Glenn Greenwald
Politics • Culture • Writing
One Year Later, Biden Fails to Unite the World Against Russia. Plus, Week in Review with Michael Tracey
Video Transcript: System Update #46
February 28, 2023
post photo preview

Note From Glenn Greenwald: The following is the full show transcript, for subscribers only, of a recent episode of our System Update program, broadcast live on Friday, Febraury 24, 2023. Watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to the podcast on Spotify

It is the one-year anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the decision by the U.S. and its NATO allies to treat the war as its own proxy war, with the U.S. alone appropriating more than $100 billion thus far and counting – almost twice the entire annual Russian military budget – and sending so many weapons to that war zone that America's own weapons stockpiles are dangerously depleted. For months we heard from the media outlets aligned with the U.S. Security State that Joe Biden, with great diplomatic adeptness, had united the entire world against Russia and behind the United States in support of Ukraine. 

Yet – and I know this will shock many of you – these media claims were false and propagandistic from the start. Major newspapers around the world this week, including The New York Times and The Washington Post, acknowledged finally the far different reality: that the world is deeply divided and most of the world refuses to join Biden's call for unity in support of his war policies in that country. The reasons for this are complex and revealing, and we'll spend some time analyzing what accounts for Biden's diplomatic failure. 

Then, as we do regularly on our Friday evening show, we will welcome the independent journalist Michael Tracey to analyze the Week in Review. Michael is currently in Munich, where he spent the week at the annual Munich Security Conference, where –needless to say – the war in Ukraine dominated. We'll talk to him about what he observed, as well as a variety of other news events from this week, including an amazing Wall Street Journal article on how more than half of American colleges – more than half – now have a formal “snitch system” that allows – and encourages – students to anonymously report one another for using “biased” words and reading “problematic” texts. Many of these systems began as a way for students to turn each other in for violations of the university's very rigid COVID-era rules on masks. 

As a reminder, our episodes of System Update are now available on Spotify, Apple and other major podcasting platforms, the day after the show airs, live, here on Rumble. And so, for those of you who want to support the show or listen to podcast form, you can follow us on any of those platforms. It helps boost the visibility of our program. 

For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update, starting right now. 


MONOLOGUE

 

So today is the one-year anniversary of the war in Ukraine, or at least the part of the war in Ukraine that began when Russia invaded with a very large army on February 24 of last year. The war in Ukraine has actually been raging for at least eight years, ever since 2014, when Victoria Nuland - who seems to end up in charge of Ukraine for the United States no matter which party wins the election - got caught on tape essentially selecting who would be the new president of Ukraine. And there has been a war of independence being waged in the eastern provinces of Ukraine, which don't want to be subject to the rule of a pro-Western, pro-EU government that the United States and NATO played a very large role in ushering in. 

And we've spent a lot of time on this show reporting over the last year, on my written journalism and on the program since we launched, on the events of that war in Ukraine, always trying to ask the same fundamental question, which is why is it that the United States government, if its perspective and priority is helping to improve the lives of the American people, has sent over $100 billion to the war in Ukraine, which is almost double the entire Russian military budget each year – Russia spends almost half on the entire military, its own military, of what the United States has allocated just for that one part of the world. Russia spends 1/15 not even of what the United States spends on its own military. And the question always is how it improves the lives of the American people for the United States government to be engaged in a proxy war over who will rule regions in Eastern Ukraine, or whether those provinces will decide that they want to be independent or subject to the rule of Moscow. We've been asking that question for a full year and we have honestly never heard an answer. 

So instead of revisiting all of that, I want to focus instead for tonight on one specific propagandistic framework that was fed to us from the very beginning of the war, namely that Joe Biden had essentially succeeded in uniting the entire world or the international community behind the United States in support of Ukraine and against Russia – that Russia has been isolated, it has barely any allies, its economy is going to collapse and everyone is on the side of the United States; and NATO, believing that we are on the side of right. They too want to see Ukraine succeed and Russia fail and that was what we were told for months. 

This is something that happens in every war. We are always told that the international community supports the United States and its foreign policy. And there's a fairly amusing chart that has been circulated for decades about what the international community actually means. You can see it here. 

 

 

This is what is genuinely referred to as the international community: the United States and Canada, tiny parts of Western Europe and Austria, Australia and New Zealand, and perhaps Japan. And then, sometimes, you can add into that mix whatever tiny little countries the United States succeeds in bribing in order to be on their side. Remember the coalition of the willing that supported the United States’ invasion of Iraq, which included such world powers as the Marshall Islands? Because sometimes whoever happens to be on board with the United States foreign policy also gets included, but only on an ad hoc basis, in the international community. This is what the international community really means when the United States media – and the U.S. Security State does the same thing – talk about the international community and how the international community is united behind the United States. 

Something very odd happened, though, this week, which is that the two largest newspapers, The New York Times and The Washington Post, both of which have been steadfastly supportive of Joe Biden's war policy in Ukraine, both ran very detailed and emphatic articles making clear that that is a propagandistic fairy tale, that the world is nowhere near united behind the United States effort to isolate Russia and support Ukraine. Quite the contrary, the world is completely divided, that while there has been unity in the Native Alliance itself in Western Europe and then of course in Eastern Europe as well, which fears Russian domination, the rest of the world, the other continents that actually exist and matter, Latin America, South and Central America, Asia, Africa, many parts of those regions, in fact, the most important parts, are absolutely not in favor of the United States policy toward Ukraine, do not see the war that way at all, and for very interesting reasons have refused to get on board with the United States foreign policy in Ukraine for reasons that I think are really worth exploring. And I have to say that these two articles did, in some cases, quite a good job in detailing the true nature of how we've been deceived every time we've been hearing this fairy tale – often from these papers – and what the reality is, which is much different. 

Let's take a look at why these two newspapers or how these two newspapers revealed the truth - something they sometimes do - they kind of did it on the same day in the same way. And they were also joined in their effort by newspapers around the world, including the largest newspaper here in Brazil, that published an op-ed making very similar points. And I think it's important to see how the United States is viewed from outside of the United States. So often this propaganda that is fed to us – that the United States is in Ukraine because it wants to protect and spread democracy and vanquished tyranny, or because the United States is angry that a country like Russia has violated the sacred rules-based international order – is propaganda that really is for domestic consumption only. The only people who believe that are American media outlets and their employees and then the people who trust and pay attention to those media outlets, which thankfully is a rapidly diminishing number. But around the Western world, when you say those things, you provoke a global laughing fit, and I think that for very good reason. 

So, let's look at a couple of these articles. Here is the one in The New York Times. The headline tells the story in a pretty direct and blunt way “The West Tried To Isolate Russia. It Didn't Work.” 

Have you been hearing this from the media over the last year? I know I haven't. I've been hearing the opposite, that most of the world is united behind Joe Biden, that he has done such a great job diplomatically in keeping everyone on board behind our policy. The reality is much different. The New York Times reports,  

After Russia invaded Ukraine, the West formed what looked like an overwhelming global coalition. 141 countries supported a UN measure demanding that Russia unconditionally withdraw. But the West never won over as much of the world as it initially seemed (The New York Times. Feb. 23, 2023).  

And let me just interject here. I've never seen that way to me, you can go back and look at articles I was writing and interviews I was giving and even tweets I was posting pointing out that, in fact, as this article is about to point out, many of the most important countries, in fact, many of the largest countries on the planet and the leading democracies were very much opposed to the United States foreign policy in Ukraine and were refusing to join in. The Times says, 

Another 47 countries abstained or missed the vote, including India and China, [which, by the way, happened to be the two most populous countries on the planet.] Many of those “neutral nations” have since provided crucial economic or diplomatic support for Russia (The New York Times. Feb. 23, 2023).  

And here you see a graphic on the screen which The New York Times published. Essentially, it is the group of countries that abstained and the circles indicate their population size. And here you see China, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, which essentially are the world's largest democracies in terms of population, right after China. You can now add Brazil into this list as well, which is the sixth largest, most populous country in the world. We're not talking about small countries. They're talking about the largest countries, mostly everyone in the top 20 in terms of the population other than the United States and a couple of its Western allies have refused to join U.S. foreign policy or are actively opposed to it. The New York Times goes on, 

 

And even some of the nations that initially agreed to denounce Russia see the war as someone else's problem – and have since started moving toward a more neutral position (The New York Times. Feb. 23, 2023).  

 

Here's the chart that I was just talking about and here you see again some of the rationales for why these countries don't see this war as their war. As I've mentioned before, when Lula visited Washington last week, he met with Joe Biden, he was pressured as he was when the German chancellor visited Lula in Brazil to provide munitions to empower the German tanks that are headed toward the German to the Russian border. I don't think it's ever a good idea when German tanks head to the Russian border, but that's what's happening now. And Brazil and its leader said, well, a lot of countries are saying, which is “that’s your war, not ours”. Our war is not with Ukraine or Russia. Our war is to improve the lives of our citizenry. So, we're going to stay out of the war. That's what so many of these countries, including in Africa and, increasingly, the Middle East, Latin America and Asia, have been saying. The Times goes on: 

 

A year on, it's becoming clearer: while the West’s core coalition remains remarkably solid [meaning NATO's and Europe’s] it never convinced the rest of the world to isolate Russia. And instead of cleaving in two, the world has fragmented. A vast middle sees Russia's invasion as primarily a European and American problem. Rather than view it as an existential threat, these countries are largely focused on protecting their own interests amid the economic and geopolitical upheaval caused by the invasion (The New York Times. Feb. 23, 2023).  

 

Why is the U.S. not focused on its own economic prosperity, its own economy and its own interests and the interests of its citizens like these other countries are? 

 

On Thursday, the UN General Assembly endorsed another resolution demanding that Russia withdraw from Ukraine's territory – but China, South Africa, India and many countries in the Global South continued to abstain, underlining their alienation from what they regard as the West's war.

 

A lot of world leaders don't particularly like the idea of one country invading another. But many of them aren't unhappy to see somebody stand up to the United States either. Throughout Africa, Latin America, Asia and the Middle East many governments with strong official ties to the United States and Europe don't see the war as a global threat. Instead, they've positioned themselves as neutral bystanders or arbiters, preserving as much flexibility as they can. 

 

Nearly half of the African countries abstained or were absent from the vote to condemn Russia, suggesting a growing reluctance in many nations to accept an American narrative of right and wrong. Russia has won friends through mindless propaganda [as though the U.S. does not use that] and hard power, with a growing number of countries contracting with Russian mercenaries and buying Russian weapons.

