moral) ability (as Mercouris mentions) to pull back or change course! Peace in Europe! I don’t think the Neocons of 30 years ago ever really wanted it, no more than today’s Neos who set to work devising more anti-Russian devilry to destroy Trump.
Bottom line, it looks like a lot of the usual suspects, results pretty much baked in, a lot of continuity between past and present policy. As Diesen, in particular, was saying--they knew what they were up to and were determined to go ahead, and they haven't budged from that determination.
Hillary is an opportunist. Her only core beliefs are personal enrichment and power. She was never ideologically opposed to Russia. She was more than willing to do business with them for personal profit. She helped along the Uranium One deal after a sizable donation was made to her favorite charity. Her very own. She only became anti-Russian as an excuse for the damaging email leaks, and as Mark says, as a way to pull support for Trump from the traditional gop national review types. What a long strange trip it’s been.
I remember when Obama’s policies started hurting Americans (2012 and beyond) (?) the blame seemed to be placed on “the Russians”. It was promoted that the Russians were causing ‘distrust in our institutions’ (like banking, for one, after the 2009 bailouts).
Have you, or anyone, considered the following: there has been a paradigm shift since the 90s. This fundamental and worldwide change has been driven by ubiquitous technology, DIGITAL, which brings with it attitudes and sensibilities that have made Globalism obsolete. The prior paradigm, where Globalism was a product of the dominance of TELEVISION throughout the West, has been completely rejected by the rest of the World. The West, the long decline written about by Spengler, continues as it holds on to what made it hegemonic.
Has anyone also considered that the conflict within the West, and between the West and others, is in fact a spiritual conflict, rather than a geopolitical one?
The West holds onto fantasy views regarding humans driven by the old tech that made us what we are. The rest of the world has moved on.
Why is it that most of the world will not have serious conversations at official levels with the US and most of the West, which includes Israel? Because the rest of the world knows that things have changed and they are reading themselves for the possibility that the US and West are going to crash in ways that will severely disrupt the world and will impact all of them.
I would argue tv allowed for centralized mass media, with easy control due to giant media conglomerates in the West.
The internet originally had more variety, but soon a few large sites controlled the advertising/ traffic, and they have used this power to censor / push favored narratives.
And the non West noticed how these internet giants were used to push color revolutions.
And now the west is adding / pushing more censorship powers to reduce wrong think.
Interesting times.
I appreciate Marks substack for its alternative views.
Consider: the DIGITAL paradigm is de-centralized, which has less to a DIY sensibility in the West.
Globalism is dead, and everyone that is paying attention knows it. What the West is doing is not going to work.
The technology itself is complete surveillance. There is no hiding, escaping, or privacy anymore. All the narratives are dead in the West. New ones are coming, but they won’t come from any centralized attempt in the West.
The U.S. Committee to Expand NATO was founded in 1996, well before the 1999 article by James Goldgeier that you cited. Here is link to NYT article in June 1997 about NATO expansion https://www.nytimes.com/1997/06/29/world/arms-makers-see-bonanza-in-selling-nato-expansion.html . In October 1997, there were hearings on NATO expansion with presentations by many key people, including Matlock.
I've seen that stuff about Schwab being a Rothschild. My understanding is that that is not true. There may be someone named Rothschild in his background with that name, but not connected to the banking family. Rather, I believe Schwab is a frontman for globalist interests rather than a principal.
I won't tolerate dis/misinformation. Especially not from anonymous commenters--I have limited time and can't spend my day chasing down red herrings in the comments.
Klaus Martin Schwab was born on March 30, 1938, to Eugen Wilhelm Schwab and Erika Epprecht in Ravensburg. His parents had moved from Switzerland to Germany during the Third Reich in order for his father to assume the role of director at Escher Wyss AG, an industrial company and contractor for the Nazi regime. Although his father was baptized Lutheran, Schwab was raised Catholic. Although having three Swiss grandparents and two Swiss brothers, he is a citizen of Germany and has declined multiple offers for naturalization, from both Kurt Furgler and Ueli Maurer.
That's what the guy I banned was maintaining--that he's a Jew and a Rothschild. I saw that claim years ago and tracked it down. It's not true, but you can find it all over the interwebs. I can deal with speculation here, but not outright false claims.
Adding to the Russia hoax, we have now the Nato hoax, and it’s pretty bad. From L Johnson:
https://sonar21.com/can-nato-survive-a-loss-in-ukraine/
Brilliant discussion on the Duran - esp as you point out the last 20 min or so. The (in)famous Rand report should have been titled “Extending Nato,” and then edited in 2008-2014 years to read “Over-extending Nato.” Ploughing ahead with coertion, bribery and war (Caucuses, Georgia, Serbia and now the latest victim, Ukraine), defying the warnings by any number of senior statesmen, (Clinton, Keennan, Nitze and Burns to name a few) while at the same time significantly reducing, as in Europe, militaries (production and readiness), has led to, what else?, this horrific and appalling destruction of Ukraine. For it is the West (US/Nato) that has so obviously over-extended itself in terms of military industrial capacity - getting over its skis without any intellectual (or moral) ability (as Mercouris mentions) to pull back or change course! Peace in Europe! I don’t think the Neocons of 30 years ago ever really wanted it, no more than today’s Neos who set to work devising more anti-Russian devilry to destroy Trump.
in these hearings https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-105shrg46832/html/CHRG-105shrg46832.htm, there was a presentation by Committee to Expand NATO. Joe Biden also submitted a report from Senate committee.
