Garsha Vazirian
Tehran Times

In a seismic shift from mainstream media’s hawkish rhetoric, American journalist Tucker Carlson has become an unlikely catalyst for rethinking U.S. policy toward Iran.

The former Fox News host’s Sunday post on X, which has amassed over 5.8 million impressions as of this writing, critiques the exaggerated portrayal of Iran as a “terror sponsor.” This analysis has sparked bipartisan scrutiny of Washington’s persistent war-mongering tactics.

As U.S. President Donald Trump, echoing the warmongers and anti-Iran neoconservatives in Washington DC, escalates threats against Tehran, Carlson’s data-driven critique and growing public skepticism signal a turning point in the debate over America’s priorities—domestic crises versus foreign interventions.

‘Compare the Numbers’—Carlson’s post cut through decades of fearmongering with a simple question: “How many Americans have been killed by Iran on U.S. soil in 20 years? Compare that to drug ODs, suicide, or car accidents. Still think Iran is the greatest threat?”

Backed by stark statistics—over 108,000 overdose deaths in 2022, 49,000 suicides, and zero Iran-linked fatalities on U.S. soil—the tweet challenges the logic of prioritizing regime change over healthcare or infrastructure.

Glenn Diesen
Glenn's Substack

The challenge of our time is that government and corporate interests go increasingly hand-in-hand

Organisations operating under the banner of “human rights non-governmental organisations” (NGOs) have become key actors in disseminating war propaganda, intimidating academics, and corrupting civil society. These NGOs act as gatekeepers determining which voices should be elevated and which should be censored and cancelled.

Civil society is imperative to balance the power of the state, yet the state is increasingly seeking to hijack the representation of civil society through NGOs. The NGOs can be problematic on their own as they can enable a loud minority to override a silent majority. Yet, the Reagan doctrine exacerbated the problem as these “human rights NGOs” were financed by the government and staffed by people with ties to intelligence agencies to ensure civil society does not deviate significantly from government policies.

The ability of academics to speak openly and honestly is restricted by these gatekeepers. Case in point, the NGOs limit dissent in academic debates about the great power rivalry in Ukraine. Well-documented and proven facts that are imperative to understanding the conflict are simply not reported in the media, and any efforts to address these facts are confronted with vague accusations of being “controversial” or “pro-Russian”, a transgression that must be punished with intimidation, censorship, and cancellation. I will outline here first my personal experiences with one of these NGOs, and second how the NGOs are hijacking civil society:

Glenn Diesen
Glenn's Substack

The Peace of Westphalia in 1648 laid the foundation for the modern world order, which is based on a balance of power between sovereign equals to obstruct hegemonic ambitions. The Westphalian balance of power could reduce zero-sum rivalries by championing the principle of indivisible security, as enhancing adversaries' security would also improve one's security.

Since the end of the Cold War, the US has been promoting a revisionist world order based on US hegemony and sovereign inequality, which is legitimized under the banner of universal liberal values. The hegemonic world order aimed to transcend international anarchy, yet it was inevitably temporary and unstable as its durability depended on obstructing the rise of potential rivals and promoting a system of sovereign inequality. The era of hegemony is already over as the world transitioned to a multipolar balance of power, and there is a need to rediscover the principle of indivisible security.

China's Global Civilisational Initiative can contribute to restoring and improving a stable Westphalian world order based on a balance of power among sovereign equals. China's Global Civilizational Initiative, organized around the principle of "the diversity of civilizations", can be interpreted as a rejection of universalism and thus support for sovereign equality. By rejecting the right to represent the values of other people, the Global Civilizational Initiative reassures the world that an intrusive US hegemony will not be replaced by an intrusive Chinese hegemony. The Global Civilization Initiative complements China's economic and security initiatives around the world, which are also organized around the principle that stability requires a multipolar world order.

Glenn Diesen
Glenn's Substack

Propaganda is a science of persuasion that commonly circumvents the rational considerations of the individual by instead appealing to the unconscious group psychology. The conscious mind tends to be rational, but human behaviour and actions are largely shaped by the unconscious, primordial instincts, and emotions. The rational individual has strong impulses to adapt to the group, thus propaganda aims to influence the irrational group psychology.