 

In South Africa, ties to Russia go back to Soviet support to end apartheid (The New York Times. Feb. 23, 2023).  

 

That was when the United States was supporting South African apartheid. The Soviet Union was opposed and now the black leaders of South Africa remember that and have greater allegiance to Russia than the U.S.

 

             Its leaders have seen an opportunity to align more closely with Russia while filling in trade gaps left by Europe and the United States. But like many other African countries, South Africa appears careful to balance its growing ties with Russia against maintaining a relationship with the West. Latin America, with its longstanding relationship with the United States, voted largely alongside its northern neighbor to contain Russia. But cracks have begun to show more prominently in recent months. 

 

             Colombia recently refused a request from the United States to provide weapons to Ukraine, and when visited by Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany last month, President Luis Ignacio Lula da Silva of Brazil declined to speak in support of Ukraine, saying, “I think the reason for the war between Russia and Ukraine needs to be clearer” (The New York Times. Feb. 23, 2023). 

 

This is essentially laying out what I think is a very interesting dichotomy between countries that are looking at the war in Russia and Ukraine and asking what is the best way for us to promote the lives and material well-being of our own citizens. And the answer is by not involving ourselves in this war on the other side of the world, which has nothing to do with us. These countries are concluding that their citizens’ lives will not be improved nor undermined based on the fight over who gets to rule the Donbas. Why would South American leaders or Middle Eastern leaders or African leaders be willing to involve themselves in a war over that? And I think the same question is one that we ought to be asking of our own government. Why is that such an important question for us? Who rules various parts of eastern Ukraine or whether the people of those provinces choose to be independent? 

The Washington Post had an almost equally blunt assessment of Biden's failure to unite the world behind the United States and Ukraine, as the media kept claiming that it did. There you see the Post article from the same day, February 23. The headline is “A Global Divide on the Ukraine War is Deepening.” This is how they framed this:

Russia capitalizes on disillusionment with the United States to win sympathy in the Global South. 

Russia doesn't need to do anything to gain sympathy in the Global South.The Global South regards the United States with great suspicion because of its own experience with the United States. And when they hear this propaganda that the United States is there to fight for democracy, to vanquish tyranny, to support the rule-based international order that not only remember things like the invasion of Iraq, but also the instability and coups and dirty wars that the United States behind the CIA has often brought to those countries. And so, they think it's preposterous that the United States would claim that that's what they're doing in Ukraine. Again, only American media outlets and the people who listen to them believe that. This propaganda is for domestic consumption. 

The Washington Post article says, 

In the years since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, a reinvigorated Western alliance has rallied against Russia, forging what President Biden has trumpeted as a “global coalition”. Yet a closer look beyond the West suggests the world is far from united on the issues raised by the Ukraine war. 

 

The conflict has exposed a deep global divide and the limits of U.S. influence over a rapidly shifting world order. Evidence abounds that the effort to isolate Putin has failed, and not just among Russian allies that could be expected to back Moscow, such as China and Iran. India announced last week that its trade with Russia has grown by 400% since the invasion. In just the past six weeks, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has been welcomed in nine countries in Africa and the Middle East – including South Africa, whose foreign minister, Naledi Pandor, hailed their meeting as “wonderful” and called South Africa and Russia “friends” (The Washington Post. Feb. 23, 2023). 

 

Conversations with people in South Africa, Kenya and India suggest a deeply

ambivalent view of the conflict, informed less by the question of whether Russia was wrong to invade than by current and historical grievances against the West – over colonialism, perceptions of arrogance and the West’s failure to devote as many resources to solving conflicts and human rights abuses in other parts of the world, such as the Palestinian territories, Ethiopia and the Democratic Republic of Congo. 

 

The Western countries “are hypocritical”, said Bhaskar Dutta, a clerk in Kolkata, India. “These people colonized the entire world. What Russia has done cannot be condoned, but at the same time you cannot blame them wholly” (The Washington Post. Feb. 23, 2023). 

 

 

That is a very common view outside the United States. The post goes on: 

 

This is not a battle between freedom and dictatorship, as Biden often suggests (The Washington Post. Feb. 23, 2023). 

 

Oh, my God. It's not? 

 

It's not a battle between freedom and dictatorship, as Biden often suggests, said William Gumede, who founded and heads the Johannesburg based Democracy Works Foundation, which promotes democracy in Africa. He pointed to the refusal of South Africa, India and Brazil to join Biden's global coalition. The reluctance, he said, is the outgrowth of more than a decade of building resentment against the United States and its allies, which have increasingly lost interest in addressing the problems of the Global South, he said. The coronavirus pandemic, when Western countries locked down and locked out other countries, and President Donald Trump's explicit disdain for Africa [always have to blame Trump] further fueled the resentment (The Washington Post. Feb. 23, 2023). 

 

So, these countries are doing what the United States government should be doing but isn't, which is asking, Why am I going to get involved in this war that has no bearing on the lives of my citizens? It's also because they understand that this fairy tale that the American citizenry is fed in every new war to garner support for their government's endless war posture is a joke, and they know that from their own experience. 

Just to give you an outsider's perspective, there is this article in the Brazilian newspaper Folha of Sao Paulo, it's the largest newspaper in the country – and just for full disclosure, I have now become a columnist with this paper. I just published a column once every other week in this newspaper – and it is an op-ed by a professor of history, Philippe Guerrero. And essentially he is making the same argument. We translated the headline in a key paragraph. It says, “Western Double Standards Explain Global South Apathy Towards The War.” He's saying the reason why the Global South refuses to support the United States is that the Global South and the rest of the world see the hypocrisy of the United States as a condemnation of Russia. “History makes obvious the contradictions between rhetoric and action by Americans and Europeans.” That's the subheadline. 

 

So let me just give you this little excerpt here before we bring on Michael Tracey. 

 

If in the Global North, Ukraine is winning the battle for hearts and minds, in the rest of the world the situation is different. While most nations in the Global South supported U.N. resolutions condemning the Russian invasion and the annexation of portions of Ukraine, this movement has stopped there. No adherence to the Western sanctions against Russia and even less economic or military support for Ukraine. Even if we set aside the elephant in the room – the illegal and catastrophic invasion of Iraq in 2003 […] (Folha de São Paulo. Feb. 23, 2023). 

 

Remember. that makes it kind of difficult for the same exact people that supported that war, like Joe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken and the Queen of Ukraine, Victoria Nuland, all of whom supported that illegal and catastrophic invasion of Iraq, and now turn around to the world and say we are morally offended by Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Nobody buys that. 

 

He goes on:

The balance is a history of systemic disrespect of international law. The UN charter is clear: unless in cases of self-defense, only the Security Council has the authority to authorize the use of military force (Folha de São Paulo. Feb. 23, 2023). 

 

That's the rules-based international order. Do you think the United States believes that? 

 

In spite of that, the U.S. and its allies and NATO, especially the UK and France, disrespected this rule numerous times in the last decade (Folha de São Paulo. Feb. 23, 2023). 

 

Remember, when they just decided to bomb Libya and remove Gaddafi? Where was the rules-based international order in that? Or the dirty war in Syria that's ongoing? 

The article goes on:

And all of that without taking into account the abuses of the self-defense principle by the U.S. in the context of the War on Terror, which would normalize the idea of preventative attacks against targets designated as “terrorists” in countries in Africa, Asia and the Middle East with dramatic consequences. 

 

Facing so many double standards, how can one expect governments and societies in the Global South to unite dispassionately in support of Ukraine? It's for good reason that Western rhetoric, based on principles and morals, like the one that has dominated the discourse around this war sounds hypocritical and brings back the ghosts of a colonial past (Folha de São Paulo. Feb. 23, 2023). 

 

Now just to put that in context – we all know the long list of countries where the CIA during the Cold War and since has engineered coups overthrowing democratically-elected governments, all of which made all that sanctimony about Russia interfering in our sacred democracy in 2016 such a joke. When the U.S. interferes in the democracy of other countries, it does so through violent coups and destabilization regimes, not through a few Facebook and Twitter posts. Countries wish that was how the U.S. intervened. But Brazil is a country that doesn't get talked about much because they happened not to be among the most horrific invasions of the kind, for example, that was carried out in Chile or Indonesia or in Central America, where the United States supported all kinds of despots and truly brutal regimes. But in 1964, the Brazilians had a democratically elected center-left government that defied the warnings of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations to cease being so left-wing and their economic policies, such as land reform and rent control. and because of their defiance, the CIA engineered a coup that overthrew Brazil's democratically elected government in 1964 and then proceeded to impose a 21-year brutal and savage military dictatorship that lasted until Brazil finally democratized in 1985. So, if you're a Brazilian and you hear the United States doling out lectures on the importance of the rule-based international order and the need to support democracy and vanquish tyranny, how do you think you're going to react? Having been on the other side of the reality of the United States foreign policy for so long, and not just the propaganda and the rhetoric that the U.S. media spreads on behalf of the CIA and the Pentagon, I think is such a crucial context. And it's good that a year into the war, the truth of what's happening is finally being revealed now. 

I want to show you a couple of videos that I want to watch with Michael Tracey, who I'm delighted has joined us for our typical Friday night gathering for the Week in Review. Michael is in Munich where he's been covering the Munich Security Conference. He has a lot of observations. He's filled with all kinds of energy and excitement to share those with you. 

 

G. Greenwald: Michael, welcome. Before we get into this, I just want to show you a video or two that kind of adds to the point and then get your reaction to all of this. How are you? Are you doing well? 

 

M. Tracey: I’ll have some popcorn and watch the videos. 

 

G. Greenwald: Yeah, you can sit back, enjoy yourself, and have a little buttered popcorn if you want. They're kind of short, so you're going to have to shut your mouth very quickly. 

 

M. Tracey: I'm very good at that. 

 

G. Greenwald: Yes, I heard. I think I've seen the two before. I'm going to show you two short videos that both involve different members of the Pelosi family. Let's start with the elder Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi. Here she is on C-SPAN, talking about how much admiration, deep admiration, she has for George W. Bush. First, let's listen to what she said. 

 

(Video 00:33:44)

N. Pelosi: Once again, I'll just say this honestly, that the Bush family is […] 

 

G. Greenwald: … a little trouble with her notes there. She's kind of stumbling around. Let's hope she gets there. So, let's listen. 

 

N. Pelosi: Once again, I'll just say this honestly, that the Bush family is – because of their humanity, their faith, their generosity of spirit, their compassion [...] 

