Glenn writes "How was diplomacy criminalised as immoral" and then in a 20 minute video he makes no attempt whatsoever to answer that very question. This is very troubling, seeing he had a lengthy and partially informed conversation with Prof. David Gibbs yesterday entitled "Neoconservatism & the Weaponization of Human Rights". There were fundamental errors in that video not least as to the source and history of Neoconservatism which actually dates back not to the 1970s and Wolfowitz and Henry 'Scoop' Jackson as asserted in that video, but actually to the US philosopher James Burnham, Leo Strauss, the OSS and the birth of the CIA in the 1940s. There is so much that Glen and the Duran & Co are fundamentally missing out in all of this history that renders them completely unable to answer the leading question to which they have no answers or solutions - How and why was diplomacy criminalised as immoral? There is a shocking philosophical dereliction of duty here to try and understand not so much what the elites think today, but what is the philosophical and ideological histories and influences as to what in very precise terms, has led them into thinking in these very specific and damaging ways?
To be charitable. I will give you two really big clues as to the answers, but unless you have a very good knowledge of philosophy then I very much doubt you can work it out. Here they are. They are both from 2006.
Glenn, they didn't shut down diplomacy accidentally or ignorantly. They WANTED (and still WANT) war (they keep telling us that openly) and so they shut down diplomacy so it could not be stopped. In the same way that they call any dissenters unpatriotic, they manipulate public sentiment against diplomacy by calling it validating the tyrant or platforming the new Hitler.
"The war isn't meant to be won - it's meant to be permanent!"
But all wars end by the parties talking to each other, so ... NO TALKING!
Similarly;
"One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes a revolution in order to establish a dictatorship."
-- George Orwell, 1984
How do you get to be a veteran professor and not understand these things? If you keep making the excuse that they're naive, ignorant, or merely foolish, you will never understand that the primary characteristics that joins them together is that they're evil.
Even if Trump and Putin at today´s meeting agree on a long-term sustainable peace as Putin demands, the EU will still, as Trump also demands, arm itself enormously. Against whom?
Primarily against Russia of course. So the US and EU will still constitute an even bigger threat against Russia.
The US-EU threat will also be directed against at China which only means that the center of gravity of the treat of a third World War will be shifted. So the upcoming peace talks between Trump and Putin, even though they will be optimal for Putin, is essentially contradictory, because the enormous armament means that the fundamental threat to Russia and the world, will not be eliminated, on the contrary.
There is nothing surprising about these phenomenon in Europe. Holding to hardline on made-up ideology, instructing the media to echobi, and the eradication of diplomatic objectives and even skills, are the hallmarks of marks of the US neocons.
And almost uniformly, these European “leaders” being discussed here, are anything but. They are actually stooges of the US neocon faction. So it’s hardly a shock that they play out the role: “monkey see, monkey do”. It’s their job.
Rubin was like Zelensky in the Oval Office-has to interrupt because the truth is just too unbearable to hear when they have no fact-based counter-arguments. This is the only time I would compare Trump and Vance to Glenn!
C'est bien le cas: la diplomatie a été mise sous le boisseau car le but était de détruire la Russie mais pas du tout de sauver l'Ukraine dont le sort n'intéresse personne (Même pas Zelinsky!). Jamais, même au pires moments de la guerre froide, nous n'avons autant ostracisé la Russie. C'est donc bien que le but caché n'était pas avouable aux populations occidentales. Et dire que tous ces jeunes auront perdu la vie ou seront handicapés à vie pour permettre à des marchands de canons de s'enrichir..comme d'habitude en fait.
I actually have the real answers to Glenn's questions but he doesn't read or respond to his substack so there is no point explaining them here. The limited and constraining comment format doesn't help either.
The professional commentators all appear on each other's channels, to discuss their theological opponents' "echo chambers" and the views of the common people so habitually ignored by the democratic elite ...
I know what you mean. There are too many echo chambers on both the MSM and alt media. When Glenn and the Duran etc. accidentally have people on who they should fundamentally disagree with they have nothing to say in terms of argument and just ignore their differences to keep the echo chamber humming in the best possible ways.
This phenomenon - hubris syndrome - disorder relating to the possession of power.
Personalities who are convinced of their own excellence can rarely tolerate criticism, let alone admit having made mistakes.
History shows that arrogance has never led to anything but wars, catastrophes, hatred, and enormous numbers of failures.
Glenn, you heretic! You must be silenced lest uncomfortable truths are revealed.
The media are in unison because the U.S. taxpayer funds all of these propaganda networks, while our infrastructures crumble.
Why engage in diplomacy when you can take shots at a bully and then hide behind a bigger bully?
