Glenn Diesen interviews Larry Johnson: Defeat in the Iran War Will End the U.S. Empire

Rieck argues that established institutions often react to newcomers with three recurring strategies: exclusion, containment through regulation, and eventually absorption. He uses the success of the podcast Ungeskriptet and the rise of new media, parties, and business models as examples of how challengers can rapidly shift attention and influence.

First, he says the establishment tries to block challengers by treating them as illegitimate. In politics, this shows up as calls to “keep the AfD small” or to regulate new media; in journalism, it appears in claims that certain podcasts are “not real journalism.” Second, if exclusion does not work, the old guard may try to absorb the newcomer by copying its themes or bringing it into the system. Third, if that also fails, the newcomer becomes strong enough to build its own parallel structures and the old institutions lose control.

He frames this as a broader power dynamic rather than a purely ideological one. Newcomers succeed by adding a new dimension that the old system ignored, as the Greens did with environmental politics and the AfD did with immigration. His larger point is that many institutions mistake self-preservation for principle, and that late-stage attempts to shut out change often backfire by strengthening the very force they were trying to suppress.

Enable available AI-generated audio track in English.
Slow speed to 80%, Rieck is a notoriously fast talker.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zl6Nw5lQh4

A recent report states that a conductor “knocked a million-dollar violin out of a violinist’s hands.” However, she saved the violin from breaking because, with quick thinking, she cushioned the fall with her foot (as if she could have done this even unconsciously in a fraction of a second—this is pure “coincidence” in the truest sense of the word).

The press is hailing the woman as a heroine, while the conductor is portrayed (more or less) as a clumsy, careless oaf. She has, so the story goes, even “forgiven” him [sic]. It was immediately clear to me that there is a massive error in both the portrayal and the analysis of the situation, most likely ideologically distorted (the feminist zeitgeist fundamentally misrepresents men as perpetrators and women as victims).

For how can it be that a conductor must watch his “overly sweeping gestures” so as not to destroy a violin worth millions at any moment? You see: This is illogical. So it is not he who is to blame for the mishap, but she, who stepped too close to the conductor, effectively invading his territory; it is solely her own responsibility to prevent this—it cannot possibly be his job! She is the true “culprit.”

She did not “save” the violin, but at best (by pure chance!) limited the damage she herself had caused. As is clearly visible, the conductor is facing the entire orchestra, while the violinist is standing right in front of him, so she has him and his gestures in view the whole time and must have known what would happen if she stepped too close to him.

Everyone involved must be fully aware of the value of what is at stake here. Otherwise, it would be an almost daily occurrence for instruments worth millions to be broken by “overly energetic conductors.” An insurance company that has the “distinction” of having to cover the damage to the instrument won’t be satisfied with such relativistic, wishy-washy approach.

Unlike usual western liberal press, this Korean article
(though as factually inaccurate) is refreshingly neutral.
https://www.chosun.com/english/world-en/2026/04/23/6DCGVSCGXRAJ5ESDM46CZUEP4M/