 

G. Greenwald: George W Bush – their humanity, their generosity of spirit and their compassion – George W Bush, who invaded Iraq and destroyed it, who instituted a worldwide torture regime, who created a due process free for a prison camp at Guantanamo Bay that 22 years later still has people in cages in the middle of an ocean who have never been charged with, let alone convicted, of a crime. This is Nancy Pelosi, heaping praise on the deep goodness and benevolence of this man whom liberals used to call a Nazi 20 years ago. Let's hear the rest. 

 

N. Pelosi: Once again, it's an honor to be associated with President Bush in this. He said this was his second time to be here. I've been here many, many times. So, I've been here with him 100% of the times he's been here, as we were both here for the groundbreaking when I was a speaker and he was president. So, let us again work for peace, work for justice. 

 

G. Greenwald: Just let us work for peace and work for justice, she said. 

Her daughter is Alexandra Pelosi and instead of like someone might do if they have a very famous mother, try in, you know, kind of forge your own path. She has done exactly the opposite. She uses the name Pelosi to make sure everyone knows she's Nancy Pelosi's daughter and she has built her entire career around her mother, up to the point of having just released a documentary about the greatness of her mom. And she went on “The View” to promote it. And she talked about the actual relationship between the Bush and the Pelosi families. Listen to what she said. 

 

(Video 00:35:54)
Alexandra Pelosi: I have been so, so depressed since this happened. And then, last week, I went to Washington to visit my old friend George H. W. Bush. I made a film about George W. Bush in 2000, and he's, I consider he was always a father figure to me [...] 

 

G. Greenwald: Just in case you thought you misheard that George W Bush has always been a father figure to Nancy Pelosi's daughter. 

 

Alexandra Pelosi: […] been very good to me in my life. Did she just call my Bush favorite? I don't. 

 

M. Tracey: Did she disclose that she viewed Bush as a father figure while Bush was actually president? 

 

G. Greenwald: No, no. That was back when they were accusing the Bushes of being a crime family going to war in Iraq in order to generate profits for the oil industry, of which the Bush family was a part. And Dick Cheney. Yeah. And they were constantly comparing George Bush to Hitler. Who knew that all along she considered the Hitler of that era to be her father figure? That seems to be pretty psychologically disturbing but listen to the rest. 

 

Alexandra Pelosi: […] I consider him as always, a father figure to me. He’s been very good to me in my life. He's one of my favorite people, right? And I may not agree with him politically, but he's always been a source of support and strength. And we were laughing about the fact that he invites my mother to events and one time I went to “A Thousand Points of Light”, a George Bush event in Texas, and one of the Bushes gets up and says “And now a great friend of the Bush family, Nancy Pelosi. And the crowd is like, wait, what you don't know about these relationships? But people, even though they disagree in public about certain things like the Iraq war – that Nancy Pelosi voted against, they had a lot of fights about it in public – but they're still – you saw them together last week, you would have thought […]

 

G. Greenwald: So, the reason, Michael, I wanted to add that to the articles that I just read about why nobody buys the U.S. propaganda is because what they're all kind of cackling about the fact that they fight in public is theater, but in reality, they're all part of the same, literally the same family, practically. And people have forgotten as well that Nancy Pelosi, in 2002 and 2003, was the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee and therefore one of the members of the Gang of Eight, which gets very special, comprehensive briefings from the intelligence community. She was briefed on all of those War on Terror programs, including domestic spying on American citizens without warrants, the torture regime in Guantanamo, the due process for camps around the world, and the CIA black sites and approved all of them, never objected to any of it.

This is what the world understands and sees, that the entire American elite is actually united, that their fights are for the American public only. It's theater to pretend that there's some sort of grave difference between the establishment wings of both parties but, in reality, Nancy Pelosi, the liberal, reveres George W. Bush the supposed war criminal, because they all support the same policies. And that's why when they want to go around and say that they're there to fight for democracy and human rights, only certain sectors of the American public, including the American media, believe it. 

I know Nancy Pelosi was in Munich where you were. So why don't you share some of your thoughts on sort of this actual divide that the American media is now admitting exists in the world regarding Ukraine? 

 

M. Tracey: Yeah. I saw her staggering out of her car at one point, of course, I couldn't be allowed to approach her – very dangerous, potentially, because she might be actually asked a mildly skeptical question. But I did see her shivering in the cold of Munich and being guided into her next meeting for such affairs as being presented, as she was with a bracelet made of Ukrainian bullet casings. So, she proudly displayed that gift and talked about bipartisanship. Joni Ernst, the Republican senator, was also there and she had a big smile on her face, posing for a photo with a T[-shirt], with a stylized-like advertisement on it for F-16s to be deployed to Ukraine from the U.S. So that was the fashion style that was in vogue at the security conference with these, you know, sassy ladies. You know, one thought that […] 

 

G. Greenwald: Let me just interject there because I think it's just so interesting. So here you have this Munich conference, all over the world the war in Ukraine is being debated – most countries actually want no part of it. And then you have someone supposedly on the very liberal end of the Democratic Party, Nancy Pelosi, with somebody who's presumably a conservative Republican governor of Iowa, Joni Ernst. And on one of the most consequential and divisive questions that, as we just reviewed, is dividing the entire world, they could not be more united, as always. You can throw Marco Rubio and AOC into the mix, and you can throw Lindsey Graham and Bernie Sanders into the mix and there's absolutely no daylight of any kind between them. The American elite continues to be so united on all of these questions to the point that Joni Ernst and Nancy Pelosi are wearing clothing designed to express support for this war and, of course, the rest of the world sees that even if the American media doesn't. 

 

M. Tracey: You know who I even encountered at this Munich Security Conference periphery, in one of the restaurants that they all sort of retreated to huddle and have their slightly tipsy banter about what's the next weapon system to send over to the Donbas - Joe Lieberman was there. He was holding court. Joe Lieberman was supposedly primaried out of the Senate in 2006 because of this vast ideological distance that had emerged between him and his fellow Democrats, particularly on foreign policy.  You wouldn't believe what good spirits he was in with his fellow Democratic senators who were there. I saw him, he was like, hugging, [..] laughing and 100% on the same page with Pelosi okay? Here's one way to think of it. Even if you're of a mindset or if you have a worldview that is left-liberal, where you orient your priorities around these kinds of trendy cultural issues or political or ideology such as it exists – it is focused mainly on identity issues, whether it's gender, race, what have you – if you're of that mindset, well, there's plenty of fodder for you to dislike George W. Bush. George W. Bush and Karl Rove's schemes to propose a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage in 2004 to boost turnout among conservatives for Bush [...] 

 

G. Greenwald: And 2002 as well. That's how they won the midterm election. That was their strategy, too, to get out evangelical voters who were going to go and vote for things like that. That was their mastermind strategy. 

 

M. Tracey: Right. But that's not a deal breaker for Pelosi as much as she might in other circumstances posture her job [at the end] of LGBT rights. I'm not sure what [right] exactly she needs to be championed at the moment. But, nevertheless – but that tells you something because that's not a deal breaker for Pelosi, that Bush engaged in this, you know, anti-gay, homophobic, tyrannical past. But you know what would almost certainly [be a deal] breaker? If she and Bush diverged at all on this question of the Ukraine war, if there was a gulf on that issue, you can bet that she wouldn't be standing on stage wherever she was singing the praises of Bush as this [...] well,  leader and her daughter praising him as this father figure. 

 

G. Greenwald: This is, I think, such an important point. If you look at the people who were actually against the war in Ukraine – there are no people in the Democratic Party, as we know – but in the Republican Party, Matt Gaetz currently has a resolution pending to cut off funding for the war in Ukraine. I guess he thinks $100 billion is more than enough to spend on this country that the U.S. has no vital interest in. Marjorie Taylor Greene has been outspoken from the start. Donald Trump has been increasingly vocal about his opposition to this war. Ron DeSantis actually came out in a Fox interview and made clear that he thought that this open checkbook for [...] 

 

M. Tracey: Give me a break. That's a total nonsense line. Don't fall for that.

 

G. Greenwald: I'm just telling you, you can either judge a politician's views based on what they claim they believe and tell the public they believe and advocate for, or you can try and divine their internal thought process. But all I'm telling you is, as a result of taking that position, he got promptly attacked by establishment Republican outlets like The Bulwark - as you say, nothing is a deal breaker except this. So, people like Rand Paul, who in the beginning has been saying the same thing. These are the people who end up marginalized and cast out toward the fringes. And what it shows is Mitch McConnell and Marco Rubio have a lot more in common with Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff than they do with the members of their own party who are opposed to the war in Ukraine. 

 

M. Tracey: Yeah. And just quickly, on DeSantis’ tweet, we don't have to get bogged down in this. I know you covered it this week. I wasn't trying to divine his motive. I just know that the same sort of furor was artificially whipped up when Kevin McCarthy, in September, ahead of the midterms, used the same term “blank check.” 

 

G. Greenwald: Did you see it? He said a lot more than that in that interview. We covered that last night. He didn't just say I'm against an open check. He said I think this idea that Russia is some grave threat to the United States is preposterous. The idea that they're going to go and start invading, in a domino theory, Poland and then Hungary and then Western Europe is ludicrous. They've clearly proven themselves to be a third-rate power. There's no reason we should be considering Russia to be a threat. He said way more than just ‘I'm against an open book’. But anyway, it was actually I was pleasantly surprised to hear him say that. My only point is, as you said, that is the way that you get ejected from the kind of litmus test, the admission ticket to be accepted by the Washington establishment, his support for this war in Ukraine.

Let me show you a statement that was bizarrely issued today out of nowhere by the FBI. I really don't understand why the FBI decided to have its own foreign policy statement. But here you see it. I don't know if you saw it on screen. I'm going to read it to you. It included the name of Christopher Wray, the FBI director, and it's an FBI official whatever, with their logo. And this is what he said, 

 

It has been one year since Russia launched an unprovoked invasion of its neighbor but the FBI has been working with our Ukrainian partners for years to battle Russian aggression there – and we aren't going anywhere. The FBI's commitment to Ukraine remains unwavering, and we will continue to stand against Russia at home and abroad (Feb. 24, 2023). 

 

So, this is the FBI kind of knowing that they're not. 

 

M. Tracey: (laughing) Is that real? 

 

G. Greenwald: Yeah, it's amazing. Like, what role does the FBI have to play in the war in Ukraine? But this is the admission ticket to gaining popularity. Look, the statement. It’s in blue and yellow, too. I'm not joking. It has a blue background and then the special letters that they want to emphasize are in yellow and the name, Christopher Wray, is also in yellow. So, you have the blue and yellow flag that's being subliminally waved by the FBI, because the FBI knows that they have a lot of problems with conservative voters and with conservative politicians and this is how they get to curry favor with at least the Republican establishment and the media – by declaring their support for Ukraine. 

