29 Comments

I don't think Alexander reads the MSM inorder to gain information about things happening on the ukrainian battlefield or other conflicts. He reads them because MSM serves as a mouthpiece for the deep state. All the articles and news stories are approved or planted by them. When you analyse them you get a general idea of what the thinking is in the deep state itself. One comes to know what the bureaucrats are themselves thinking or what message they want to send out in the society. Because that is generally how they operate. If Alexander actually read MSM for information you would find him peddling the NK troops narrative.

Expand full comment

We are listening to Western 'think.'

Can you imagine if this was happening in the US?

Putin has won this war......do you think he is going to listen to any Westerners.

NO.

IF the US had won this war would the US listen to terms of peace.

The answer is NO.

I have been waiting for this.

Just go away and look after your own people USA......we are sick and tired of you and your wargames.

I am in Europe and still wondering why we are STILL 'puppets' of the USA.

Mercouris AND Meersheimer have shot their bolts.

DO not want to listen to these 'supposed' intellectuals.

I only listen to Economists now.

Expand full comment

Scholz is in for a surprise if he thinks that the German electorate is less obdurate than Vladimir Putin. (I'm projecting Scholz's view of Putin not my own.)

Is that image of Putin real?

Expand full comment

How on earth can anyone be pro Zionist?

Expand full comment

It is refreshing to criticise Mercouris. He has a very Eurocentric view and outdated too often refers to his limited experience in government to understand bureaucracy or his background as a Greek to understand democracy or his undergraduate days studying history to claim expertise in American history. I feel his heavy borrowing of MSM news sources recently is driven by over-reach and the daily grind of videos. His assessment of events outside Russia-Ukraine has been quite unreliable, even though I admire his courage and persistence on reporting those events well.

PS I appeared on their show but they have jumped onto some odd causes in recent months

Expand full comment

I don’t think you know Mercouris’s background at all and his range of contacts and sources. I’m sure his network for more expansive than yours. You do slur him with the obvious put downs (Eurocentric, outdated, limited e périe ce, Greek, heavy borrowing, unreliable) but I suspect that’s your MO and underlies your plan.

Expand full comment
author

I am fully ware of Mercouris' background - although not of course with his range of sources which he does not disclose. As I have said numerous times I respect him. I just expected more of him in this case. I did not intend 'putdowns". I just pointed to instances where he and the facts differ. Brian Berletic has done the same.

Expand full comment

Those who expect consistency, accuracy and “more” of others should be circumspect. We are, after all, human.

To suggest that one’s opinion is backed up by someone else (Mr ABC) is to suggest one prefers echo chambers to open debate. Mercouris and Berletic know each other and I suspect would both disagree with the implication that there is a “correct” position on every issue.

Expand full comment
author

Good point. Open debate is better than “echo chambers'. It is what I am saying about MAdM. It’s an echo chamber. I think you are also right to say that Mercouris and Berletic know that here is never a “correct” position on any issue. But Berletic opts fo dialectical reasoning. Mercoursis starts from the comfort of the MSM echo chamber, gets to the door, looks out but does not venture very far beyond the doorstep.

Expand full comment

Thank you Julian for your analyses, which are really excellent. I just read on RT German that Biden has given permission for missile attacks with US missiles on Russia. Yes, as feared, they will start World War 3 before Trump comes into office to make sure he can't go back. Yes, terrible prospects. Putin has said what will happen if it comes to that. We give a bad 2 months.

https://de.rt.com/international/226315-biden-erlaubt-ukraine-angriffe-mit-us-langstreckenwaffen/

Expand full comment

Saw that today; complete escalation by NATO. But I don’t see Russia actually attacking NATO outside Ukraine. They’ll continue to maintain their focus on the SMO and defeating Ukraine.

Although a well placed missle or two on some government sites in Kiev would be satisfying to see.

Expand full comment

I think Putin would react in his own mysterious ways if Trump in his new 4-year periode as POTUS would have done this.

Maybe he will react now with some restraint on Germany/France/British missiles by bombing their launch teams and other places with the technical troops. Hotels etc.

He will wait for Trump to take over and if Trump doesn't stop those missiles he'll react fully. But not with Nukes... Maybe shooting down the main photo/location satellites ?

Sander

Expand full comment

Hopefully so. Seems like their intelligence is getting better and they're going after things like foreign mercenary concentrations. Very satisfying to think that these blindly war-seeking adventure chasers are getting liquidated in their sleep.

One of those new hypersonics into the Ukraine capitol building would carry a strong message, too.

Expand full comment

Thank you, Occam (nice name).

I posted on "X" a thread of 3 'Tweets', that you might find interesting:

->https://x.com/OccupySchagen/status/1860370739096166489

Sander

(Cassandra is my Mentat 😉 )

Expand full comment

I live in The Netherlands in Europe. I do not see the website.

Here a copy from Archive.

->https://archive.ph/xqoIP

Sander

Expand full comment

I concluded early in the Gaza war that Mecouris is basically pro-Israel and everything he says about it is totally flawed. If he says America is pro-Israel, he's projecting his own view on Americans.