Glenn writes "How was diplomacy criminalised as immoral" and then in a 20 minute video he makes no attempt whatsoever to answer that very question. This is very troubling, seeing he had a lengthy and partially informed conversation with Prof. David Gibbs yesterday entitled "Neoconservatism & the Weaponization of Human Rights". There were fundamental errors in that video not least as to the source and history of Neoconservatism which actually dates back not to the 1970s and Wolfowitz and Henry 'Scoop' Jackson as asserted in that video, but actually to the US philosopher James Burnham, Leo Strauss, the OSS and the birth of the CIA in the 1940s. There is so much that Glen and the Duran & Co are fundamentally missing out in all of this history that renders them completely unable to answer the leading question to which they have no answers or solutions - How and why was diplomacy criminalised as immoral? There is a shocking philosophical dereliction of duty here to try and understand not so much what the elites think today, but what is the philosophical and ideological histories and influences as to what in very precise terms, has led them into thinking in these very specific and damaging ways?
Very stern comment, lots of criticism, but zero constructive. Do you have the answers? Thanks for sharing.
To be charitable. I will give you two really big clues as to the answers, but unless you have a very good knowledge of philosophy then I very much doubt you can work it out. Here they are. They are both from 2006.
https://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/993329.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p003hyc8
Do I have the answers? Yes I do.
Glenn, they didn't shut down diplomacy accidentally or ignorantly. They WANTED (and still WANT) war (they keep telling us that openly) and so they shut down diplomacy so it could not be stopped. In the same way that they call any dissenters unpatriotic, they manipulate public sentiment against diplomacy by calling it validating the tyrant or platforming the new Hitler.
"The war isn't meant to be won - it's meant to be permanent!"
But all wars end by the parties talking to each other, so ... NO TALKING!
Similarly;
"One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes a revolution in order to establish a dictatorship."
-- George Orwell, 1984
How do you get to be a veteran professor and not understand these things? If you keep making the excuse that they're naive, ignorant, or merely foolish, you will never understand that the primary characteristics that joins them together is that they're evil.
Potentially war is still the only solution.
Even if Trump and Putin at today´s meeting agree on a long-term sustainable peace as Putin demands, the EU will still, as Trump also demands, arm itself enormously. Against whom?
Primarily against Russia of course. So the US and EU will still constitute an even bigger threat against Russia.
The US-EU threat will also be directed against at China which only means that the center of gravity of the treat of a third World War will be shifted. So the upcoming peace talks between Trump and Putin, even though they will be optimal for Putin, is essentially contradictory, because the enormous armament means that the fundamental threat to Russia and the world, will not be eliminated, on the contrary.
War is not a solution for citizens, only for weapon manufacturing oligarchs
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. -Upton Sinclair
Obviously this applies to women and everyone in between as well.
Where do these stupid talking heads come from? They are willing to say any ridiculous thing. Do they feel no shame?
There is nothing surprising about these phenomenon in Europe. Holding to hardline on made-up ideology, instructing the media to echobi, and the eradication of diplomatic objectives and even skills, are the hallmarks of marks of the US neocons.
And almost uniformly, these European “leaders” being discussed here, are anything but. They are actually stooges of the US neocon faction. So it’s hardly a shock that they play out the role: “monkey see, monkey do”. It’s their job.
Diplomats are diplomats, not secretaries of war
Rubin was like Zelensky in the Oval Office-has to interrupt because the truth is just too unbearable to hear when they have no fact-based counter-arguments. This is the only time I would compare Trump and Vance to Glenn!
It would be hard to point anywhere other than the US as the initiator of this non-diplonacy.
C'est bien le cas: la diplomatie a été mise sous le boisseau car le but était de détruire la Russie mais pas du tout de sauver l'Ukraine dont le sort n'intéresse personne (Même pas Zelinsky!). Jamais, même au pires moments de la guerre froide, nous n'avons autant ostracisé la Russie. C'est donc bien que le but caché n'était pas avouable aux populations occidentales. Et dire que tous ces jeunes auront perdu la vie ou seront handicapés à vie pour permettre à des marchands de canons de s'enrichir..comme d'habitude en fait.
I actually have the real answers to Glenn's questions but he doesn't read or respond to his substack so there is no point explaining them here. The limited and constraining comment format doesn't help either.
The professional commentators all appear on each other's channels, to discuss their theological opponents' "echo chambers" and the views of the common people so habitually ignored by the democratic elite ...
And totally unironically, too.
I know what you mean. There are too many echo chambers on both the MSM and alt media. When Glenn and the Duran etc. accidentally have people on who they should fundamentally disagree with they have nothing to say in terms of argument and just ignore their differences to keep the echo chamber humming in the best possible ways.