 

M. Tracey: That's amazing. I hadn't seen that. I would certainly like to know where in the charter authorizes the bureau to have its own autonomous foreign policy, seemingly, where it's pledging to fight Russia as a matter of federal law enforcement. Of course, there are times when the FBI goes to track down a criminal abroad somewhere but just as a matter of geopolitics, it's seeming like it has declared that it's at war with Russia and standing with Ukraine, which, again, is sort of, if you think about what you would expect, the purview of a federal law enforcement agency. 

 

G. Greenwald: Yeah, I mean, it just has such immense propaganda. 

Speaking of bipartisanship, this kind of bipartisan club that produces unity and consensus, there's no better example, I think, than Victoria Nuland, who amazingly stays in power no matter which party ends up winning. She was in the government when Bill Clinton was president and exercised a lot of influence. She then ended up as Dick Cheney's primary political advisor in the Iraq war. And you might think that that might have harmed her career, at least in Democratic circles but no, it did not. She immediately reappeared in the Obama administration, working at Hillary Clinton's State Department and then running Ukraine in John Kerry's State Department. The only thing that got her out of government was Donald Trump when she spent four years out of government when Trump was president. – this is why neocons hate Trump so much. And then Biden wins and she's right back, in Antony Blinken’s State Department, running Ukraine. 

And as you've been pointing out, Michael, you've been doing a lot of kind of historical digging over that era and finding that all of the people who are running this war in Ukraine, beginning, of course, with Joe Biden himself, were all people who are part of the club agitating for the invasion of Iraq as well. They never go away. They always remain in power, no matter how grievous their errors. What is it that you've been finding that you think is interesting about a lot of these connections that I think history has forgotten? 

 

M. Tracey: Yeah. I think the breadth of Nuland in Bush’s administration is not adequately understood because it wasn't just that she worked on the staff of the vice president's office when Dick Cheney obviously was the vice president. She was then the U.S. ambassador to NATO under Bush, during a very early period when the momentum around the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO at some points was beginning to jump. 

So, I just happened to come across a clipping today where, in 2005, Donald Rumsfeld. Remember him? 

 

G. Greenwald: I do. 

 

M. Tracey: Great guy. He went to attend some sort of bilateral U.S. Ukraine meeting under the auspices of NATO, if you mind, in the press photo that was taken from that event, who's sitting right by his side? Sure enough, it's Victoria Nuland. And it was there that Rumsfeld affirmed that the United States was in avowed support of Ukraine being on a track toward NATO membership. And so, you can see why somebody like Nuland wouldn't just be ‘incidentally’ invested in this Ukraine war because it was just something that happened to pop up on her agenda and she has this real steadfast dedication to upholding the rules based international order. No. There's a long-standing ideological project that undergirds her sort of fervor. This is another amazing one that I actually hadn’t known and I wonder if you did, talking about her being one of these advisers to Cheney. That's true. But before that, she was dispatched to NATO headquarters to lobby the native member states to provide logistical and operational support to the United States ahead of the invasion of Iraq. And this was in January of 2003. She was the one who was picked, among everybody in the Bush administration, she was the one who carried out the plans that were set forth by Paul Wolfowitz, who is – if you had to think of anyone who was like the ultimate neocon ideologue, who was the neocon’s brain, to the extent that they operate with a brain – that was Paul Wolfowitz. She was allocated by him to go and make this appeal to the other NATO countries to provide complementary support to the upcoming Iraq invasion. So, she played a crucial role in the actual formulation of the logistics that went into launching the invasion of Iraq – she didn't just support it. She was involved in effectuating it. 

 

G. Greenwald: No, she was critical of it. I mean, to do it, as was Anthony Blinken, by the way, as well. This is what I think is so important to understand. What has happened here is – if you look at all the policy, United States establishment, bipartisan policy over the last 20 years – you have these enormous systemic failures. The Iraq war is representative of just the broader wild excesses of the War on Terror – enormous amounts of money disappearing, all kinds of moral lines crossed; the war in Afghanistan, 20 years we were there, we walked out the very next day, the Taliban walked right back into power and accomplished nothing. Huge numbers of lives were lost. The entire thing was just a gigantic debacle from start to finish. 

And then, on the foreign policy front, obviously the most important event was the 2008 financial collapse, which was then managed. The aftermath was first by the Bush administration – by George Bush's then secretary of Treasury, who had come right from Goldman Sachs, which was Hank Paulson. Then, Obama comes in and carries out exactly the same policies as he did with Bush's War on Terror that he had vowed to uproot – Tim Geithner and that old crowd, Larry Summers and Robert Rubin, all of those same people from Goldman Sachs in those same economic circles that saved the Wall Street tycoons who had caused the financial crisis at the expense of everybody else. So you have, you know, at the same time that that's happening, elite media institutions are collapsing. So, everything is unraveling in terms of American elite circles, people are distrusting in the most fundamental ways – the bipartisan consensus, the people who are running our country independent of the results of elections. And then, that has been the value of Donald Trump more than anything: they got to say, look, however much you dislike us, this is something, an evil we have never previously seen. This is essentially a Hitler-like figure, and we're going to unite to protect you from this actual evil threat that the likes of which we've never seen. Even though Trump was the first president in decades not to involve the U.S. in a new war, to say nothing of not doing things like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and torture and the financial collapse of 2008. 

And what this ended up doing is absolving all of these people of all of the crimes that they committed together and, as a result, they all are continuously in power. They're in power to this very day. The same group of people that gave you the Iraq war, based on lies; that gave you the abuses of the War on Terror; that gave you the 2008 financial crisis, they're telling you that they love each other. They're united, even though they were calling each other all kinds of names. They never believed them all along. They're part of that same club. As George Carlin said, it's a big club and you're not in it. And these people are. And they continue to exercise hegemonic rule over our politics with no accountability. 

Donald Trump was the most important thing that enabled them to do that. It's what ushered in again these neocons who had been somewhat discredited. The reason why Bill Kristol and David Frum are at The Atlantic and MSNBC and are being cheered by liberals. Nobody even thinks twice about the fact that the war in Ukraine is the byproduct of a Democratic senator, Joe Biden, who is the single most important Democratic senator supporting the war in Iraq when he was the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee; Victoria Nuland, who just constantly appears among them all. It's this rotted establishment that everybody hates, and yet they were able to isolate Donald Trump and create this fairy tale that he was essentially the combination, the kind of unholy lovechild of Satan and Adolf Hitler. So that all you had to do is denounce Donald Trump and then immediately prove that you were on the good side of history and all of these people were able to rejuvenate their reputations and hold hands and remain in power and run the country, as they've been doing for the last 20 years, was such immense corruption and such immense failure. 

 

M. Tracey: Let me give you another layer of that. Okay? So, at this Munich Security Conference, they started giving out as one of their most valued awards –they have these awards that they give out to accomplish, like aspiring young professionals who want to be national security operatives and write policy papers about which country's government to overthrow next. And so, this big, new, heralded award that they bestow yearly now, just recently, is the “John McCain Award.” Okay. So that's on behalf of the entire Western security establishment. They believe that John McCain, the personage of John McCain, rest in peace, best represents the ideological or temperamental or whatever sensibility that they want to transmit by way of this annually bestowed award. 

And let's just think about what that actually indicates, right? Because hopefully there are at least some people viewing this who are old enough to remember when John McCain was actually in a position to be advocating foreign policy prescriptions, in 2008 – and we even talked about this on the show. I think what are the main things that the campaign running against McCain emphasized was that he was totally nuts in terms of just the seismic, world-altering hawkishness that he embodied. Right? And so, John McCain was an outlier to some degree, even, you know, during the Iraq war, before that, I mean, wants to bomb Iran – I think, you know, at one point when Mother Jones was still in somewhat opposition to this tendency, they tallied up all the countries that John McCain had suggested bombing over the course of his career. And it was like in the dozens […] 

 

G. Greenwald: He wanted to remove Assad from Syria. He was behind Obama's regime and really Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice's and Samantha Power's regime change war in Libya. Then he got Lindsey Graham behind him and eventually Marco Rubio and Joe Lieberman. I mean, these were the people who essentially – their entire careers were about nothing other than demanding every single conceivable war that benefited nobody other than a tiny sliver of American leads that impoverished the country, made it debt-ridden and you're right, he is the symbol of aspirational values. The thing to which American and Western leaders are supposed to aspire. And he really stands for nothing other than all of these wars that the United States has fought in the name of changing governments around the world that have immiserated the American population. 

 

M. Tracey: Yeah. And even going back to, you know, earlier in his career, you know, McCain was a die-hard advocate of all of Reagan's incursions and, you know, proxy wars […]

 

G. Greenwald: in Nicaragua, El Salvador and so forth.

 

M. Tracey: Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, think about this, okay? Remember during the Iraq war, when McCain was beating the war drums, even more bullishly than Bush at times, and Rumsfeld, to circle back, criticized old Europe, what he called old Europe, meaning Germany and France. Both France and Germany now have congealed into this same sort of fanatical war fever consensus in 2023, such that they're perfectly aligned now with the essence of what John McCain stood for. So, think about how bizarre that is to contemplate in terms of the scope and breadth of this new pro-war consensus that you could hardly have imagined. Not too long ago, I mean, Germany and France had been on the spectrum of the Western security establishment, where they would usually try to be at least nominally more conciliatory, or they'd be trying to push back somewhat on the more maximalist designs of like the U.S. or the U.K. or Poland or whatnot. Now, it's all the same blob of just total uninhibited aggression and they don't feel any discomfort at all with having, though, their current values, their current ideological fervor, represented in the personage of John McCain. 

 

G. Greenwald: No, I'm sure the head of the German Green Party or like the prime minister of Finland, their dream is to win the John McCain award. And, you know, the politics are very similar. We interviewed Sarah Wagenknecht, the head of the actual left-wing party in Germany called Die Linke, the left. And it's a very similar dynamic in France, in Germany, obviously here, in the United States, where the only opposition to these kinds of globalist or NATO-based wars come from the populist right and the populist left. In Germany, you have figures like her working in a coalition now with the Alternative for Deutschland, the party that used to be deemed kind of white supremacist, neo-Nazi group because they opposed the war. I found it super interesting. 