Expand full comment
author

I hadn't thought of that. Interesting.

Expand full comment

I don’t agree. First of all, you seem unfamiliar with his comments in the lengthy weekly discussions on the smalltownvoice1 channel on yt. And, second of all, he is sophisticated enough to know that TPTB do not tolerate identification of zionist/jewish causality in any but oblique fashion.

The charts/tables/analyses of “data” that are provided to establish “facts” about how Americans feel and what they believe are themselves suspect — and should be, in view of the election. The resulting loss of credibility among the public — because the shenanigans of the pollsters/papers/consultsnts have never been so obvious since the first Gallup polls. Having taught university statistics, I can assure you that not only are the technical (mathematical) aspects of hypothesis testing very poorly understood, but even the core principle of statistics. This is true in spite of the fact that “How to Lie with Statistics” has been in print continuously since it was published exactly 70 years ago.

You may not believe it, but a valid conclusion is more likely to be drawn from “statistically unbiased” anecdotal evidence than survey data produced by pollsters with ulterior motives. But, of course, this cannot be grasped by the general public for whom any level of familiarity with statistics could embody the principle that “a little learning is a dangerous thing”.

And I personally agree with Mercouris that more Americans support Israel than do not. The only demographic for which this may be untrue is clearly a minority in America. In Congress, how many elected officials have taken a stand in Israel and Gaza? Versus how many have denied the genocide or argued that Israel should press forward in its plans to annex surrounding regions, at whatever human cost? In recent days, Stephen Miller (possibly a dual citizen) and Marco Rubio (possibly closeted) have made open statements of support.

Andrew Anglin has written eloquently and piquantly on the American public’s support for Israel, and I’m sure he’s far closer to the reality than most pundits.

Expand full comment

Caitlin Johnstone just wrote something along the lines of your post. Will Shriver did too.

Expand full comment

Very good article.

I've recognized the problem with Mercouris for a long time: he's a "peace-nik." Military conflict - of which he is completely ignorant, as he has said in almost every one of his videos - is anathema to him. He was talking about "peace negotiations" in the Ukraine war probably from February 24, 2022.

He has especially repeatedly said that the only reason there wasn't a peace deal in March-April, 2022, is because the West sent Boris Johnson to sabotage the deal. I explicitly told Mercouris that was nonsense and that it didn't matter what supposed deal the Ukraine and Russian negotiators had signed for Putin to review, which Putin kept dangling in front of the media - solely to prove that the West COULD NOT BE TRUSTED TO NEGOTIATE. But of course Mercouris blew me off.

In reality, of course, whatever deal might have been signed then would have been broken in six weeks or six months or six years - just like Minsk II - and Putin would have had to start the war all over again then. Putin himself said later in 2022 and since that he had been "played" by the West when Merkel and others had admitted that Minsk II was a sham intended to give the West time to arm Ukraine and bring it into NATO and put Aegis Ashore missiles inside Ukraine like they are in Romania and Poland.

I've said it was ridiculous for Putin to try to "scare" Ukraine into negotiations in the first place. He was a fool to consider it. I know why he did it: he was concerned about the war's effects on the Russian economy, the Russian population, the Global South, and about possible NATO over-reaction. Nonetheless, it was doomed from the start.

So of course at the first sign of a supposed willingness to "negotiate" on the part of Scholz, Mercouris falls back into his usual pattern.

I've stopped listening to Mercouris, Ritter, Johnson, and the rest of the "Judge Nap crowd" with the sole exceptions of Alastair Crooke and Pepe Escobar (and occasionally Colonel Wilkerson and Macgregor as well as Brian Berletic.) The former crews' "analysis" is limited to whatever happened in the last news cycle whereas the latter are oriented to the Big Picture context. And you need that context to understand anything going on. Berletic in particular has repeatedly referred to the 2009 Brooking Institute report on how the US could go to war with Iran as the playbook for what is happening now - again, context.

With regard to whether one is "alternative" vs "mainstream", I have a unique position in that respect. I do not adhere to limited ideologies or religions or social philosophies or political movements like everyone else does. I base my opinions on basic human primate nature and actual human behavior over the last half million years. I'm an individualist anarchist, an atheist and a radical Transhumanist (don't assume you know what the latter is because you probably don't despite what you may have read in the MSM or alt-media.)

Most importantly, I ask the next question - which almost no one does - as well as imagining the possible consequences and alternatives, whereas everyone else comes to a full stop. I also do not frame everything as a binary "either-or" conflict instead of recognizing that everything has at least three sides to it, not two.

As a result, the more I listen to the various "analysts", the more I find my analysis is at least as good as theirs and often better. The only time I'm wrong is when I'm missing salient facts that I'm not aware of ("you don't know what you don't know" problem.) This is primarily why I listen to all these other analysts - they provide me with information on which I base my analysis (as well as both mainstream and alternative sources.) That's their main usefulness - providing additional intelligence. But everyone needs to analyze it themselves.