Propaganda as a Science—Sigmund Freud explored the irrationality of “group psychology” that overrides the rational and critical capacities of the individual. Freud recognised that “a group is extraordinarily credulous and open to influence, it has no critical faculty”.[1] Conformity to the ideas of the group is powerful exactly because it is unconscious. Freud defined group psychology as being: “concerned with the individual man as a member of a race, of a nation, of a caste, of a profession, of an institution, or as a component part of a crowd of people”, which form a collective group consciousness, social instinct, herd instinct or tribal mentality.[2]

The nephew of Sigmund Freud, Edward Bernays, built on the work of his uncle to develop the foundational literature on political propaganda. Bernays aimed to manipulate the collective consciousness and identity of the group to control the hearts and minds of the masses without their awareness of being manipulated:

💬 “The group has mental characteristics distinct from those of the individual, and is motivated by impulses and emotions which cannot be explained on the basis of what we know of individual psychology. So the question naturally arose: If we understand the mechanisms and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it?”.[3]

Glenn Diesen
Glenn’s Substack

The election victory of Trump should not have been a surprise. The era of liberal hegemony has already come to an end, and a correction is long overdue. The liberal hegemony is no longer liberal, and the hegemony is exhausted. Trump is often denounced for being transactional, yet the de-ideologization of America and return to pragmatism is exactly what the country needs.

Change or Preserve the Unsustainable Status-Quo?—The overwhelming majority of Americans believe that the country is heading in the wrong direction, which placed Harris as the incumbent in an unfavorable position. Harris as the Vice President could not distance herself sufficiently from President Biden’s policies, which meant that she had to own the failures of the past four years. The message of “turning the page” did not resonate, and she was left with the meaningless slogan of “joy” - which only demonstrated her detachment from the growing concerns of Americans.

The borders have been wide open, media freedom is in decline, the government’s overreach is growing, US industries are no longer competitive, the national debt is out of control, social problems and culture wars are going from bad to worse, the political climate becomes increasingly divisive, the US military is overstretched, the global majority rejects Washington’s simplistic and dangerous heuristics of dividing the world into liberal democracy versus authoritarianism, the US is complicit in genocide in Palestine and is heading towards nuclear war with Russia.

Who would vote for four more years when the status quo entails driving off a cliff? It is a good time to be in opposition and offer change. Being a populist with a bombastic demeanor, seemingly immune to consequences from breaking social norms, is a good feature when breaking free from decades-old ideological dogmas that constrain necessary pragmatism.

Glenn Diesen
Glenn’s Substack

The Economist reports that "Russia is slicing through Ukrainian defenses" and Ukraine is subsequently "struggling to survive".[1] Across the Western media, the public is prepared for defeat and painful concessions in future negotiations. The media is changing the narrative as reality can no longer be ignored. Russia's coming victory has been obvious since at least the summer of 2023, yet this was ignored to keep the proxy war going.

We are witnessing an impressive demonstration of narrative control: For more than two years, the political-media elites have been chanting “Ukraine is winning” and denounced any dissent to their narrative as “Kremlin talking points” that aim to reduce support for the war. What was “Russian propaganda” yesterday is now suddenly the consensus of the collective media. Critical self-reflection is as absent as it was after the Russiagate reporting.

Similar narrative control was displayed when the media reassured the public for two decades that NATO was winning, before fleeing in a great rush with dramatic images of people falling off an airplane.

The media deceived the public by presenting the stagnant frontlines as evidence that Russia was not winning. However, in a war of attrition, the direction of the war is measured by attrition rates – the losses on each side. Territorial control comes after the adversary has been exhausted as territorial expansion is very costly in such high-intensity warfare with powerful defensive lines. The attrition rates have throughout the war been extremely unfavourable to Ukraine, and they continuously get worse. The current collapse of the Ukrainian frontlines was very predictable as the manpower and weaponry had been exhausted.

Why has the former narrative expired? The public could be misled by fake attrition rates, yet it is not possible to cover up territorial changes after the eventual breaking point. Furthermore, the proxy war was beneficial to NATO when the Russians and Ukrainians were bleeding each other without any significant territorial changes. Once the Ukrainians are exhausted and begin to lose strategic territory, it is no longer in the interest of NATO to continue the war.

Glenn Diesen
Glenn’s Substack

Russia considers NATO’s incursion into Ukraine to be an existential threat, and NATO has openly stated its intention to make Ukraine a member state after the war. Without a political settlement that restores Ukraine’s neutrality, Russia will therefore likely annex the strategic territories it cannot accept ending up under NATO control and then turning what remains of Ukraine into a dysfunctional rump state.

As the war is being lost, the rational policy for the Europeans would therefore be to offer an agreement based on ending NATO’s eastward expansion to save Ukrainian lives, territory, and the nation itself. Yet, no European leader has been able even to suggest such a solution publicly. Why?

Present the average European politician, journalist, or academic with the following thought experiment: If you were an advisor to the Kremlin, what would be your advice to Russia if there are no negotiations to resolve the Ukraine War? Most would feel morally compelled to give ridiculous answers such as advising the Kremlin to capitulate and withdraw, even if Russia is on the cusp of victory. Any impulse to adhere to reason and address Russia’s security concerns would likely be deterred by the threat of being shamed for “legitimizing” Russia’s invasion.

What explains the decline of strategic thinking, pragmatism, and rationality in European politics?