Michael, I'm interested to hear what you thought about that. The new prime minister of Italy, Giorgia Meloni, was widely deemed to be this new Mussolini figure. I remember just by virtue of mentioning her victory on Twitter, and I kind of did it in a somewhat mocking way about identity politics, by saying, Oh, she's become the first ever […]

 

M. Tracey: Well, you would never do that.  

 

G. Greenwald: No, I would never do that. I just don't know what happened to me on this particular day when I just started to trifle with something as important as identity politics. And I said something like, “Oh, the first ever female PM, she's broken the glass ceiling,” and they all, so easily provoked, started saying that I'm celebrating fascism and Nazism and she's the heir to Mussolini. All of that has disappeared. She's now in very good standing in Western security circles. I believe she's going to meet with Joe Biden soon. That narrative completely disappeared. You may have noticed, simply by virtue of her steadfast support for the war in Ukraine. So just like in the United States, although there's really no populous left to speak of in the United States where this comes from but you have to go to the populist right to hear from Trump and Matt Gaetz and, you know, Rand Paul and Marjorie Taylor Greene, opposition to the war. The same is true in Europe. But the entire center-left and center-right establishment of Europe, as you say, including in the countries that once kind of harbored contempt for neocons, like in France and Germany – where I remember one time I was in a security panel in Paris and I was on the panel with a French intelligence official who spoke with complete contempt in that very French way about, not the immorality, but just the stupidity of the war in Iraq and of neocons and how they sold fairy tales to the entire world. 

I think part of it is the Internet. We're all now feeding on the same propaganda. I also think that the United States is so culturally dominant that this narrative about Russia ended up infiltrating so many of these normal liberals in Europe that these governments were kind of forced to adopt this mode of aggression. And it's only populist politics that's trying to push back against some of this stuff and say this is kind of an insanity, this unified belief in not only nobility, but the strategic wisdom of these endless wars against, you know, Russia and whatever the new enemy of the day is. I saw that there was a panel apparently talking about removing the Iranian regime, which if the people of Iran want to do was fine, but they had the son of the Shah of Iran who was on the panel, somebody who hasn't been to Iran since he was eight years old when his father was forced to flee by the revolution. 

You know, that was like the classic vintage case of how the United States got blowback by overthrowing the government of Iran, replacing him with a brutal dictator in the Shah who was pro-Western and, of course, when the revolution happened, there were all kinds of anti-Americanism because of that. Now they're talking again about reinstalling Shah's son, somebody who hasn't even been to Iran in decades. You know, it's amazing that Europe has gone insane and is fully on board with this neoconservative consensus that dominates the establishment wings of both parties in the United States. 

 

M. Tracey: Well, I mean, just to clarify, it wasn't simply that this Munich Security Conference organization had the son of the Shah there for a panel. They invited him as the de facto representation for the Iranian state, because for the first time, the conference explicitly disinvited, effectively barred, actual representatives of the existing Iranian government, as well as the Russian government, also for the first time. You don't need to be proficient in rocket science to comprehend that that was a de facto endorsement by this Western security order of regime change in both those countries, at least as an aspiration.  

And it was stunning that this was actually being taken as a serious proposal.. He did this press tour where he describes this. He went around and personally lobbied all the countries’ delegations or whatever delegation said for external pressure to be applied on Iran specifically for the purpose of engineering regime change. And he plays coy about whether it's going to be him individually who takes over but, of course, that's the obvious, inescapable conclusion. 

Now, quickly on the Green Party of Germany, right? Okay. So, here's an anecdote. I mean, the Green Party of Germany is like almost the most emblematic example, maybe even more so than the Democratic Party in the U.S., of this total narrative shift to the point where you can't even figure out what principles it's tethered to anymore. 

 

G. Greenwald: They're total fanatics. 

 

M. Tracey: […] because the foreign minister within the coalition government headed by Scholz, and in Germany is this woman, Annalena Baerbock – I think that's how you pronounce it – who is the most ardent and has been since the war started, badgering Scholz to be more aggressive in deploying weapons, totally abolishing the entire foreign policy philosophy that Germany had been maintaining since World War II. So that's out the window, as we know. 

 

G. Greenwald: Yeah, because it has generally been kind of a bad thing when Germany and Russia end up in antagonistic positions regarding wars.

 

M. Tracey: No big deal, all right?

So, there was a panel that they posted for this Russian opposition faction that I guess they're trying to cultivate and present as the rightful steward to the Russian state because they're essentially endorsing regime change in Russia as an aspiration. So, it's headed by Garry Kasparov, of course, people may know the chess grandmaster – who's also a full-time anti-Putin activist and ran for president of Russia in 2008 – although it's sort of weird what exactly happened there, I'm not sure. 

But on this panel, the point of this panel, it was with a couple of other people, including like the former richest man in Russia who was imprisoned by Putin, whom they were really casting as this, you know, saintly sort of reformer, even though he was like one of the oligarchs by a reputation for years and like had a private security force that would do that. I mean, it's a whole backstory. Right? But they were like trying to put this, you know, a noble sheen on him. But the point is that they were more or less in this panel calling for the only resolution to the conflict in Ukraine being ultimate, that's viable, being the removal of the current Russian government and the replacement with an entirely new system so that essentially the dissolution of the Russian Federation. And this guy stood up to ask the question, I didn't know who was at the time, but he said, “How can we convince our leaders to stop beating around the bush, to just come out and say and be loud and proud and demand, unfortunately, that we as a collective Western alliance are dead set up on imposing regime change in force? And it's a good thing and we should be confident in our advocacy of that. And I don't understand the reluctance on the part of some and I mean they know who this was. So I talked to him afterward, not his name. It turns out it's one of the most senior figures in the Green Party of Germany. He's not in office now. He was a senior official named Ralph Fuchs. You know, he was one of the most prominent figures associated with the party. And then he ran for a long time, like a kind of think tank, that's the central think tank tied to the party. So, like something like the Heritage Foundation with the Republican Party, but even more formalized. And yeah he was saying that Garry Kasparov and the people on that panel, as radical as Kasparov is in their desires for what ought to happen to Putin. This guy wanted him to be even more belligerently express and blunt and in-your-face. So, I mean, that's the Green Party […]. 

 

G. Greenwald: Yeah. You know, and we're just a little overtime, normally I wouldn't care but I have to be on Tucker Carlson's show in a few minutes, to talk about Ukraine. But I just wanted to underscore that because one of the things that Sarah Wagenknecht said to me is that I, you know, it's a sort of thing that you think about when you live in a certain country but don't if you don't. She said, obviously, that Russia has very deep trauma over any signs of aggression emanating from Germany – because of those two kinds of very nasty things that happened in the 20th century with those two World Wars, including the second one of which there's real trauma – If you're sitting in Moscow and you hear about German tanks rolling up to your border – imagine hearing a member, the senior member of one of the parties that compose the German government calling for regime change in Russia, Germany calling for a war of regime change in Russia. This is madness.  

Now, just to conclude, Mike, I wanted to talk a little bit about – we're not going to have time but we'll follow up on this next week – the backdrop to all of this is the increasing levels of repression of free speech that are accompanying all of this. I've been doing a lot of reporting and we're going to devote a show next week to the fact that Brazil is about to – they're poised to become – the first country in the democratic world to implement the kinds of laws that exist in places like Saudi Arabia and Singapore and the United Arab Emirates that ban fake news that allowed the government to forcibly remove postings up online that they deem to be false and punish those who spread it, but will obviously immediately turn into the ability to prosecute dissidents on the grounds that they're spreading fake news. They're inviting other Brazilian leaders in journalism. Of course, the journalists are leading this effort. Europe is looking for laws like this as well. We know that they already made it illegal to platform Russian media outlets. And there's an article in the Wall Street Journal today that ties into that so well that 50% of American colleges now have a system that allows and encourages students to anonymously report one another to the faculty. 

There you see it on the screen. The headline was “Stanford Faculty Say Anonymous Student Bias Reports Threaten Free Speech”. They basically have a system that allows a student if they see – and this was provoked because one student saw another reading “Mein Kampf”, something that you kind of are supposed to do if you're studying history or just an interested person in the world – and reported that person for reading the wrong book. And a lot of these systems started to enable students to report other students that they didn't have their mask covered with their nose and just […] 

 

M. Tracey: I was just going to bring that up.

 

G. Greenwald: Yeah. And that's where a lot of them began. But this whole climate is consuming the West, where not only are these insane policies proliferating, but the ability to dissent over them is becoming increasingly repressed, not through social stigma, but through formalized means of criminalizing and outlawing all sorts of dissent. You see it in academia, you see it in European institutions, and now you're going to see it in Brazilian law, this law that Brazil is about to pass under Lula's new government. They're looking at it as kind of the test case or the model of how the West and Western governments can seize the power to basically criminalize not just fake news itself, but those who spread it – deeply disturbing as these policies become even more fanatical. 

Michael, we do need to run. I have a cable show to appear on. It's not as big as the show I'm currently on. It's a show, though, that I do try and go on when I'm asked because I try and help the host out as he develops his own audience – Tucker Carlson – I should be on in about 10 minutes talking about Ukraine, but thanks so much for […]. 

 

M. Tracey: Can I have like 30 seconds? 

 

G. Greenwald: Go ahead. Go ahead. 

 

M. Tracey: Yeah. First of all, I'm a little surprised that Lula is instituting this measure because – I don't understand the subtleties as well as you but I would have thought that he would be a bit more skeptical of, like, the novelistic power of the state to regulate speech – didn't he criticized the Twitter banning Trump and so forth? It’s very instructive because I hadn't fully appreciated how granularly they engage in online censorship. If you pull up Twitter and you see you look at the interaction that you had or a president of the United States with somebody who's seen as like unacceptably pro-Russia, they actually go through and they censored individual tweets or even the full accounts and it pops up with a notification censored at the behest of the German government or something to that effect. 

 

G. Greenwald: The censorship regime that has taken hold in Brazil makes the U.S. and the EU look like bastions of liberty. We're going to do an entire show on it next week because this law is genuinely threatening not just to free speech in Brazil but to the entire democratic world. 

Michael, we got to go. I think if you heard that Skype call, that was Tucker's producers neurotically calling. Thanks so much, Michael, for taking the time. Great job reporting this week from Munich. We will talk. 

 

community logo
Join the Glenn Greenwald Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
29
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Answering Your Questions About Tariffs

Many of you have been asking about the impact of Trump's tariffs, and Glenn addressed how we are covering the issue during our mail bag segment yesterday. As always, we are grateful for your thought-provoking questions! Thank you, and keep the questions coming!

