Questions as to RAND's credibility remain, though, as the history of the 'Pentagon Papers' indicates--as well as a bunch of other stuff on their website
I'm sure RAND knows what they are doing, but it strikes me that if denouncing this as false, RAND's words would ring truer if they had opted for a laconic dispassionate style. (Might well be my personal bias speaking here.) Something bone-dry and sharply cut short like "The report titled NN is not the work of the RAND Corporation. All our reports, analyses and projects are available on our homepage and in our archives."
No debate of any points made, no discussion, nothing to start digging at. It's the same principle as when being questioned by police or prosecutors: offer absolutely no information not explicitly and on the record asked for:
"If the interrogator asks you if you know what time it is, what do you answer?"
"Well, if I know the time I tell him what the watch says?"
"Wrong. The right answer is 'Yes' and nothing more. Never volunteer information."
Otherwise you always wind up in "The Lady does protest too much"-territory.
Agree. Seems like some emotional knee-jerk reaction with the same language used while "debunking" 2020 election fraud and official covid narrative. Those two were also very similar ("the most secure election in US history", "the most safe and effective vaccine ever", "bizarre conspiracy theories" "debunked"). Is this the same person or some AI? If anything, it made me more suspect
I suspect that the reason is straightforward: it's a draft that never was approved to be published, if only for the simple 'reason' that this would provide even mainstream political hacks in Europe the cover to campaign against NATO and the EU.
Mind you, both are actually set up like 'The Hotel California': it's hard to get in, alright, but it's (close to) impossible to leave for a variety of reasons. Sure, with the EU it was done once (Brexit), but a) that is not over yet and b) with the military integration via NATO, there's many more issues to consider (ranging from 5.56mm NATO standard cartridges to spare parts to joint troops, SOFA status, etc.).
I think the RAND report was a draft that never made it, but it is damn on spot as I wrote in my Substacks and The Duran nor RAND found anything wrong in the report that is very well informed.
I will link here tomorrow.
By the way: In what context did Goebbels say that you should always blame the enemy of what you are guilty of? I do not think he was explaining his strategy, but was he the Tucker Carlson pointing out the Democrats and City of London and what they always do?
I happen to agree with you on this one; Röper also pointed to another aspect--the weaponisation of RAND by one side (Democrats) to shield the Biden admin, much like the FBI's shenanigans w/respect to the Trump raid, 'Russiagate', and the like. I shall post his comment here, too, for I think it's important.
I will also link to your piece, which I read only after I posted the above.
What I find quite "bizarre" in the way they debunk this report, is that exactly the same language is used as when debunking B Gates - Covid conspiracy (Bill Gates is surprised at the "bizarre conspiracy theories"...) Sounds like written by the same person. And yes, the war was anything but "unprovoked". Same as the war in Georgia, where McCain seems to have played a role during his election campaign in 2008 and which was likely instigated by him.
I had not seen this particular article, but I remember seeing a few other pieces making this connection (Event 201 just prior to the "surprise outbreak"). Early on I just brushed it off as "coincidence", until the evidence started piling up. Dr David Martin was very factual when it comes to the whole covid pandemic creation and vaccine development.
The ridiculous of all, is what the German Foreign Minister said to the Bundestag recently. You can find short video on this interesting article by UK Mail online that I just translated and published, on the norwegian nazi Stoltenberg of Nato delirium, warning for "civil unrest" in Europe and the "tyranny" of Russia that could invade other ex soviet countries or even Eu ones... No comment.
But there's the speech of the German Foreign Minister that shortly is saying they "have done everything possible for peace and diplomacy, but this time the counter part is not Gorbachev but Russian President..."
And she concludes: " THIS IS THE MOMENT WHERE WE STAND TOGETHER" Wooww!!!
Notice anything in that? Did remind you of someone, something? No? I help you out:
Bush Jr in the first speech to the Nation after 9/11...
Same words, same ghost writer, same propaganda strategy, the bad old Goebbels one "Repeat a lye 10, 100, 1000 times, it'll become truth"
It's just the Nazis that come back, the Nazi Revenge 75 years after. You can call them Neocon, Globalist, Wef, Imperialist, deep State and so on, but they all have the same Nazi philosophy, conquer and destroy...
It could be intellectually stimulating to discuss why, how and when, but the problem now, in Europe is to prepare and execute what they are afraid of: a civil unrest or in street vocabulary, a people's insurrection against them all, whatever label they stand with.
Oh, yes, Ms. Baerbock is quite something, no doubt.
I suppose that the revelatory deeds of esp. the Greens "in power" (no-one expected different from the SPD or the FDP*) will result in their supports closing ranks and voting for them even more forcefully, because the only reason they can see why there is failure is--the Greens are being held back by the sissies with whom they must govern.