That's basic intelligence analysis, as any book on the subject will tell you. So it's disappointing to see "veteran intelligence analysts" like Ritter, Johnson, McGovern, et al regularly violating that in the quest for Youtube interviews and in Ritter's case particularly, escalating basic news into hyperbolic rants (no, Iran is not a "nuclear power" and no, Putin is not going to start WWIII over a few ATACMS.)

Expand full comment
author

Where does a retired ______ go to die? A "Judge" podcast. Thank God I am too poor to retire! No, Mercouris will not publically respond to you --although Larry has. I have been following you for a long time, starting with MoA-- and while I do not always agree--your analyses are often better than a lot of the MAdS crowd. No, I don't know what a "radical Transhumanist" is. Probably because I prefer cats? LOL. Please keep up the good work. We NEED you out there!

Expand full comment

Thanks for the compliment - and the follow.

Expand full comment

“I explicitly told Mercouris that was nonsense”….

“Of course, whatever deal that might have been signed then would have been broken”….

“the more I find my analysis at least as good as theirs”…

“The only time I’m wrong is when”….

Expand full comment

I tend to agree with your opinion about Alexander Mercouris.

And I suppose it requires some "faith" in public narratives to climb the corporate ladder - any corporate ladder for that means. After all, he worked as a lawyer, and originates from a high-family in Greek politics. I think except for us "outsiders", it is almost impossible to overcome all the indoctrinations.

But I noticed relatively quickly that he - and his colleague at the Duran - have quite a few places they do not dare to venture. All those alleged "conspiracy theories" that had become true lately - including the plandemic. I think the fact that he still can and does post all of his videos on YT is proof he never ventures too far from the allowed narratives.

Nonetheless, I value them as news collators, I just can't spend many time watching podcasts or reading news. They are not my only source, nor do I consider their judgment as gospel. But I think they don't lie deliberately.

Expand full comment

Thank you...

But i do not partake in battles of words.

My sensing is difficult to express, so i use "Probabilities" of possible future happenings on the Geopolitical dimension.

Most of what you say here i can and do agree with.

Alexanders reactions are based upon things happening and changing in the 'Deep State' world.

But i agree that this is becoming more and more irrelevant.

But NOT completely. It is still playing a role, waiting for the probability that Trump can destroy them in 2 years time (<45%) or 4 years if he survives the first 2, <55%.

Still his views are part of my mental facts-database. Until the 'Empire' has been fallen apart and is not important any more which could occur the coming decade (mind the control of the Nukes...).

So.

Yes i agree, but with some exceptions that i still consider important.

Keep doing the good work please...

Sander

PS. The most important thing at the moment is: can Trump prevent a US-IRAN WAR ?

Because it would destroy him, NOT Iran.

The next important thing is: how long before the NATO and EU Alien Lobby-Network Infiltrators Elite is destroyed and flushed down the Toilet. Starting with NATO-Rutte and then Germany-Scholz.

Britain is irrelevant currently. The former East-European states are more important: Hungary, Slovakia, Serbia, Moldova and who follows... And do not forget Italy & Spain.

PPS About the South-West-Asia situation: When Trump can prevent a US-Iran war, he can survive, but he cannot prevent the impression and conviction that the Anglo-Zionist empire has been defeated there and this will change the Arab billionaires family regimes. They probably will get their investments in the US back and start investing elsewhere... (China ? Russia ?) The Collapse of the Dollar will through that be accelerated.

Expand full comment
author

I think I have been a part hard on Alexander--who is really very, very good. As is Christoforou. Alexander can be an original thinker-- but he is hampered by his reliance on the MSM. Christoforou is a little better in this respect because he sees the MSM as a "clown world". He doesn't take it seriously -- whereas Alexander too often does. I might be critical sometimes but I still read him -- religiously....LOL. The problem with the Deep State is that it is not a single beast -- it is an ecosystem -- as Trump says -- a swamp. All sorts of critters. Trouble is Trump is one of the critters in the Swamp. As are all politicians. What people call the "Deep State" are just other kinds of critters-- bureaucrats.

Expand full comment

Anyone who reads and listens as a literalist misses so much of what is embedded in discourse. Mercouris’s background and experience in politics, law, arbitration etc not to speak of his knowledge of language, culture and history are far beyond anyone writing here. It doesn’t make him infallible, but it does suggest that superficial “suspicions” about what he truly believes are not wise.

Expand full comment

Thank you.

Calling the deep state just bureaucrats is a VERY serious underestimation...

There is a millennia-old Monster in the depth and it is fighting to survive...

It started more than 3.000 years ago in what is called Mesopotamia.

It moved from Empire to Empire to the Roman Empire and from there via "The City of London" to those who control the FED and the Dollar. The Crumbling Anglo-Zionist Empire...

->https://i0.wp.com/www.wanttoknow.nl/wp-content/uploads/deep-state-cartoon-ben-garrison.jpg

And i am NOT joking.

It is the same POWER that caused me in Europe to become about the last left extremist.

But i am now named Right extremist and anti-semite, because the WHOLE left is brainwashed and enchanted, like the Liberals were before them.

I think i escaped this because i am Autistic. Words do not influence me very much.

Sander

Expand full comment

Love, love, love the pic at the end...😍

Expand full comment