00:11:10
In Case You Missed It: Glenn Breaks Down Trump's DOJ Speech on Fox News
00:04:52
In Case You Missed It: Glenn Discusses Mahmoud Khalil on Fox News
00:08:35
Listen to this Article: Reflecting New U.S. Control of TikTok's Censorship, Our Report Criticizing Zelensky Was Deleted

For years, U.S. officials and their media allies accused Russia, China and Iran of tyranny for demanding censorship as a condition for Big Tech access. Now, the U.S. is doing the same to TikTok. Listen below.

Listen to this Article: Reflecting New U.S. Control of TikTok's Censorship, Our Report Criticizing Zelensky Was Deleted

Dear Glenn,

I hope you’re honored to have a new patron. Actually, I was with you years ago, but had to cancel my subscription for financial reasons. I’m actually worse off now, but your work is too important, for me not to contribute to your work.

Please forgive me for being a cusp-boomer, but is this the platform where we ask you questions? If so…

What is your family background?? I know that’s potentially an extensive topic, so I’ll narrow it down. Are your parents responsible for your unwavering rationality and empathy, either because of them or in spite of them? Obviously, your education was a part of it, but I was wondering if some of the accolades you receive should be directed their way.

Again, another apology is warranted if this is something I can find out if I just use the internet, but I’m abysmally lazy, too!

Sincerely,
Dee

😘

It was very disappointing that Glenn went into a cultural non-story. The big story was how both Tucker and Matt Walsh agreed that any country that requires US aid to survive shouldn't exist, with heavy focus on Israel.

The whole gay adoption thing is largely the result of gender ideology. People who were wary or indifferent of gay adoption now are opposed to it as a result of the sexualization of pride parades and the child-grooming of the gender ideology crowd. That this was not addressed, and why time was wasted on this over far more consequential matters is beyond me.

May 03, 2025

No way -- the great Glenn Greenwald, Mr. Free Speech uber alles, has "monitors" who review before something is published by member of the community.

Quite the fraud, aren't you? Not going see my bucks coming your way if this isn't posted.

post photo preview
Lee Fang and Leighton Woodhouse Look Back on Trump’s First 100 Days; Lara Friedman on New Laws Barring Israel Criticism
System Update #446

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

AD_4nXdrNdu1dV-30cPj03TZ1D4QlFl2LDN5cZy-hd5K5SufRc7LaHC8yHGnhVlAC44J8JnQ4eJd1tt4lGst4rU1yz4PGCovjasn_2ITBTgX0ERtpochJj0wzjiuKQW3-8aObzJeGkhADXVJxKBXKO-fiP8?key=tKNs_BmLHPxhijM0rtHyR_RO

Our esteemed host, Glenn Greenwald, is out today. So, I'll be guiding you through the show. My name is Lee Fang. I'm an independent journalist based in San Francisco. 

Yesterday marked the hundredth day of President Donald Trump's second term in office. Like many Americans, I tried to keep an open mind for all his very well-established faults, Trump has forged a very new political identity for the Republican Party. One that has drifted away from deference to the business elite and more towards populist economics. 

On the campaign trail, Trump promised to protect entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security. Trump and Vance declared last summer at the RNC that multinational corporations would no longer take precedence over the interests of average Americans. 

On foreign policy, Trump bristled at the established order and signaled a strong interest in ending America's forever wars, especially the bloody conflict between Ukraine and Russia. Trump promised peace on day one of his administration in Europe. 

For a moment after the election, he also seemed committed to negotiating peace in Gaza. His envoy for the region, Steve Witkoff, temporarily delivered a cease-fire, a momentary end to the Israeli military's bloodshed in the confined territory, and a release of hostages and prisoners on both sides of the conflict. 

There were other glimmers of positive reform. Trump and DOGE promised to clear out the many bloated government contractors like Booz Allen and McKinsey, and Trump promised to end discriminatory DEI programs. Meanwhile, he announced a new golden era for free speech after years of suppressed speech from pandemic policies to stifling cancel culture, there was hope for a new embrace of free expression from this White House. 

But the last 100 days, with some exceptions, have exemplified failure after failure, a series of false promises, lies, and mismanagement. Worst of all, the administration has lurched towards some of the most brazen forms of corruption and authoritarianism in modern American history. 

Rather than cracking down on corporate power, we see tariff exemptions and mass pardons for corporate crime handed to Silicon Valley, Wall Street and for major Trump donors. 

Rather than an era of free speech, we see a ruthless crackdown on campus expression, unconstitutional arrests of students for criticizing Israel and new speech codes that safeguard the country of Israel. 

Rather than a break from the corruption of Hunter Biden, we see new era of graft and influence peddling, especially the self-enrichment of the Trump family using cryptocurrency. 

Rather than the moment of peace, we have so far seen the resumption of Israel's war in Gaza and no end in sight to the brutal conflict in Ukraine. 

Rather than an end to the weaponization of government, we see partisan weaponization of the government on an industrial scale. 

On this episode of System Update, we'll bring on Leighton Woodhouse, a writer on Substack, to further discuss Trump's 100 days. We'll also discuss the latest clampdown on speech related to Israel with Lara Friedman, an advocate who promotes peace in the region. 

AD_4nXdrNdu1dV-30cPj03TZ1D4QlFl2LDN5cZy-hd5K5SufRc7LaHC8yHGnhVlAC44J8JnQ4eJd1tt4lGst4rU1yz4PGCovjasn_2ITBTgX0ERtpochJj0wzjiuKQW3-8aObzJeGkhADXVJxKBXKO-fiP8?key=tKNs_BmLHPxhijM0rtHyR_RO

My guest today is Leighton Woodhouse. Leighton is an Oakland, California-based writer, former union organizer. We often do a weekly kind of recap of the news in politics and other kinds of cultural and political issues on our Substacks and we host a podcast together. Since we are kind of hijacking Glenn's show, I think it makes sense to do a 100-day recap rather than just a weekly recap of the administration.  

Lee Fang: Leighton, how's it going? 

Leighton Woodhouse: Hi Lee.

Lee Fang: Just yesterday was the 100-day mark of the Trump administration. It's worth kind of just for giving an overview for listeners to the show who might not be audience members of our podcast. I think we have some different views, but we kind of share some concerns in the Venn diagram of people who were associated with the progressive left, who were very badly burned and had a lot of concerns around the last four or five years, around the pandemic, around censorship, around suppression of free speech, around some of the public safety issues that the left kind of ignored. 

I mean, you live in Oakland, where it's much worse, but in San Francisco, we've had such incredible problems around kind of de-policing and, out of this kind of left-wing outburst in 2020, a lot of harmful policies that have disproportionately affected working-class people. 

So, I've had kind of guarded optimism about the Trump administration. I was hoping for a clean break around some of these issues around speech, around public safety, around some of the illiberalism from the left, DEI and other concerns. In some ways, in the first few weeks of the administration, I think there were many glimmers of hope, but it seems to have taken a pretty dark turn. I think for folks who are feeling very politically homeless over the last couple of years, we're even maybe more homeless, or maybe being pushed back into the left. How do you feel? 

Leighton Woodhouse: I feel like we've been consistent actually, because if our reservations with the left back in, say, the period of 2015 to 2024 or so, was its creeping authoritarianism, the way in which dissent was squelched through cancel culture, orthodoxy was enforced, that kind of thing, this is just a continuation of that, with a different political valence. 

When I say continuation of that, I mean it's the exact same playbook, specifically around antisemitism and in creating safe spaces on campuses. This is identical to what we saw under the left and so, I think that if you were concerned about that with the left and you're not concerned about it now, then you are inconsistent, possibly hypocritical and partisan in your outlook. 

The principal position I think is to be opposed to this kind of authoritarianism, whether it comes from the right or the left and I just see it as a repeat. It's just a fun house mirror of what happened with the left. 

Lee Fang: You were told, we were told, everyone was told, if you didn't agree with some of the extreme policies of the left over the last couple of years, shut up, you're a racist. You shut up, you’re a bigot. And now it's, if you don't get onto the agenda of the Trump administration on Israel, you're an anti-Semite unless you agree with us, and we're going to put you in a cage. We accuse you of that even if there's no evidence of wrongdoing. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
Rapid Fire: Canada Elections, Dem's Sit-In, Israeli Taking Points Escalate; PLUS: Jewish Academics Push-Back on Antisemitism Claims
System Update #445

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

AD_4nXc0FyBV6zJ_7ofEgikbkq4SrhlbSWxcKlo0x9aMJAKhm_2dZFsRqAtdydEGkoine2vHOJNpgrjaHx_oIJuWKLUpZNOCXwacdDWguTnbiEiVI_QXFZvjttquliPe9jtaXxDCwj8lS_8WC2GY1A1ZGvU?key=G7PtMUupLU6SPdj-pvMWcL3Y

Last night, Canada held a nationwide election and elected their members of Parliament, who, in turn, selected their prime minister. For a long time now, it seemed basically inevitable that the conservatives under the leadership of Pierre Poilievre would finally oust the liberals from power. And yet, last night, Poilievre not only lost the election and won't become, obviously, the prime minister, as he expected to, as everyone expected to, but he also lost the seat that he's held in Parliament for the last 20 years. We'll talk about the factors that led to this, to the extent that Canadian experts are talking about that and what we've been observing for a long time. We'll also have some rapid-fire coverage of a couple of other topics that I wanted to cover. 

Last week, three professors, Eli Meyerhoff, Emily Schneider, and Brooke Lober, wrote for a very prestigious blog that is used by a lot of scholars and professors, the Academe Blog, a rebuke against the narrative that the government and the media are using, that antisemitism is rampant on college campuses. Two of them will join us tonight to discuss their concerns. 

AD_4nXc0FyBV6zJ_7ofEgikbkq4SrhlbSWxcKlo0x9aMJAKhm_2dZFsRqAtdydEGkoine2vHOJNpgrjaHx_oIJuWKLUpZNOCXwacdDWguTnbiEiVI_QXFZvjttquliPe9jtaXxDCwj8lS_8WC2GY1A1ZGvU?key=G7PtMUupLU6SPdj-pvMWcL3Y

AD_4nXeKO1Xypd1L17MOIfqSIZB2lqMjWp1Hzps-Rlfq0cb5DGoDAV8PX2tdXSuXpg16aodag73czJNQmb5Pkbx8-X3FR6PoxWsPHzbHQwmL_NJhZnjWZS3eXd4X4f_A6edUCc9D7QuwCMFAGwSYYfiyk7U?key=G7PtMUupLU6SPdj-pvMWcL3Y

In one sense, the results of last night's federal election in Canada were not really shocking because over the past six to eight weeks, polls showed that the Conservative Party had essentially lost the massive lead that it held for a year or so that has made everyone assume that their victory, their takeover of Parliament, and their installation of the leader of the Conservative Party, Pierre Poilievre, was inevitable. So, the fact that liberals ended up winning the election and their current incumbent prime minister, who became prime minister when Justin Trudeau resigned, Mark Carney, is not unexpected. The betting market said it was something like an 80% to 90% chance that the liberals would win. But it is shocking when you compare it to the trajectory over the last year or even 18 months, where there has been a complete collapse in support for the Conservative Party and a shift in support to the Liberal Party. 