I'm unsure about the allegation that there are "Nazis everywhere"; sure, there are quite a few of them (Azov troops), but the underlying problem isn't the non-denazification after WW2 (esp. in the Western zones)--rather, I'd argue the main problem is that "Western" societies have never come to grips with the melding of state and corporate power (which, allegedly, Mussolini used as the definition of "fascism"), which is the defining characteristic of power-1930s (post-) Modernity. (As an aside, Horkheimer called that one out in the 1950s.)
This isn't something that's merely a "fascist" feature, mind you, and, yes, there's always differences between political systems in different countries; I'd go as far as to hypothesise that this melding of state and corporate power is perhaps one of the key underlying features of post-1930s industrial civilisation, and that it doesn't matter if it's "democratic-capitalist', 'fascist', or Soviet-style totalitarianism, for the outcome = increased, and growing, domination of state and corporate leaders over the individual is the defining feature of all three such "systems".
As an aside, while I shall add that I don't identify as a follower of Marx, Lenin, and Mao, some of esp. Marx' insights are helpful. This certainly holds true for the "base determining the superstructure" insight, which I'm almost tempted to apply here: the "base" being the ever-changing conditions of industrial civilisation, with the "superstructure" being the different political-national manifestations thereof, e.g., the "New Deal" in the US (1930s-1970s), "Fascism" in Europe or Japan (which, structurally, hardly changed after 1945), and the Stalinist system in the USSR.
To close this historical-phenomenological comment with a pop-cultural reference, see Robert Harris' strange fictional novel about "what if Nazi Germany won…" (can't remember the name, and can't be bothered to look it up either): all these systems are unsustainable, be it by outside intervention (WW2), foreign adventurism (the US aggressions in Southeast Asia, which broke the "New Deal"), or by ossification and domestic tyranny (the USSR, which collapsed under its own weight).
I suppose that the current iteration will therefore end, most likely, like its Eastern European peer that it barely survived. It follows, I'd argue, that the US-imposed system of control (occupation, via NATO and SOFAs) and the like--which also quite strangely mirrors, in its essence, the régime imposed by the USSR (there's one set of laws for the local people and another one for the stationed US troops)--and domination (via "cancel culture" and virtue-signalling) imploding in the face of civic protests and mass disobedience, such as the ones that brought down the Soviet puppets in Eastern Europe in 1989/90. To me, the only question here is whether or not this will come about quite peacefully or go down in a Jacobin-like "people's tribunal" style, perhaps like in Romania (remember: Ceaucescu and his wife were executed).
I'm sure RAND knows what they are doing, but it strikes me that if denouncing this as false, RAND's words would ring truer if they had opted for a laconic dispassionate style. (Might well be my personal bias speaking here.) Something bone-dry and sharply cut short like "The report titled NN is not the work of the RAND Corporation. All our reports, analyses and projects are available on our homepage and in our archives."
No debate of any points made, no discussion, nothing to start digging at. It's the same principle as when being questioned by police or prosecutors: offer absolutely no information not explicitly and on the record asked for:
"If the interrogator asks you if you know what time it is, what do you answer?"
"Well, if I know the time I tell him what the watch says?"
"Wrong. The right answer is 'Yes' and nothing more. Never volunteer information."
Otherwise you always wind up in "The Lady does protest too much"-territory.
Agree. Seems like some emotional knee-jerk reaction with the same language used while "debunking" 2020 election fraud and official covid narrative. Those two were also very similar ("the most secure election in US history", "the most safe and effective vaccine ever", "bizarre conspiracy theories" "debunked"). Is this the same person or some AI? If anything, it made me more suspect
That linguistic conformity is quite striking.
I suspect that the reason is straightforward: it's a draft that never was approved to be published, if only for the simple 'reason' that this would provide even mainstream political hacks in Europe the cover to campaign against NATO and the EU.
Mind you, both are actually set up like 'The Hotel California': it's hard to get in, alright, but it's (close to) impossible to leave for a variety of reasons. Sure, with the EU it was done once (Brexit), but a) that is not over yet and b) with the military integration via NATO, there's many more issues to consider (ranging from 5.56mm NATO standard cartridges to spare parts to joint troops, SOFA status, etc.).
Hence, I remain quite wary. More on this later.
I think the RAND report was a draft that never made it, but it is damn on spot as I wrote in my Substacks and The Duran nor RAND found anything wrong in the report that is very well informed.
I will link here tomorrow.
By the way: In what context did Goebbels say that you should always blame the enemy of what you are guilty of? I do not think he was explaining his strategy, but was he the Tucker Carlson pointing out the Democrats and City of London and what they always do?
I happen to agree with you on this one; Röper also pointed to another aspect--the weaponisation of RAND by one side (Democrats) to shield the Biden admin, much like the FBI's shenanigans w/respect to the Trump raid, 'Russiagate', and the like. I shall post his comment here, too, for I think it's important.
I will also link to your piece, which I read only after I posted the above.