Saman Mohammadi
The Excavator

"The world is mental in some way that we do not yet understand, but that which we're edging toward understanding. And the world is made of language. I can't say that enough. Whenever we get into these discussions about reality, or effects in space and time, we are operating outside this assumption that the world is made of language." - Terence McKenna, from a talk he gave on September 11, 1993.

"As always: combatting Terrorism is not the end of the War on Terror; the War on Terror is the end in itself, and Terrorism is merely its pretext." - Glenn Greenwald, "Since bin Laden’s death," May 1, 2012.

Jose Rodriguez, one of the CIA's inquisitors, defended torture and the Agency's destruction of evidence on CBS's 60 minutes on Sunday, April 29.

As the former Deputy Director for Operations, Rodriguez committed many war crimes, torture being among them. He is a 21st century version of a Spanish inquisitor. His job is to protect National Security orthodoxies, smear victims with false charges, and sell the lie to the American people that the War on Terrorism is a noble struggle which the CIA must fight with an iron will.

According to CIA inquisitors and their defenders in the press, no questions about CIA policies should be raised because the CIA is holy and pure, while its detractors are just a bunch of conspiracy theorists, left-wing radicals, and Islamofascists. — As we can see, there are many similarities between the modern charges of terrorism and conspiracy theory made by intelligence agencies and the medieval charges of blasphemy and heresy made by religious authorities. The Catholic Church promised its flock salvation; the National Security State promises its flock security. Neither salvation or security can be delivered by political and religious authorities, but that fact hasn't stopped religion and government from going out of business yet.

Pepe Escobar

(L-R) Russian President Vladimir Putin, Indian Prime Minister Narendra
Modi, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, Chinese President Xi Jinping
and South African President Jacob Zuma join their hands at a group photo
session during the 6th BRICS summit in Fortaleza July 15, 2014.

Here’s the G20 in Australia in a one-liner: a tiny bunch of Anglo-Saxon political buffoons attempts to drown out the Global South.

Countries representing over 85 percent of the world economy get together to (in theory) discuss some really heavy economic/financial issues, and virtually the only thing pitiful Western corporate media blabbers about is Russian President Vladimir Putin cutting an ‘isolated figure’.

Well, Washington and its string of puppets did try to turn the G20 into a farce. Fortunately the adults in the room had some business to do.

The five BRICS member-nations – despite their current problems, the G5 that really matters in the world - did meet before the summit, including the ‘isolated figure’. Economically, this G5 more than matches the old, decrepit G7.

Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff forcefully encouraged the G5 to turbo-charge their mutual cooperation – as well as South-South cooperation. That includes, of course, the BRICS Development Bank. The BRICS, stressing their ‘serious concern’, once again called Washington’s bluff – perpetually refusing to endorse much-delayed structural reform at the IMF.

The IMF quota and governance reform package was in fact approved by the IMF’s Board of Governors way back in 2010. One of its key resolutions was to increase the voting power of emerging markets, the BRICS at the forefront. For Republicans in Washington, this is worse than communism.

Chinese President Xi Jinping added that BRICS cooperation should not only boost the global economy, but also ensure global peace. Make trade, not tomahawks. The over 120 nations of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) – beggars in the G20 banquet - were paying very close attention.

Mark Glenn

What was that thing you said, Abe Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League? You know, that really dramatic thing you said in the speech you made in Palm Beach, where you blamed the internet for the recent rise in ‘anti-Semitism’ around the world, and how you couldn’t remember ever being so ‘seriously concerned about the safety and security’ of your grandson because of it?

Well, what do you know, Abe…miracles do exist. There is actually something upon which you and I can agree. You see, I too have never been so afraid for the future of my progeny, and the source of my worry also stems from the recent rise in anti-Semitism. —No, Abe, I am not Jewish, thank God, for if I were then chances are better than not that I would find myself in the clutches of evil, conspiring men (such as you) who are always drumming up new ways of enriching and empowering themselves by getting their own people into trouble.

You see, the reason that I am alarmed at the recent rise in ‘anti-Semitism’ is because I am a real, living, flesh-and-blood-Semite Abe, unlike you and those for whom you presume to speak. As such, my children are also Semitic and–if I am so blessed–my grandchildren will be as well.

Do not let my non-Semitic-sounding name fool you. There is more ‘Semitism’ in one of my eyelashes than what you and your people could possibly dream of possessing in your wildest, most uninhibited fantasies. My relatives came from the Middle East, unlike yours which came from the ghettos of either Europe or Russia. My relatives are the ancient Filasteens and Phoenicians whereas yours (and those of 95% of the world’s Jewish people) came from the ancient kingdom of Khazaria in southern Russia. My skin is dark and my eyes are dark and almond-shaped, unlike your features which are fair and white in appearance. I grew up hearing dialects of the Aramaic language that was spoken by Jesus and his apostles and I ate the food that has been part of that region for thousands of years.