By votes, this was far from a landslide. I think the vote was 43% of the electorate for the Liberal Party, 41% for the Conservatives, but that's not the real way that elections are determined. The way elections are determined is by who wins how many seats in Parliament and becomes the majority party, then the leader of that party ends up as prime minister. There, the margin was, again, not a blowout but still more significant. 

Here's from Canada's Globe and Mail reporting on the election this morning: “[…] the race against the Conservatives was much tighter than polls predicted. […] The Liberals had a slim lead in the popular vote at 43.2 per cent to the Conservatives’ 41.7.” The article goes on: “The Liberal government is committed to free trade within the country by Canada Day, he said. “This is Canada, and we decide what happens here.”  (The Globe and Mail. April 29, 2025.)

So, you see, even in that rhetoric there, that Donald Trump's talking about Canada as becoming the 51st state, referring to Justin Trudeau as Governor Trudeau, imposing tariffs, repeatedly saying he's not kidding when he says Canada should integrate into the United States, that had a big effect on the Canadian populace. In fact, it is manifested in many ways: at their national hockey league games where Canadian and American teams play, it's true in baseball as well, we saw Canadians booing the U.S. national anthem; many Canadians have refused to vacation in the United States or come to the United States as they did. This is a nationalistic surge saying, “How dare you, the United States, for trying to control our politics and country, talk about us like we're not even a sovereign country.” And that created a lot of backlash. 

Needless to say, if the conservatives want to find a way to get him back into Parliament, they'll be able to, probably. But as we've seen with Kamala Harris and in many other elections, when you lead a party in an election where they believe you have a chance to win and you end up losing, and then on top of that suffer the humiliation of losing your own district that you've held for 20 years, it's very difficult to recover from that as a viable leader that people are willing to get behind and believe that one day you'll lead them to victory. 

It's such a remarkable turnaround because, as I said, the conservatives were way ahead of the Liberal Party for so long. It really only started to change when Donald Trump came in and started talking about Canada. I mean, that's the reality. You talk to any Canadian, and they will tell you that by far the biggest factor in the Canadian election was Donald Trump. Once Mark Carney assumed the prime ministership, it was almost reversed. The liberals ended up with a huge advantage. That's why the betting markets were saying 80% to 90% that they would win. 

They've been shrinking over the last couple of months or couple of weeks, tightening up because people in Canada are really dissatisfied with the liberal leadership, with the economy, with the cost of living, many of the grievances and resentments towards status quo parties that people all over the democratic world are expressing. It would have been easily sufficient to drive the conservatives into power had it not been for the fact that they had this nationalistic backlash. 

And for a long time, Poilievre was very pro-Trump, the MAGA movement loved him and he was perceived as part of this right-wing populist movement of which Trump was a member. The anti-Trump sentiment in Congress became so strong in Canada, so strong, that Poilievre started vehemently denouncing Donald Trump, attacking Donald Trump. A lot of conservatives in Canada think that's why he lost, this attacking to the center, or the separation from Trump. 

But whatever it is, you can just trace the clear trajectory of the collapse of the Conservative Party's support, the loss of their lead with Donald Trump and, especially, his repeated denunciations of and focus on Canada and its government. 

So, again, I'm not saying it's the only factor, but I've talked to a lot of Canadians over the past week and today, and I haven't found one who minimizes the impact that Trump had. That's just the reality of what it is. Not even a criticism of Trump, it's just kind of a reality that you can see why this backlash against Trump would happen and how that could manifest as much greater negativity toward the candidate who had been posturing as and modeling himself after a MAGA, but Canada First, right-wing populist. Very much of the style of Trump demeaning the media, showing contempt for them, for institutions in general, looked to be a path for victory until all of this stuff with Trump happened. We'll have some Canadian analysts on over the next week or so to break that down more carefully. But like I said, I've been talking to a lot of people following this election very closely and you won't find anybody who denies that's a major role. 

AD_4nXc0FyBV6zJ_7ofEgikbkq4SrhlbSWxcKlo0x9aMJAKhm_2dZFsRqAtdydEGkoine2vHOJNpgrjaHx_oIJuWKLUpZNOCXwacdDWguTnbiEiVI_QXFZvjttquliPe9jtaXxDCwj8lS_8WC2GY1A1ZGvU?key=G7PtMUupLU6SPdj-pvMWcL3Y

AD_4nXcWgAXTAzXUdRvr7JmarJgrkTEFOLTv0LsVRYFwR-ZIZRCbut9oqYNE5p_Oq9obFYTXwStocuG2972MeFq_YVxwQ69J6ah-skn3ronIV41E66vyZQV0fINklWiP2DeQFejFwwzRkMTkGD2_1yh3cMM?key=G7PtMUupLU6SPdj-pvMWcL3Y

All right. Also, this week, the Democrats were constantly being told by their base that they're not doing enough to oppose Trump, that led Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey to engage in this utterly vacant and pointless stunt where he gave a filibuster for 18 hours, broke the record, I think, held by Strom Thurmond previously. Congratulations to Senator Booker. Actually, 25 hours. Sorry, Sen. Booker, for minimizing the greatness of your act, but Democrats decided to follow up that inspiring and stirring protest with a different one where they decided all to sit together on the steps of Congress while Congress was in session to sing and speak and not really sure what the whole purpose was, but here's a clip from it. 

Video. Democratic Leadership, Capitol Steps, Fox News. April 28, 2025.

So, you see, there was unbelievable music, entertainment and inspiring political songs there. There you see Cory Booker to the left and Hakeem Jeffries to the right, the House Minority Leader for the Democratic Party. They sat there for hours. And then Cory Booker went on to X to celebrate this remarkable act of resistance that was going to make all the difference. 

And he said:

AD_4nXewHZdG_AYtxT8gNV6IY-TUgz3GRqfQTY2Uyu_GiJEJX-XfNdU8a9ZjL5csguK_WPGcCmKuBUXVEcOPb9BUL1-j58MHBSqRkKkiaG_P6EbWXD7nEerjGM3gHUMKlbXMoeSaMB0ySXsHbwefX7bFVw?key=G7PtMUupLU6SPdj-pvMWcL3Y

Now, if you're somebody who does want to see Trump's agenda impeded and the Democrats emerge victorious in the next election, or even find a way to gain more political power before the next midterm, I would suggest this is not something you should be particularly excited by, it's unbelievably performative and self-promoting and who cares? Who cares? 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
Gaza Starves, Pro-Israel Propagandists Escalate Extremist Rhetoric and Actions
System Update #444

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

AD_4nXerNdzUurru-yTT5tCIikaZEMtU9izSvxTG8k4rqjka1DBra-5QqOuO-BJ-6a-OpX1x0WXSKN3Y9GpvzgNAWVFV-al97cZh6ZoCKu8BBomvoMBfgQjcM0LOP67TODofW0VJpzRjkNXYwkcFSweo_js?key=Y26L49g9fxxwsJ7Xmnc54u0e

Whether one likes it or not, Israel and its various wars continue to shape and dominate American politics. That's so for multiple reasons: the U.S. pays for and finances Israel's military and wars, even though Israelis have a higher standard of living than millions of Americans who are forced to subsidize their society; the atrocities Israel has been committing in Gaza not only erodes their international standing around the world but America's as well, given that the whole world knows that none of what Israel is in Gaza would be possible without American support, and, perhaps most importantly, our domestic politics and our core free speech rights continue to be eroded in the United States in the name of protecting Israel and punishing its critics. 

Israel, like any country, has always had its share of violent extremists, including those who want to steal all of the West Bank, Gaza, and even parts of Lebanon and Syria for Israel. But those extremists have, in Israel, become rapidly mainstreamed or are at the highest levels of its government and the fruits of their extremism can be seen in the full destruction of civilian life in Gaza, as well as the ongoing annexation of land by their settlers’ movement in the West Bank and by their multiple wars in several countries in the region. 

As the true destruction of Gaza becomes globally undeniable and as two million Gazans now face the reality of mass famine due to Israel's refusal to allow any food or medicine to enter Gaza, no matter who sends it, the Israeli government but also their legion of loyalists in the United States, are becoming rapidly more extreme and repressive to justify all of this. 

It is contaminating not only Israel, but our own country.

AD_4nXerNdzUurru-yTT5tCIikaZEMtU9izSvxTG8k4rqjka1DBra-5QqOuO-BJ-6a-OpX1x0WXSKN3Y9GpvzgNAWVFV-al97cZh6ZoCKu8BBomvoMBfgQjcM0LOP67TODofW0VJpzRjkNXYwkcFSweo_js?key=Y26L49g9fxxwsJ7Xmnc54u0e

AD_4nXdzF_ybGm_Jnu5WuLfMG2uy16hkNJVnWC8oz3e2h1nTL1kkONlSRIU7rEQSAoYTcGfZTg46tOZnJOnN8rhZEfkU3Js_CUgwKwAQi_LxMhS87TPpRcYcah_vDH2KyDG9_lGKCYoRoVS2lx5K0VXlFg?key=Y26L49g9fxxwsJ7Xmnc54u0e

From the beginning of the war that Israel has been waging on Gaza following the October 7 attack, senior Israeli officials led by its then-defense minister, Yoav Gallant, have explicitly threatened that they intended to cut off all humanitarian aid from entering Gaza, including food, water, and medicine. This doesn't mean they're refusing to provide humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza, even though, as an occupying army, they are required to do so under international law. But no one expects that of Israel. It's Israel, they're not going to provide food, water and medicine to Palestinians in Gaza as they destroy their society. But they're doing something much more extreme, which is they're using their military, paid for by the United States and American workers and taxpayers, to block any aid from entering. 