What I find quite "bizarre" in the way they debunk this report, is that exactly the same language is used as when debunking B Gates - Covid conspiracy (Bill Gates is surprised at the "bizarre conspiracy theories"...) Sounds like written by the same person. And yes, the war was anything but "unprovoked". Same as the war in Georgia, where McCain seems to have played a role during his election campaign in 2008 and which was likely instigated by him.
Did you see that Politico piece that called out correctly Gates' connections to the 'planning' exercises of Covid?
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/14/global-covid-pandemic-response-bill-gates-partners-00053969
I had not seen this particular article, but I remember seeing a few other pieces making this connection (Event 201 just prior to the "surprise outbreak"). Early on I just brushed it off as "coincidence", until the evidence started piling up. Dr David Martin was very factual when it comes to the whole covid pandemic creation and vaccine development.
The ridiculous of all, is what the German Foreign Minister said to the Bundestag recently. You can find short video on this interesting article by UK Mail online that I just translated and published, on the norwegian nazi Stoltenberg of Nato delirium, warning for "civil unrest" in Europe and the "tyranny" of Russia that could invade other ex soviet countries or even Eu ones... No comment.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11189015/NATO-chief-warns-civil-unrest-sparked-energy-cuts-price-living-crisis.html
But there's the speech of the German Foreign Minister that shortly is saying they "have done everything possible for peace and diplomacy, but this time the counter part is not Gorbachev but Russian President..."
And she concludes: " THIS IS THE MOMENT WHERE WE STAND TOGETHER" Wooww!!!
Notice anything in that? Did remind you of someone, something? No? I help you out:
Bush Jr in the first speech to the Nation after 9/11...
Same words, same ghost writer, same propaganda strategy, the bad old Goebbels one "Repeat a lye 10, 100, 1000 times, it'll become truth"
It's just the Nazis that come back, the Nazi Revenge 75 years after. You can call them Neocon, Globalist, Wef, Imperialist, deep State and so on, but they all have the same Nazi philosophy, conquer and destroy...
It could be intellectually stimulating to discuss why, how and when, but the problem now, in Europe is to prepare and execute what they are afraid of: a civil unrest or in street vocabulary, a people's insurrection against them all, whatever label they stand with.
Oh, yes, Ms. Baerbock is quite something, no doubt.
I suppose that the revelatory deeds of esp. the Greens "in power" (no-one expected different from the SPD or the FDP*) will result in their supports closing ranks and voting for them even more forcefully, because the only reason they can see why there is failure is--the Greens are being held back by the sissies with whom they must govern.
I'm unsure about the allegation that there are "Nazis everywhere"; sure, there are quite a few of them (Azov troops), but the underlying problem isn't the non-denazification after WW2 (esp. in the Western zones)--rather, I'd argue the main problem is that "Western" societies have never come to grips with the melding of state and corporate power (which, allegedly, Mussolini used as the definition of "fascism"), which is the defining characteristic of power-1930s (post-) Modernity. (As an aside, Horkheimer called that one out in the 1950s.)
This isn't something that's merely a "fascist" feature, mind you, and, yes, there's always differences between political systems in different countries; I'd go as far as to hypothesise that this melding of state and corporate power is perhaps one of the key underlying features of post-1930s industrial civilisation, and that it doesn't matter if it's "democratic-capitalist', 'fascist', or Soviet-style totalitarianism, for the outcome = increased, and growing, domination of state and corporate leaders over the individual is the defining feature of all three such "systems".
As an aside, while I shall add that I don't identify as a follower of Marx, Lenin, and Mao, some of esp. Marx' insights are helpful. This certainly holds true for the "base determining the superstructure" insight, which I'm almost tempted to apply here: the "base" being the ever-changing conditions of industrial civilisation, with the "superstructure" being the different political-national manifestations thereof, e.g., the "New Deal" in the US (1930s-1970s), "Fascism" in Europe or Japan (which, structurally, hardly changed after 1945), and the Stalinist system in the USSR.
To close this historical-phenomenological comment with a pop-cultural reference, see Robert Harris' strange fictional novel about "what if Nazi Germany won…" (can't remember the name, and can't be bothered to look it up either): all these systems are unsustainable, be it by outside intervention (WW2), foreign adventurism (the US aggressions in Southeast Asia, which broke the "New Deal"), or by ossification and domestic tyranny (the USSR, which collapsed under its own weight).
I suppose that the current iteration will therefore end, most likely, like its Eastern European peer that it barely survived. It follows, I'd argue, that the US-imposed system of control (occupation, via NATO and SOFAs) and the like--which also quite strangely mirrors, in its essence, the régime imposed by the USSR (there's one set of laws for the local people and another one for the stationed US troops)--and domination (via "cancel culture" and virtue-signalling) imploding in the face of civic protests and mass disobedience, such as the ones that brought down the Soviet puppets in Eastern Europe in 1989/90. To me, the only question here is whether or not this will come about quite peacefully or go down in a Jacobin-like "people's tribunal" style, perhaps like in Romania (remember: Ceaucescu and his wife were executed).