Bottom line, it looks like a lot of the usual suspects, results pretty much baked in, a lot of continuity between past and present policy. As Diesen, in particular, was saying--they knew what they were up to and were determined to go ahead, and they haven't budged from that determination.
Hillary is an opportunist. Her only core beliefs are personal enrichment and power. She was never ideologically opposed to Russia. She was more than willing to do business with them for personal profit. She helped along the Uranium One deal after a sizable donation was made to her favorite charity. Her very own. She only became anti-Russian as an excuse for the damaging email leaks, and as Mark says, as a way to pull support for Trump from the traditional gop national review types. What a long strange trip it’s been.
I remember when Obama’s policies started hurting Americans (2012 and beyond) (?) the blame seemed to be placed on “the Russians”. It was promoted that the Russians were causing ‘distrust in our institutions’ (like banking, for one, after the 2009 bailouts).
Our friends across the perspective from back in 1997... https://www.nato.int/acad/conf/enlarg97/sharp.htm#:~:text=Most%20British%20proponents%20of%20NATO,is%20already%20beginning%20to%20happen.
Have you, or anyone, considered the following: there has been a paradigm shift since the 90s. This fundamental and worldwide change has been driven by ubiquitous technology, DIGITAL, which brings with it attitudes and sensibilities that have made Globalism obsolete. The prior paradigm, where Globalism was a product of the dominance of TELEVISION throughout the West, has been completely rejected by the rest of the World. The West, the long decline written about by Spengler, continues as it holds on to what made it hegemonic.
Has anyone also considered that the conflict within the West, and between the West and others, is in fact a spiritual conflict, rather than a geopolitical one?
The West holds onto fantasy views regarding humans driven by the old tech that made us what we are. The rest of the world has moved on.
Why is it that most of the world will not have serious conversations at official levels with the US and most of the West, which includes Israel? Because the rest of the world knows that things have changed and they are reading themselves for the possibility that the US and West are going to crash in ways that will severely disrupt the world and will impact all of them.
I would argue tv allowed for centralized mass media, with easy control due to giant media conglomerates in the West.
The internet originally had more variety, but soon a few large sites controlled the advertising/ traffic, and they have used this power to censor / push favored narratives.
And the non West noticed how these internet giants were used to push color revolutions.
And now the west is adding / pushing more censorship powers to reduce wrong think.
Interesting times.
I appreciate Marks substack for its alternative views.
Consider: the DIGITAL paradigm is de-centralized, which has less to a DIY sensibility in the West.
Globalism is dead, and everyone that is paying attention knows it. What the West is doing is not going to work.
The technology itself is complete surveillance. There is no hiding, escaping, or privacy anymore. All the narratives are dead in the West. New ones are coming, but they won’t come from any centralized attempt in the West.
Good analysis.
I’m in awe of how effective Russiagate has been as a political dirty trick.
Three more dirty tricks are:
1. Jan 6 “insurrection”
2. Most secure election ever 2020.
3. Covid hype
And all targeted Trump. It’s amazing he survived.
I don’t know how I would rank the four. And perhaps misinformation/ disinformation / censorship should be a fifth dirty trick.
Cries of mis- and dis- information and censorship are what make the rest possible and durable.
The U.S. Committee to Expand NATO was founded in 1996, well before the 1999 article by James Goldgeier that you cited. Here is link to NYT article in June 1997 about NATO expansion https://www.nytimes.com/1997/06/29/world/arms-makers-see-bonanza-in-selling-nato-expansion.html . In October 1997, there were hearings on NATO expansion with presentations by many key people, including Matlock.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-105shrg46832/html/CHRG-105shrg46832.htm
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-105shrg46832/pdf/CHRG-105shrg46832.pdf
Perle and Wolfowitz, both architects of Iraq war, are reported to have been founders of Committee to Expand NATO. The Committee is more thoroughly discussed in a MGIMO (Russia) report here https://www.invissin.ru/topics/ukrain_en/the_guns_of_august/#_Toc236059776
Unsurprisingly, Frederick Kagan was on Committee to Expand NATO. Also Sally Painter, later a fixed for Burisma
https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1539248728317513729
Make that Robert Kagan, Nuland's husband. Not Frederick.
Perle, Wolfowitz, Kagan. Quelle surprise! Quelle surprise!
Thanks for the info!
I've seen that stuff about Schwab being a Rothschild. My understanding is that that is not true. There may be someone named Rothschild in his background with that name, but not connected to the banking family. Rather, I believe Schwab is a frontman for globalist interests rather than a principal.
I won't tolerate dis/misinformation. Especially not from anonymous commenters--I have limited time and can't spend my day chasing down red herrings in the comments.
Klaus Martin Schwab was born on March 30, 1938, to Eugen Wilhelm Schwab and Erika Epprecht in Ravensburg. His parents had moved from Switzerland to Germany during the Third Reich in order for his father to assume the role of director at Escher Wyss AG, an industrial company and contractor for the Nazi regime. Although his father was baptized Lutheran, Schwab was raised Catholic. Although having three Swiss grandparents and two Swiss brothers, he is a citizen of Germany and has declined multiple offers for naturalization, from both Kurt Furgler and Ueli Maurer.
That's what the guy I banned was maintaining--that he's a Jew and a Rothschild. I saw that claim years ago and tracked it down. It's not true, but you can find it all over the interwebs. I can deal with speculation here, but not outright false claims.