There are humanitarian groups all over the world trying to put food into Gaza because generally the world considers it to be a singular atrocity to watch millions of people die of famine, a deliberately caused famine. You have countries trying to get aid and medicine, watching children have to undergo incredibly horrific surgeries with no anesthesia because it's just not available in the Gaza Strip. You've seen all the horror stories. Those are deliberately induced by a blockade that the Israeli military has imposed on Gaza, where they simply won't even let flour into the Gaza Strip. And as a result, it's no longer accurate to say the people of Gaza are in the brink of starvation or that mass famine is imminent. They're in the middle of it. There's essentially no more food left. 

Here from the BBC yesterday:

AD_4nXchxOUC1X_bt74ZS0jAvjBtLFmw0F7fD8imjdONwUbRLmmpT-8HRZfk-7b4aumoWyocrU3HuArkyXyuYowqqaIUoWRXR-9Xjh0eCkSXAjEDw3-c3wtVDe2max3jIwKxH_ACEQ9hRg_zHLq5HI8hmw?key=Y26L49g9fxxwsJ7Xmnc54u0e

A couple of things to note about this: first of all, the World Food Programme.  I've seen before any institution, any entity, any country, any government, any person, any journalist, any media outlet that criticizes Israel immediately gets labeled as antisemitic, as hating Israel. Anyone who criticizes Israel immediately gets called a racist; that's just the go-to tactic. 

The whole world, everyone's persecuting poor Israel. Even though the world's largest military and economy pays for their military, pays for their wars, all of Europe has stood up in defense of Israel, somehow, Israel is the poor little victim on the playground, constantly being bullied. You have all these U.N. organizations and Doctors Without Borders, people who do the most noble work of going around the world administering healthcare in the most dangerous way, all these institutions are immediately deemed antisemitic the first time they say anything negative about Israel. 

It's a little bit more difficult to do it in the case of the World Food Programme because its executive director is Cindy McCain, the widow of former senator and presidential candidate John McCain and the mother of media personality Megan McCain. The McCain family has been as steadfast, as extreme, as loyal in their support for Israel as basically anybody in Washington. I mean, to try to depict Cindy McCain as some kind of Israel hater! 

She was born into great wealth, she's using her platform to run the World Food Programme, which does work to alleviate famine wherever famine is found. She didn't take it as a platform to criticize Israel, much to the contrary, as I said, the McCain family worships Israel. As the executive director, she is duty-bound to report the truth, which is that there's no more food left in Gaza and they have no more food to distribute. All the stuff they were able to get into Gaza is now extinguished and exhausted and they're barred by the Israeli military from delivering more. 

Here is the World Food Programme itself on its X account yesterday:

AD_4nXe9E4ucBb5z187IIaDdwIEqKyzD5XymUUf8KPkipuHVUiqz_UQys2CH5NRimoa9_rHP6R8WCW4iTFXvFCJnbMAE0HBkRLCKD_fMGJ875hd9PzTBOPGV1YdpzU3z6N4tUePegrV3GjKSb6ztikrhMkk?key=Y26L49g9fxxwsJ7Xmnc54u0e

 I've seen people trying to claim, “Oh, this is a war, this is what happens in war.” No, it's just not true. Most wars do not entail the deliberate blockading and starvation of an entire population, in this case, composed of 50% of children, trying to starve them to death or face the risk of imminent death from starvation as a means to get their hostages back. Of course, just like Israel was bombing everywhere in Gaza, claiming that they were concerned by their hostages and ended up predictably killing a lot of the hostages. Obviously, if you bomb indiscriminately in the places that you know the hostages are, you're going to end up killing many of them, as happened. Similarly, if you starve an entire place to death, then there's no food to provide to the hostages either. And this is not something that the Israelis are doing by accident, or incidentally as a byproduct of war. Starving the two million people in Gaza to death is an explicit, open boast that Israeli officials, at least when they're speaking in Hebrew, and sometimes even when they are speaking in English, are very proud that they're doing on purpose. 

Here's a member of the Israeli Knesset, Moshe Saada. He was on a network called Middle East Eye, and they asked him about the people, including the children, who have no food in Gaza, and here's what he said: 

Video. MP Moshe Saada, Middle East Eye. April 27, 2025.

And this is not anomalous. There's nobody rising up in criticism of this MP. You may recall that there were videos that were leaked to the press showing Israeli soldiers gang raping helpless Palestinian detainees in the dungeons Israel keeps, when these soldiers were caught gang raping, anally raping, helpless detainee Palestinians, not only was there no revulsion in Israel, but members of the Knesset actually went and protested with all of their supporters outside where those soldiers were being held, demanding their release and you had people going on media saying, “There's nothing wrong with rape, rape is a perfectly legitimate weapon of war, these are not human beings we're dealing with, these are savages, they're not Jewish.” 

And this has been the ethos in Israel from the start. 

Here is the former defense secretary, Netanyahu has since fired him, Yoav Gallant. This was him on October 9, 2023, saying what the Israeli strategy will be:

Video. Yoav Gallant, X. October 9, 2023,

When South Africa brought its case against Israel for war crime violations to the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, and now other governments have subsequently joined, their entire case basically existed out of statements by Israeli officials about what they intended to do in Gaza because Israeli officials have been saying the whole time, “We're going to keep food out, we're going to keep water out.” 

At some point, the U.S. was pushing a little bit for more humanitarian aid to get in and very basic food supplies were permitted to get in. But remember that when Trump facilitated the cease-fire in Gaza – which he and his envoy Steve Witkoff absolutely deserve credit for having facilitated, it was finalized one day before Trump's inauguration, he wanted there to be a cease-fire, he went around boasting and giving himself credit for the cease-fire – Netanyahu was saying to his country, “Don't worry, the Americans have told me this is not permanent. We're going to get some hostages back and then there's going to be no stage two of the cease-fire. We're never going to stage two. We're only going to do stage one and then go back to destroying Gaza.”

And that's exactly what happened. Stage one of the cease-fire agreement that Trump facilitated demanded the permitting of humanitarian aid, including food, water, and medicine, to enter Gaza, but the Israelis, before the cease-fire unraveled, refused to allow any such humanitarian aid to enter. 

And just by the way, given that the United States is still bombing Yemen every day – remember Yemen?  It's just a country that the U.S. government is just bombing intensively and consistently every day – when that cease-fire was signed, the Houthis said, “We're not going to attack any more ships now that there's a cease-fire.” It was only when the Israelis began violating the cease-fire by blockading basic humanitarian aid from entering did the Houthis said, “Actually, now we're going to resume our attacks, but only on Israeli ships, not on anyone else's, including Americans.” Yet, Trump restarted and escalated Biden's bombing campaign, even though the Houthis weren't attacking American ships. 

The much easier solution to bombing Yemen would have been to tell Israel, “You have to comply with the cease-fire deal, that Trump and Steve Witkoff caused to be agreed to by both sides in the Middle East,” but instead we're bombing the Houthis because we don't want to force Israel to allow food, water and medicine into this unbelievably beleaguered population. 

One of the most extremist ministers in Israel is the national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, who is in the United States. Today, he went to Congress to speak to several of his employees who work there. Sometimes it's better to have meetings between your boss and the employees face-to-face. I mean, you can have it on Zoom, you can have it in lots of different ways, but, as every boss will tell you, it's good to have in-person meetings with the people to whom you're giving instructions. So, Ben-Gvir went to Washington today to visit Congress and do that.  

Ben-Gvir used to be such an extremist in Israel, and I don't mean like 30 years ago, I mean like a decade ago or less, that he was convicted of several terrorist crimes. He was the spearhead of this settler movement that every country in the world, including the United States, regarded a illegal. Every time settlements expand in the West Bank, it means that this dream of a two-state solution with Israel and a Palestinian state side-by-side living in peace became impossible, because Israel just kept eating up land. Ben-Gvir and others in the Netanyahu government, who used to be so on the fringes that they were actually in trouble with the law constantly, have now become mainstream in the government. This was before October 7. And Ben-Gvir’s view is that the Israeli military should be in the West Bank protecting the settlers as they expand. 

There used to be a view that at one point Israel was going to have to confront its settlers because the only way for Israeli survival was a two-state solution. Nobody believes in that anymore. So, Ben-Gvir is in Washington, in Congress, again, what the Israelis are doing, this is not fringe, marginalized views in Israel. These are the mainstream views of the Israeli government. They openly boast about the things they're doing. 

AD_4nXdf-YAhWdwncG6FqY4vxWce-bCCFOVTdkhnAGaitUK7L8NQ7_5Fdc-pR3oyinODUW5ZnRjey-0EbWHR3CGiuagn3jx9ga-aw1G4WZUEWoOQr2pNqnnw2ibfpKMG3DCdk2LQxhPVpOOxGBCxLXQlKXc?key=Y26L49g9fxxwsJ7Xmnc54u0e

The Jerusalem Post, in 2024:

AD_4nXf3UXj5oSq8K364KIC5M8h8wHkiR4_1pMFfYD9L947qHAobgVrQCuWoZ5fbFvRnlMPlfH1Z8GiTptY3IgXmCH3WmMuxt1wmIjfDtfWhJd8WCHhK2PIZ83799UW_Za6VJaSsMBdF5FF2e4fwa6GLfg?key=Y26L49g9fxxwsJ7Xmnc54u0e

So, the IDF had worked with the Israeli police because a bunch of Israelis, including the extremists in the West Bank, went to the border with Gaza and blocked it. They took their kids, they took their entire families and they physically blocked the trucks with humanitarian aid from entering Gaza. They wanted to starve the population to death and the Israeli military worked with the Israeli police to try to remove protesters, these people blockading humanitarian aid from entering in Gaza, in part because the U.S. government was asking for humanitarian aid to enter Gaza, and so they wanted to have a minimal amount sent in and that's what Ben-Gvir was mad about: the police and the IDF were acting against these protesters. 

Just last month, March 23, 2025, as reported by JNS, the headline is “Ben-Gvir Urges Strikes on Hamas Food Reserves, Power Supply.” Obviously, “Hamas food reserves” are the food reserves of the 2 million people living in Gaza. He wanted to, deliberately, to attack whatever food was left that they found. 

Also obvious is that among the institutions that depend upon functioning electricity and cannot function without it are hospitals with people on respirators, people on life support, people who need all kinds of machines hooked up to them. If you cut off all electricity in Gaza and then continue to bomb them in the dark, not only are you killing a lot of people, but you're preventing doctors from treating the wounded or even feeding the wounded. And this is what they're all very happy to admit that they're willing to do and are doing, even as many of their supporters in Israel continue to insist it's fake news or antisemitic to point out that Israel is blockading all food from getting into Gaza. The Israeli officials just openly admit it. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals