Glenn Greenwald
Politics • Culture • Writing
Drone Strikes on Moscow Signal Dangerous New Phase of Ukraine War. Plus: One of Russia’s Most Notorious Spies—a Whale—Resurfaces
Video Transcript
June 01, 2023
post photo preview

Watch the full episode here: 

placeholder

Good evening. It's Tuesday, May 30. Welcome to a new episode of System Update, our live nightly show that airs every Monday through Friday at 7 p.m. Eastern, exclusively here on Rumble, the free speech alternative to YouTube. 

Tonight, we spend a lot of time on this program discussing the war in Ukraine because – how could we not? It is easily the most dangerous war for the U.S., the West, and the world, in decades. The Iraq war, which had nuclear power only on one side of the conflict, posed nowhere near the dangers that this war poses. One of the primary participants in the war, President Joe Biden, the chief proxy sponsor of Ukraine, himself, said in an unscripted moment back in October that this war has brought the planet closer to nuclear Armageddon than at any point since the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, 61 years ago. And then we just all moved on like that never happened. 

This war is the single most important political story of the year, and nothing is close to that title. How could it not be that? This is a proxy war between the nation with the largest nuclear power on one side, Russia, and the nation with the second largest nuclear stockpile on the other, the United States. There's this new conception that nuclear war is not really possible, that will only happen if a suicidal psychopath had full control over their use. But that is a delusion, a fairy tale, a belief that can arise only from the crudest and most extreme form of historical ignorance. 

The U.S. and USSR came very, very close less than an hour away, from nuclear war on at least two occasions during the Cold War, caused not by psychotic behavior, but by rational behavior triggered by miscommunication and misperceptions. That same hair-trigger, archaic Cold War systems are still in place. Washington and Moscow continue to have thousands of nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles pointed at each other’s large and midsize cities that are designed to be launched upon any belief that the other side is preparing to do so. The option of first using nuclear weapons, namely using them without even believing that the other side intends to use them, merely as a justified, offensive, or defensive tactic in the face of a threat perceived to be existential, is very much still on the table for war planners in both capitals. Indeed, during the 2017 general election in the UK, the Labor Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, was lambasted by everyone for his statement that he would never consider the use of nuclear weapons as part of his nuclear national security strategy.

 The reason I continue to cover this war so much is not because I wish to repeat myself. It's because the war is not stagnant. It is changing constantly. And the way it is changing – more so now than ever – is that it is now ushering, in a very rapid and very dangerous escalation, including, again, just last night. 

What is declared unthinkable one month becomes explicit policy the next: the classic framework for how wars rapidly escalate out of control in history. Biden has repeatedly declared various weapons systems off-limits to send to Ukraine because of their escalatory dangers – meaning their potential to expand the war beyond its current theater focused on southern and especially eastern Ukraine – only for him to repeatedly change his mind and reverse himself, with the latest reversal coming in his announcement that he will now support sending F-16 fighter jets – we will now send them to Ukraine as they aggressively expand their military operations inside Russia.

 Very early this morning, on Tuesday, eight kamikaze drones were flown into residential buildings in Moscow, an act The New York Times characterized as “a potent sign that the war is increasingly reaching the heart of Russia,” adding “Ukraine has increasingly been reaching far into Russia-held territory.” Western commentators and governments barely even bothered to pretend today to be concerned that their weapons, our weapons, American weapons, were used by Kyiv to purposely target civilian targets in Russia's capital. 

Russia has, of course, attacked targets in Kyiv and other cities, civilian targets have been hit by Russia and Ukrainian civilians have been killed. That is true of every war, including the ones the U.S. and its allies fight, but the question now is how many dangers are you willing to put yourself in for this war? When it comes to U.S. involvement what is the limiting principle? If we give F-16s, why not give them the green light to use them to bomb targets inside Russia if we haven't already, to bomb the Kremlin with our F-16s, why not give them tactical nuclear weapons? What's the argument against that? Are we willing to risk a Third World War over the question of who governs the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine, filled with Russian-speaking ethnic Russians, or Crimea, about which that is even more true? The answer, even though it is not explicit, increasingly seems to be yes, in a word, that we barely bother to debate because there is unanimity in the Democratic Party in support of Joe Biden's war policy and the GOP establishment is completely aligned with Biden. And when that kind of bipartisan, Uniparty consensus emerges, debate ends and we simply proceed along without even talking about it. 

Then, as our second story, we all know that the Kremlin agents are working everywhere, working on every corner, on every social media platform, and under every bed. We know that Russia – despite being, at best, a regional power with an economy smaller than Italy and Canada – that spends 1/16 of what the U.S. spends on our military, controls almost every major world event somehow and is responsible for most of America's social and political ills. But what you may not know is that they have developed one of the most nefarious and terrifying weapons yet: they have recruited and trained a deceptively adorable white beluga whale to serve as a Kremlin spy. We will tell you the full story of this Marine menace who, after years in hiding, has reportedly resurfaced this week to terrorize a Norwegian fishing boat. 

As we do every Tuesday and Thursday, as soon as we're done with our one-hour live show here on Rumble, we will move to Locals for an interactive aftershow to take your questions and comment on your feedback. To obtain access to our aftershow, which is for subscribers only, simply sign up as a member of our Locals community. The red Join button is right below the video player here on the Rumble page. We also provide daily transcripts, full transcripts for each program, as well as exclusive access to some of our journalism. 

As a reminder, System Update is also available in podcast form. We are available on Spotify, Apple and all other major podcasting platforms. The show posts the podcast version 12 hours after we first broadcast here, live, on Rumble. Simply follow us on those platforms as well as please rate and review our programs: that helps us spread the visibility of System Update.

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


 

Certain words when they become so overused, begin to lose their meaning. They're just like noises that no longer evoke any real sentiment or any real feeling. They just become pure abstractions. And I think that's the case for the word ‘escalation’ when it comes to war. You can warn about how wars have the risk of escalating and the dangers that come from that escalatory spiral but I think, more often than not, we tend to dismiss that as an abstraction. It just doesn't evoke very many strong sentiments any longer and I think that's because the United States for so long has felt completely safe and immune from the risks of a world war. It's been 70 years since the conclusion of the last World War. It used to be commonplace that American students and American children were trained how to hide in bomb shelters. The specter of nuclear war very much was on the forefront of people's consciousness throughout all of the Cold War. And now we seem to be at the moment where people just tacitly, blissfully, assume that nuclear war is not really a possibility. It's something that you can kind of mention or talk about, but everyone knows that will never happen. There's very little fear over what is increasingly looking like a very direct proxy war between the two largest nuclear nations on the planet. It is, though, the warnings about nuclear war or the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists putting their doomsday clock to the closest time to midnight ever, which signifies global extermination, just doesn't seem to make any difference. We barely even debate or discuss this war. It's a war that Joe Biden himself said has brought the planet closer to nuclear Armageddon than at any point since 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis. And yet, given how central the U.S. government is to this war – over $100 billion already authorized for it after just over a year and increasingly sophisticated weapons being supplied to Ukraine, that are then used not only against Russian soldiers inside Ukraine but increasingly inside Russia itself – it seems like we're in this blissful form of ignorance, fortified by the fact that there is absolutely many within the Democratic Party in Washington in support of this war, as well as the fact that the Republican establishment, as usual, is in full alignment with the Biden administration when it comes to the U.S. war policy. So, everybody from Chuck Schumer to Tom Cotton and everybody from AOC to most of the Republican House caucus, clearly including Kevin McCarthy and Michael McFaul, the head of the House Intelligence Committee, and Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham, and on and on and on are in complete agreement. There's just no dissent. Ilhan Omar thinks the same way as – pick your Republican senator – Marsha Blackburn. And when that kind of bipartisan consensus happens, debate stops, even though there's a lot to debate. 

This war is constantly escalating right before our eyes, and that's the reason we keep discussing it. And we'll continue to. The last 24 hours may have brought the most dangerous escalation yet. By escalation, what I mean by that is the ability of a war to start wildly and rapidly expanding, physically expanding beyond its original theater, but expanding rhetorically as well in terms of the willingness of countries to just devote themselves endlessly to not just trying to solve the conflict, but to win the conflict and vanquish one's enemies, as well as to what the war aims are that just constantly spiral out of control. That is absolutely, whatever your views are and whatever your assignment of blame is, is how to understand this war. 

So, what happened last night is that eight kamikaze drones were obviously sent by Ukraine – people aren't even bothering with the pretense this time to say it was a false flag that Russia bombed itself – attacked not military installations, not any battalion of troops, but residential buildings in Russia's capital and Moscow. So just try and imagine how that would look to the United States if, say, Mexico using Chinese-provided drones or Chinese-provided weapons, attack residential buildings in Arlington, Virginia, or in the nation’s capital, or in Manhattan. That is how Russia is currently looking at the world today. 

So here from The New York Times, the headline is “What we know about the drone attack on Moscow. Russia's defense ministry said that at least eight drones had targeted Moscow and the surrounding region.” 

 

Explosions were reported in Moscow early on Tuesday morning with Russia's defense ministry saying that at least eight drones had targeted the capital city and the surrounding region. All of the drones were intercepted, the ministry said in a statement, saying that electronic jamming measures forced some to deviate from intended targets and that others had been shot down outside the city limits by air defenses. It did not specify what the targets may have been. 

American officials have in the past voiced concern that Ukrainian attacks on Russian soil could provoke Mr. Putin without having a direct effect on the battlefield – one reason that Washington has withheld from Ukraine weapons that could be used to strike deep into Russia. 

The reality of the war in Ukraine has largely been perceived as distant for much of the Russian public but the attacks unmask Moscow could change that and possibly even threaten overall support for Mr. Putin's handling of what the Kremlin has called “the special military operation.” (The New York Times. May 30, 2023)

 

It seems to be a very bizarre formulation by The New York Times for a couple of reasons. One is implicit within that account – it seems to be a justification for targeting residential buildings, for targeting civilians on purpose, which, when it's convenient, we are told is a war crime. The implicit narrative in the New York Times article – and we're going to show you one from The Washington Post that's even more egregious because a big part of the story is not just what Ukraine did, but how the West, and the United States in particular, are reacting – because there lies the real danger of what our mentality has become collectively. But the idea that it is now permissible to target civilians in order to make civilians more invested in the war's outcome, so they don't see it as an abstraction, is a justifying rationale for war crimes. Targeting civilian infrastructure and civilians on purpose for strategic gain is a violation of the laws of war, to the extent anyone cares about that – but there is implicit justification in there.

The other point that I find amazing is the notion that if you start bombing Russian civilians enough, they will turn against the war. When does that ever happen? Every government in the world knows that the best way to unify the population behind the government is to convince them that they are under attack and being threatened by a foreign enemy, by a foreign power. George Bush's 2000 election was one of the most disputed and contested elections in American history. For all the talk about election denialism and the threat posed in challenging the credibility of our elections, Democrats overwhelmingly believed that that election was stolen and that Al Gore was the rightful winner. The Supreme Court stole the election from the Democrats on behalf of George W. Bush, and for the first year of George Bush's presidency, of the first nine months, he was completely polarizing as a president. And then came September 11 and 90% of Americans approved the way George Bush was doing his job – 90% of Americans unified behind their leader the minute there was a foreign attack. That's what happens in every instance where a country is attacked. If you want to find a way to unify the Russians behind Vladimir Putin, keep bombing and targeting apartment buildings filled with civilians in Moscow on purpose. 

We have some videos that will give you a sense of what this attack looks like, from Sky News.

Watch.

 

 Ukraine clearly has the intention – because they've repeatedly done it – to not just attack Russian troops on their soil, to expel them, but to attack Russia itself inside Russian territory. This is not the first time by far that this has happened. There were units allied with the Ukrainian army, including reportedly certain actual overt Nazis who are enemies of the Putin government, who just recently engaged in cross-border attacks inside Moscow. There have been terrorist attacks by the Ukrainians, including blowing up a cafe in St. Petersburg to kill a Russian nationalist journalist and not only killed him but injured 19 people attending the speech. A car bomb that was targeting a Russian nationalist pro-war blogger who ended up instead murdering his daughter. So, it's not like this is the first time, but this is now eight kamikaze drones inside Moscow attacking residential buildings. That is an escalation of a war, if ever there was one. 

I want to show you what The Washington Post said about this war, not in an editorial, not in an op-ed, but in what they purport to be their news report, because embedded within this reporting is something extraordinary and, I would submit, very alarming: conceptions about how to understand this war. So, there you see the Washington Post article from today that reports on these drone attacks: “Drones hit Moscow, shocking Russian capital after new missile on Kyiv.” 

 

A drone attack hit Moscow on Tuesday morning, damaging two residential buildings – the first strike on a civilian area of the Russian capital since President Vladimir Putin launched an invasion of Ukraine more than a year ago. It was almost certainly a prelude to a major escalation in hostilities. (The Washington Post. May 30, 2023)

 

This is a newspaper that has been behind this war from the beginning – they're behind every single major or minor American war of the last two decades, at least, every single war from Iraq and Syria to Libya, to Afghanistan, to the bombing missions throughout the Middle East. Now, the war in Ukraine has been supported by The Washington Post. And even The Washington Post is saying “This event yesterday is almost certainly a prelude to a major escalation in hostilities,” a major escalation in a war involving multiple nuclear powers. 

How is this not the story that all of us should be focused on today? 

 

The drone attack, which was confirmed by Mayor Sergei Sobyanin, occurred just hours after yet another barrage of Russian airstrikes on Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital, which killed at least one person and injured more than a dozen. In Moscow, there were no reports of serious injuries. 

While Ukraine denied involvement in the drone attack on Moscow, the dueling strikes on the capital cities appeared to mark a threshold moment as residents of Russia's capital experienced direct consequences of their nation's hostilities for the first time. (The Washington Post. May 30, 2023)



I want to read this again because it's a lot of words put together that seem on their own to be the kind of technical journalistic words newspapers typically use when they're describing some kind of national security policy but the actual meaning really bears some scrutiny. They say that the “dueling strikes” marked “a threshold moment as residents of Russia's capital experienced direct consequences of their nation's hostilities for the first time.” Is that how we now talk about attacks on civilians – deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure like apartment buildings? Oh, they're just carrying the consequences of what their nation is doing. That's how Osama bin Laden talked about 9/11. “Oh, we're going to make sure that Americans, for the first time feel the direct consequences for their nation's hostility for the first time.” That was his justification for the 9/11 attacks. Well, it's about time Americans don't just get to attack, but have to feel the consequences that they bring to other countries. That's the justification being offered by The Washington Post for targeting civilian buildings in Russia based apparently on the view that not the Russian government, but the Russian people need to suffer, be injured, or even be killed. And as we emphasized on our program last night when we were talking about the disparate treatment of Russian and Belarusian athletes who are somehow told they're responsible for their government's actions, it makes even less sense in this case, because we're also constantly told that Russia is a tyranny, a totalitarian society where no citizen has any input at all into what their government does, and any dissidents of any kind result in imprisonment or death. Anyone who criticizes Vladimir Putin gets sent to the Gulag. And yet, apparently, we're now supposed to believe that these same Russian people who are oppressed, we're told, by the Putin government, need to start feeling some bombs because somehow they bear responsibility for this war and need to be motivated to stop Putin, even though he's a totalitarian dictator who kills all of his critics. 

This is how propaganda works. It's an insidious weaving throughout everything that we're constantly told about how just to implicitly understand the world and the moral frameworks that we are supposed to apply to others and ourselves. 

 

Reports that some 200 artillery shells hit Russian towns in the Belgorod region near the Ukrainian border Tuesday, offered further evidence that Kyiv wants to bring the war to Russian territory before initiating its long-expected counter-offensive, which will inevitably necessitate further destruction in Ukraine. (The Washington Post. May 30, 2023) 

 

So let me stop there as well for a minute. We've been told forever that a counter-offensive is coming. And maybe it will. But the reality is the primary victim of the war right now is Ukraine. It's Ukrainian buildings and Ukraine that's been destroyed, Ukrainian infrastructure that's being destroyed, Ukrainian lives that are being taken in gigantic numbers. And the idea that they want this war is a nice narrative, but it's belied by the fact, as we've shown you before, that President Zelenskyy has been repeatedly forced not only to do things like close oppositional media outlets, ban political parties who are his opponents and banning churches – something he was doing even before the war started – but he severely increased the penalties for desertion because Ukrainian men, many of them, actually don't want to fight in this war. They do not think this war is worth dying for over the question of who controls Donbas or whether they get Crimea back. Ultimately awards merit is determined by whether people are willing to fight and die in it. Huge numbers of Americans volunteered to fight in World War II. Zelensky is using a conscript army. These are people forced to fight. And their country is being destroyed because, at the beginning of the war, it was clear. as many reported that the United States’ goal in this war was never to save Ukraine or protect Ukrainians, it was to destroy Ukraine and sacrifice Ukrainians for its broader geopolitical goal of beating the Russians as much as possible. That is what this war is really about. That is why there's never been even any discussion, let alone efforts toward finding a diplomatic solution to this war in Washington – because Washington does not want this war to end. It wants it to continue. It's a gold mine for the arms industry, for the intelligence community, and for the goal of destroying Russia, which again, I believe is predominantly motivated by a perception in Washington that it was Russia that was responsible for the election of Donald Trump. That's the real reason for this increasingly vitriolic anti-Russian hatred that is driving U.S. policy much more than any geopolitical objectives. 

 

Mykailo Podolyak, an adviser to Zelensky, said Moscow residents deserved whatever came at them. (The Washington Post. May 30, 2023)

 

This is one of Zelenskyy's primary advisors justifying the targeting of civilian infrastructures on the grounds that “Moscow residents deserved whatever came at them.” 

 

I'm going to say some paradoxical things and you can then analyze them: first, undoubtedly, gradually, Moscow is starting to sink into the fog of war… with a very desired sensation, Podolyak said Tuesday morning during “Breakfast Show” a Ukrainian Russian-language YouTube program. “Of course, we want those people who wanted to start this big European war to feel what it is like to live in this state of danger.” 

“And, of course, all those terrible men who sat in the parliament and threatened everyone,” Podolyak added, “they are going to gradually receive all of that back.” (The Washington Post. May 30, 2023)



Note that Ukraine did not bomb the parliament or the Kremlin this time the way they did several months ago when they sent a drone over Moscow that exploded right above the Kremlin. They targeted apartment buildings. How is it that on the one hand, Russia is a totalitarian, despotic society that imprisons every citizen who dissents from the government's actions and where Russian citizens have no ability to influence at all the government that we're told is despotic, and yet on the other, the Ukrainian government can say – using our weapons – that Russian civilians deserve whatever is coming to them because somehow they're responsible for this war. Is that now our position that the proxy nations that we use as pawns in war can deliberately target civilian infrastructure and kill as many civilians as possible and then explicitly justify doing that because they deserve to get what's coming to them? 

Again, that is the rationale of Osama bin Laden for why 9/11 happened. When Osama bin Laden was asked to justify that, then he said “Americans bear responsibility for their government's aggression in the world because they are the ones who elected that government. It was actually true in that case, that the Americans elected the government that initiated the war in Iraq or that starved hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children with sanctions or put troops on Saudi soil. But still, it didn't justify targeting civilians. It never is justified, let alone when we're told that civilians have no political rights of any kind. The article goes on. 

 

Putin said that Ukraine was trying to “intimidate” Russia and Russian citizens and that the attack aimed to provoke “a mirror response” from Moscow. 

“This, of course, is a clear sign of terrorist activity,” Putin said during a visit to a cultural center. (The Washington Post. May 30, 2023)

 

Regardless of what you think about this war, about who's to blame for this war, if you want to assign 1,000% of the blame to Vladimir Putin, is it true that deliberately targeting civilians to terrify those civilians into changing their government's policy is the very definition of terrorism? It's the definition I've always understood terrorism had, to the extent that it's actually a term with a clear fixed meaning, as opposed to just a propaganda term. Targeting civilians with violence on purpose to terrorize them into changing their behaviors and their views, that is terrorism. And that is what the Ukrainian government explicitly is saying was their goal here, was their purpose, was their aim. 

I mentioned Osama bin Laden and what he said about 9/11 on several occasions because it is exactly what we hear increasingly not just from Ukrainians, but from the West, about who bears responsibility for the invasion of Ukraine, that it's not just the Russian government, but Russian civilians as well. We showed you last night in the context of professional sports how that rationale is being invoked and I emphasized that even though that's just sports, it can seem trivial, the underlying propagandistic framework that is being pushed on us constantly, that we're being asked to ratify, is an extremely dangerous one because you first banned Russian and Belarusian athletes on the grounds that they somehow bear responsibility – 25-year-old athletes.

 If that's true that civilians are responsible, then it does become justifiable morally to target them and kill them on purpose because you've just gotten done implementing a framework that holds them morally responsible, ethically responsible, and responsible in every other way, for the war that you claim is the greatest act of evil since Hitler, if not even worse than Hitler. That's what makes this rationale so nefarious: that it's coming not only from Ukraine but from their sponsors in the West.

 Let's look at what Osama bin Laden said in September 2007 in a transcript of a speech that he gave from a video where he was talking about 9/11 and the War on Terror and U.S. aggression:

 

After it became clear to you that it was an unjust and unnecessary war, you made one of your greatest mistakes [He's talking here to the American people] in that you neither brought to account nor punished those who waged this war, not even the most violent of its murderers, Donald Rumsfeld. And even more incredible than that is that Bush picked him as secretary of defense in his first term, after picking Dick Cheney as his vice president, Powell, as secretary of state, and Richard Armitage as Powell's deputy, despite their horrific, bloody history of murdering humans. So that was a clear signal that his administration – the administration of generals – didn't have as its main concern the serving of humanity, but rather, was interested in bringing about new massacres. 

Yet, in spite of that, you permitted Bush to complete his first term, and stranger still, chose him for a second term, which gave him a clear mandate from you [American civilians] – with your full knowledge and consent – to continue to murder our people in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then you claim to be innocent! This innocence of yours is like my innocence of the blood of your sons on the 11th – were I to claim such a thing. But it is impossible for me to humor any of you in the arrogance and indifference you show for the lives of humans outside America, or for me to humor your leaders and their lying, as the entire world knows, they have the lion's share of that. 

These morals aren't our morals. What I want to emphasize here is that not taking past war criminals to account led to them to keep repeating that crime of killing humanity without right and waging this unjust war in Mesopotamia, and as a result, here are the oppressed ones today continuing to take their right from you.  (Public Intelligence. Sept. 7, 2007, Video with Transcript).

 

So that was Osama bin Laden's argument for why American civilians were legitimate targets on September 11. And it sounds a lot to me like what Ukraine is saying about Russian civilians now and what the West has been saying since the start of this war in the way that they are talking about, not the Russian government, but the Russian civilians. And from that, it is not a big leap, in fact, it is the inevitable outcome, that Russian civilians should be targeted, which is exactly what happened within the last 24 hours – and now, with increasingly sophisticated, aggressive weaponry in their hands, provided to them by the United States with a mentality that you just got done hearing: that Russian civilians deserve what's coming to them. What do you think these weapons are going to be used for? 

If you can just put yourself into the position of seeing the world through Russian eyes – and again, think all you want about the fact that Russia is to blame for invading Ukraine, that they can end the war at any moment by going home. That's not the way the Russians see this war: it's the way the West sees this war. It's not the way Russians see this war, it's not the way most countries see this war. As we demonstrated to you when we reported on Fiona Hill's remarkable speech, an anti-Russia anti-China hawk who has been deep in the bowels of the U.S. foreign policy establishment forever, standing up and telling the Western foreign policy elites that “the rest” of the world – which now is not the rest of the world, but is actually a huge portion of the world, assembling greater and greater power and coming together in a more potent confederation than ever – does not see the war in Ukraine the way the United States and the West see the war in Ukraine. They see the war in Ukraine as yet another attempt – rightly or wrongly, it's how they see it – by the United States, by the West, to assert their dominion and hegemonic control everywhere, including all the way up to the Russian border. And while they don't necessarily support the Russian invasion of Ukraine, they certainly believe that the U.S. and the West provoked it. And that's Fiona Hill talking, not me. And there are tons of evidence to demonstrate that that's how major governments around the world see this war. 

But leaving aside the question of who's to blame or who's responsible, do you think that Russia, this country with this enormous history, filled with proud nationalists and the largest nuclear stockpile on the planet, is going to sit by while Ukraine takes weapons provided by the West and kills their civilians inside Moscow by bombing them from the air? Does anyone think that Putin is going to allow that to happen without reacting very, very aggressively? 

The theory of escalated wars,  of war getting out of control, of how World Wars start, is they always have a very limited beginning – that there is a border dispute between two countries, other allies side with each, and suddenly, there are all kinds of tension escalating. All these other new grievances are aired and the anger and hatred and hostility that war breeds in humans – we need hatred to be pulsating through our veins to support wars because when we engage in war, we do the most unthinkable things to one another – that hatred just constantly increases and bubbles over. That's how atrocities become possible. 

We are now already at the point where the Ukrainians are explicitly justifying attacks on Russian civilians, deep inside Russia, into Moscow, its capital; at the same time that the United States is now providing Ukraine F-16 fighter jets and at the same time that there's almost no communication at all between Moscow and Washington, one of the rotted results of Russiagate that essentially criminalized conversations between American diplomats on the one hand and Russian diplomats on the other. Michael Flynn almost went to jail because he reached out to the Russian ambassador shortly after becoming the national security adviser. 

Again, this is not the first time there have been strikes inside Russia, and each time that it happens, we are told some kind of just laughable propaganda about what happened. Here, from The Washington Post earlier this month – and you may recall that Ukraine exploded a drone bomb over the Kremlin near where Vladimir Putin was and The Washington Post headline was “Ukraine Denies Kremlin's Claim of Drone Assassination Attempt on Putin” and gave credence to this preposterous notion, even more, preposterous than the insulting claim that Russia blew up its own pipeline:

 Russia on Wednesday accused Ukraine of staging a drone attack intended to kill President Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin, an incendiary allegation that was forcefully denied by Ukrainian officials, some of whom warned it could be a pretext for Russia to escalate its war. (The Washington Post. May 3, 2023)



In the first paragraph, The Washington Post gave credence to this false flag theory that Russia bombed itself. 

 

Russia said that it thwarted the attack and that Putin was not in the building at the time. Among the mysteries surrounding Wednesday's alleged attack was how two drones could have successfully reached one of the most protected buildings of Moscow's fortified city center. While some analysts said the incident might have been a false flag attack staged by Russia, others suggested it could be a performance gesture, by Ukraine, striking at a preeminent symbol of Russian state power. (The Washington Post. May 3, 2023)

 

Don't forget that incident just weeks ago when the Russians perceived that Zelenskyy and Ukrainians tried to murder the Russian president via drone over Moscow. Again, think about what would the United States do if all of this was happening, not in Moscow, but in Washington – especially if those weapons were supplied by and the war was enabled by Russia, Iran or China, or some combination of all of those countries, which is what's happening in Ukraine that's enabled solely by the United States principally, and the rest of Western Europe and NATO. 

 

 

Just to give you a sense of how utterly deranged the mentality has become among American journalists, war analysts and the like, all these people who just make a living constantly supporting U.S. foreign policy whenever it comes to militarism and war, I want to show you this tweet or series of tweets from Tiger Rogoway. I forgot the publication he works at. We will get that for you. He used to be part of the Gizmodo Media Group and he's worked for other media outlets as well. So, he's a journalist. But listen to how he thinks and how he's speaking. And very little opposition arose from this tweet until I pointed it out. It's him today discussing the drone attacks on Moscow last night. 

Every day this war goes on, Ukraine's kinetic reach expands in magnitude and frequency. Taking the word to Moscow IS the goal. Little drones will turn into way more drones of increasing complexity, then into cruise missiles, then ballistic missiles… (@Aviation_Intel.  May 30, 2023)

 

They have relatively advanced indigenous ballistic missile tech. If you don't think they aren’t doing everything they can to get what they set aside a few years ago operational, we are living in different universes and they are likely getting help. (@Aviation_Intel.  May 30, 2023)

 

Obviously, meaning help from the United States. And he cites an article entitled “Does Ukraine have a stash of domestically developed ballistic missiles?” Once a day he is celebrating an intended abuse to strike deep into Russia. He then goes on. 

 

So much is focused on what NATO will give them, especially in standoff weaponry, but it's 15 months into this thing. What crash programs are likely maturing? Hence the flocks of drones that will be raining on Moscow. 

Bad, bad news for Russia. (@Aviation_Intel.  May 30, 2023)

 

Is that just bad news for Russia? Or is that bad news for the world if we are now going to start having constant drone attacks on civilian infrastructure in Russia, in Moscow, followed by cruise missiles, followed by ballistic missiles? He works at this media outlet called The Drive, which is a New York outlet. I’d never heard of it before that published this article about whether Ukraine has a stash of ballistic missiles. He also has a vertical called the War Zone. He's obviously one of these people Adam Smith warned us about back in 1776. People who stay far away from the battlefield but who cheer wars from a distance. Sometimes they go there and do kind of we're reporting in the war zone, but they don't fight in the wars. But you can see the excitement. They get a sense of purpose and strength. We're talking about cruise missiles and ballistic missiles raining down on Russia. If you want to have a nuclear war, this is the way to do it. And as always, the question I will continue to pose for as long as this war goes on is: what interest does the United States have in continuing this war? What interest does the United States have in fighting with this level of risk and danger over who gets to govern the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine – bereft of any vital interests for the United States – or who governs Crimea – a region where even the harshest anti-Russian hawks will acknowledge is filled with people who far more identify as Russian than they do as Ukrainians and who would far more rather be governed by Moscow or be independent than be governed by President Zelenskyy in Kyiv. 

Ever since the United States fostered regime change in Ukraine, which we know happened – we heard Victoria Nuland talking about it secretly on a tape – there are large numbers of people in these provinces who feel like they live in a country that is not theirs. They see Russia with far more affinity to their ethnic identity, to their historical identity than Ukraine. And one possible way out of this war is to hold a referendum and see what the people of Eastern Ukraine want; to see what people in Crimea want, a fair election supervised by the U.N.; to see if they want to be part of Russia, if they want to be independent, if they want to remain under the thumb of Kyiv. I think the West knows what the outcome of that referendum will be. 

And whatever else is true, again, whatever your position, I think the most striking thing here is how little effort there is on the part of Washington or London or Paris or Berlin to even pretend they're seeking a diplomatic solution to this war. Where are the diplomats? Where are the efforts to foster an outcome to finally end this war before it escalates out of control? There are paths to a diplomatic resolution. I just named one. We have the example of Kosovo, which is in the news – we're going to cover that later this week – which is now engaged in some hostilities with Serbia, over what is technically, at least in the eyes of the West, the territory of Kosovo even though many countries don't recognize Kosovo as a country. But the reason there are Kosovo and Serbia to talk about is that the United States and the EU sided with the ethnic separatists in Kosovo that no longer wanted to be part of Serbia. They didn't want to be ruled by Belgrade because they're Albanians, ethnic Albanians, and they wanted their independence and the U.S. supported that independence by arguing that the people of Kosovo deserved autonomy over who they're governed by. And at the time, Vladimir Putin warned that that would be a very dangerous precedent to set because post-World War II Europe is filled with regions and provinces that have been shoved into countries with which they don't identify – including those two breakaway provinces in Georgia that were subject to that 2008 war between Russia and Georgia where the people of South Ossetia and other provinces in Georgia, that are Russian speaking and identify as Russians, did not want to be under the thumb of a country with which they felt no affinity and preferred to be under the governance of Russia. Same with Crimea, same with people in Donbas and other parts of eastern Ukraine. 

So, the Kosovo model is one way out of this, which is to have a free and fair election to oust the people in those provinces and in those regions what they want. Do they want independence? Do they want to be part of Russia? Do they want to be part of Kyiv? And allow them to have their own say in the outcome of that. There is no attempt on the part of the West, you will notice, to try and foster that diplomatic resolution or any other, because the only people in whose interest this war is our Western elites and the Western security state and everybody else, principally the people of Ukraine but also the people of the United States who, are transferring enormous amounts of resources – poured into that war through Raytheon, through the CIA – to this country that has long been considered the most corrupt in all of Europe, only to now face what Joe Biden himself, the sponsor of this war, calls the most dangerous moment since 1962 for the survival of the species. 

So, there is no effort to end this war diplomatically, nor is there any intention to hold that kind of referendum because the West knows what the people in those regions want and don't care about what they want at all. This war is not about protecting Ukraine or protecting Ukrainians. It never was. It's about pretty much everything else, and each day that this war escalates, the dangers intensify. 



We all know that Russia has been responsible, the puppet master, for pretty much every single problem that the West has had over the last ten years. It's not because the Western elites are corrupted. It's not because neo-liberal global institutions are malicious and are willing to squeeze entire populations just to enrich themselves and empower themselves a little further. No, perish the thought. It's because Vladimir Putin, despite all his problems domestically, despite having an economy that is smaller than that of Canada or Italy, despite spending 1/16 of what the United States spends on the military, is somehow able, from across the other side of the world, to puppet master every last event inside the United States, inside of the United Kingdom, and even other Western European countries. And we all know how many Kremlin agents there are, how many Russian spies are, essentially, everybody who challenges or dissents from U.S. foreign policy in any way. 

So just a reminder of all the things the Russians somehow managed to do. The New York Times, through Charlie Savage, in July or June 2020, announced that Russia had placed bounties on the heads of American soldiers in Afghanistan, we were told they had convinced the Taliban that they would pay them if they killed American troops. 

Just beyond anything else, as a reminder, remember the outrage that Russia would dare try and involve itself in an American war by encouraging our enemies to kill American troops? This is something just ghastly that no country would ever do. Only for two years later us to drown Russia's bordering country, Ukraine, with every conceivable weapon we can think of in order for them to go and kill as many Russian troops and increasingly Russian civilians as they can. 

But anyway, that's what Russia was doing. They were controlling Afghanistan. Of course, that story turned out to be false like most of these stories. The Daily Beast in 2021, “U.S. Intel walks back claim Russians put bounties on American troops.” Then we had the Havana Syndrome: somehow there was this new mind-controlled device using 24th-century technology that nobody had ever heard of before, much less began to understand, that enabled them, the Russians, to go around the world injuring the brains of American diplomats, not just in Havana, but all over Europe, using invisible sonic weapons that nobody can't even possibly explain. And we were told over and over again that Russia was behind that as well – that they were damaging the brains of State Department officials. Turns out it was all basically hysteria. It was a psychosomatic illness created by a bunch of hysterics. Imagine that those are the kinds of people working inside the State Department, people who are just completely hysterical and create imaginary illnesses. I wonder where they came from. But as you see here in Rolling Stone, the “Noises were likely crickets, not super weapons, State Department report says.” But we were told that Russia was behind that as well. 

From the Washington Post, in 2020, turns out that America's racial strife is not due to 250 years that involve slavery and Jim Crow laws and segregation or American activist groups that need racial strife. It turns out that racism is because of Russian bots. They're responsible for racial strife in the United States, too. They're sending disinformation campaigns targeting African Americans. They're behind that as well. 

Also, Brexit. Remember Brexit? When the British people went and decided they no longer wanted to be part of the EU, they didn't want to be ruled by Eurocrats in Brussels, they actually want a local role to be able to influence their own self-governance by removing themselves from the EU. That was not the decision of the British people. That too was due to Russia! Russia also engineered Brexit, says the New York Times: “‘No one’ protected British democracy from Russia, UK report concludes.” They blamed Brexit on the Russians.

And of course, 2016: the Democrats lost the presidential election not because they ran one of the most unlikable people on the planet, one of the most historically unpopular politicians in modern American political history. Not because they didn't go to Wisconsin. Not because they had no program to offer anybody other than the elites that financed Hillary Clinton's campaign. Not because they relied on Lena Dunham and a bunch of Hollywood celebrities to tell people in the United States that they should vote for Hillary. None of that. It was because Moscow dictated the outcome of our election. And I could go through the entire list of all the people who we know are Russian agents – because of the fact that they criticized the U.S. government.

Here from the New York Times is a reminder. “Hillary Clinton left no doubt on Thursday that she believes Russia contributed to her defeat by interfering in the election, condemning what she called Moscow's “weaponization of information.” 

So those are all the things and many, many more that Russia has masterminded through its incredible sophistication and power. It turns out they have a new weapon. It's actually a new one. It's the emergence of an old one in 2019. The Guardian, in April, warned us of a frightening new weapon – a Russian spy. The headline: “Whale with harness, could be Russian weapon,” said Norwegian experts.

 

Fishermen in Norway raised alarm after a white beluga whale sporting unusual strapping began harnessing their boats. Marine experts in Norway believe they have stumbled upon a white whale that was trained by the Russian Navy as part of a program to use underwater mammals as a special ops force. Fishermen in waters near the small Norwegian fishing village of Inga, reported last week that a white beluga whale wearing a strange harness had begun to harass their fishing boats. (The Guardian. May 29, 2019) 

 

Kind of like the way Russian bots do on Twitter. 

 

The strange behavior of the whale, which was actively seeking out the vessels and trying to pull straps and rope from the sides of the boats[…] (The Guardian. May 29, 2019) 



Apparently, I knew that there was the claim that the Russians had used these whales to spy on Kremlin spies, but apparently, they trained them to attack Norwegian fishing boats. 

The strange behavior of the whale, which was actively seeking out the vessels and trying to pull strobe straps and ropes from the side of the boats, as well as the fact that it was wearing a tight harness, which seemed to be a camera or weapon, raised suspicions among Marine experts that the animal had been given military-grade training by neighboring Russia. inside the harness, which has now been removed from the whale, were the words “Equipment of St Petersburg.” (The Guardian. May 29, 2019) 

 

Because, of course, everybody knows that when you deploy covert agents into the field, or convert whales into the ocean, you, of course, have to describe where they came from, and who they belong to. Everybody knows that. I mean, yes, spying is a pretty nasty business, but there are rules. And one of the rules is if you're going to use whales, you have to say where they came from. So, there was a harness that said “Equipment from St Petersburg.” And apparently, that's how they knew. 

Maybe that's a false flag. Could be. Except, unfortunately, you're never allowed to suggest that the West was responsible for a false flag, mislabeling the perpetrator of the attack. Only Russia does that. Russia explodes its own industrial hardware and infrastructure, even though its future economic growth depends on it – like they blew up their own pipeline. Russia bombs itself as it did when it exploded a drone over the Kremlin where Vladimir Putin was sleeping. They think it's Russia that killed its own pro-Russian nationalist blogger in that cafe and blew up that car. But we know in this case that this whale is definitely a Kremlin agent because it says right in the harness “Equipment of Saint Petersburg.” 

 

“If this whale comes from Russia, and there is great reason to believe it, then it is not Russian scientists, but rather the Navy that has done this,” said Martin Biuw of the Institute of Marine Research in Norway. 

Audun Rikardsen, professor at the Department of Arctic and Marine Biology at the Arctic University of Norway told NRK: “We know that in Russia they have domestic whales in captivity and also that some of these have been apparently released. Then they often seek out boats.” (The Guardian. May 29, 2019) 



 So, I guess the claim here is that whales are generally gentle and humanitarian mammals that ordinarily are very peaceful when they see boats but the Russians have trained them to identify Western boats, boats that are controlled by Westerners or by Western navies, and to attack these boats on behalf of the Kremlin, very, very alarming. Once you start weaponizing marine life this way.

 

He said he had contacted Russian researchers who said the harnessed whale had nothing to do with them. “They tell me that most likely is the Russian navy in Murmansk,” said Rikardsen. 

In 1980s Soviet Russia, a program saw dolphins recruited for military training, their razor-sharp vision, stealth, and good memory, making them effective underwater tools for detecting weapons. 

This mammal program closed in the 1990s. However, a 2017 report by TV Zvezda, a station owned by the Defense Ministry revealed that the Russian Navy has again been training beluga whales, seals and bottlenose dolphins for military purposes in polar waters. 

In the past three years, President Vladimir Putin has re-opened three former Soviet military bases along its vast Arctic coastline. The recent research and training were done by Murmansk Sea Biology Research Institute in northern Russia on behalf of the Navy to see if beluga whales could be used to, “guard entrances to naval bases” in Antarctic regions, “assist deepwater divers and, if necessary, kill any strangers who enter their territory. (The Guardian. May 29, 2019) 



I don't doubt, in fact, I affirmatively believe that many countries probably do train dolphins to try and engage in certain behavior that could be beneficial to their government. But the idea that this is some kind of nefarious, scary army of Wales, that the Kremlin's have been trained to be spies and to attack Norwegian boats is lunacy. Lunacy. Especially given what they're claiming is the evidence for it that they had a harness that said basically, “Hello, I'm a Russian spy.” And the tone that's used to suggest that this is supposed to frighten us. That this is something that only very evil, insidious countries would do. Like this sonic weapon that came from the 24th century. That instead turned out just to be the psychosomatic neuroses of people who just got out of Swarthmore and joined the State Department and convinced themselves that their brains were being melted by Russian sonic weapons because they'd been watching Rachel Maddow too much, when in fact all along it was crickets they were hearing, and they had invented this mental health disease and then given themselves it sounds like a lot like that. 

As it turns out, this scary Russian Kremlin not just apparently a spy but also an attacker had disappeared, in 2019, only to resurface in the last two days, the last 48 hours. So here from The Guardian, we find he has returned: “Suspected Russia-trained spy whale, reappears off Sweden's coast.” Where is this whale been for the last four years? 

 

A beluga whale that turned up in Norway wearing a harness in 2019, prompting speculation it was a spy trained by the Russian Navy has reappeared off Sweden's coast. First discovered in Norway's far northern region of Finnmark, the whale spent more than three years slowly moving down the top half of the Norwegian coastline before suddenly speeding up in recent months to cover the second half and move on to Sweden. (The Guardian. May 29, 2023)

 

So, the Marine mission for which he had been trained, apparently involved a four-year timeline where he would kind of chill out in the Arctic waters – excuse the pun, I promise it wasn't intended. For four years. And then in 2023, maybe to the date that the program would suddenly speed up and start attacking Swedes.

 

The harness had a mount suited for an action camera and the words “Equipment St. Petersburg” printed on the plastic clasps. 

Directorate officials said Hvaldimir – I guess that's the name of the whale. Oh, it's a pun on Vladimir and then the word for the whale, in Norwegian. Very clever. – Hvaldimir may have escaped an enclosure and may have been trained by the Russian navy as he appeared to be accustomed to humans. 

Moscow never issued any official reaction to Norwegian speculation that he could be a “Russian spy.” (The Guardian. May 29, 2023)

 

 They probably couldn't stop laughing.

 So here from 2019 is another one: it’s an AP report that has even a picture of him. He looks quite adorable. “Beluga whale with Russian harness raises alarm in Norway.” 

 

A beluga whale found with a tight harness that appeared to be Russian-made has raised the alarm of our region officials and speculation that the animal may have come from a Russian military facility. (AP News. April 29, 2019)

 

Just more of the same. 

We do have a video of this nefarious Kremlin spy. And like I said, I want to warn you, I think it's important for you to watch this video to be on guard because he's incredibly cute. He's very playful. He clearly likes humans or at least pretends to like humans. I think part of the danger is that he orders people into this sense of safety by tracking them into his web. He's like a honeypot. You know, Russians use honeypots, like very beautiful women to entice politicians like Eric Swalwell and the person who turned out to be a Chinese spy who developed a very good relationship. That's been a Cold War tactic for a long time. But instead of using women to lure men into getting their secrets, they use adorable animals. People love animals. A lot of people use the love of animals as a way of getting greater connection in our hearts in modern life. And they found this incredibly adorable whale. But he's a spy for the Kremlin. Who not only warns your secrets but attacks you if you're Norwegian or Swedish. 

So, let's look at him. I think it's important to keep you out in the waters and you see him. to identify him and remain very cautious in what you tell him and in your interactions with him. 

I should say this is from NBC News just to ensure, I assure you that this is all coming from the most mainstream outlets. There you see the caption: Marine experts think this whale may be a Russian-trained spy. Let's watch him

 

Do you see how malicious the Russians are? They play on our best instincts and they weaponize the cuteness of beluga whales for military purposes. I don't know if you notice in that propaganda I read you, one paragraph, said, “The reason we know he's a Russian spy is because he's unusually aggressive and hostile.” He attacks only Norwegian boats, fishing boats out of the blue with no provocation. And then we also heard that the reason we know he's a spy is because he's so accustomed to being around humans. Did you see any hostility there at all? I saw nothing but very polite behavior. But again, that's the point. That's the way they keep this a secret. 

 

Now, let me show you one other report, which I believe is from CBS News because I think you cannot be on guard enough. Here is the report. It's entitled Russian Spy Whale. And it's from 2019 when he first appeared. 

 

(Video. CBS News. 2019)

 

The city of Hammerfest, Norway. You may have to get into a boat to see the town's most iconic resident, Hvaldimir, the Beluga. The gentle giant is not from Norway. The townspeople believe he once worked as a Russian spy whale and then fled. […]

 

So apparently he's like a dissident. It turns out he was trained as a Russian spy. I think he developed some kind of misgivings about the nature of the work that he was doing. And he escaped bravely. And he sought asylum in Norway, off the coast of Norway. So, I mean, I guess according to this version, at least he's heroic, though he did reappear in 2023. Maybe the Russians captured him again, debriefed him, retrained him, and then gave him a new Marine mission, kind of reoriented him, indoctrinated him out of his dissidence, and now he's back under Russian control. But this is what they thought in 2019 about him. 

 

I always say it sounds like something that a comic book artist ran out of ideas or something in the fifties and created this. 

He was trained to do military spy work. You can send a whale a lot further and a lot longer and a lot deeper than you can a human, first of all. 

And second of all, that whale can go undetected. Hvaldimir had cameras strapped to him. He boldly left his old life behind, showing up on the coast alone and in need of help. 

 

He Oh, my God. I mean, okay, let me say again, this is CBS News, and they've turned him into like a victim of Russian repression by a heroic victim. Somebody who really did not appreciate being forced to work for the Russian government. Or maybe at some point he kind of like had an epiphany, kind of like Edward Snowden. He was a very young man, who joined the U.S. military believing the war in Iraq was just. He broke both of his legs in basic training. Then he went to work for the CIA and the NSA until he had an epiphany and began realizing that the mythology that he had been fed about the U.S. government, and the role that it played in the world was false. And therefore, he wanted to act against it. This seems to be the case for this whale, at some point, we don't know why he had kind of like an epiphany, like a sort of awakening about the true nature of the Russian government, and decided he no longer wanted to work for them. And he made a breakaway to the coast of Norway where he anticipated correctly, it turns out, that he would be well received. 

This is 2019, so I want to point out that this may be all a cover, a gigantic fraud perpetrated on the West to make us think that he had an awakening and was no longer willing to do the work of the Russian government when in reality was his way of luring us in. That was part of his training to think that he was actually on our side and to trust him. And now it turns out he resurfaced, is swimming faster than ever and attacking the Swedes. So, it's a very complex story, that's for sure. 

So, here's the rest of this report for 2019. 

 

Started pulling at fishermen’s boats and buoys and equipment and getting their attention. One of the fishermen in Norway really realized something's wrong with this picture. There's a man wearing a harness. He got in the water himself and was able to undo the harness and take all the mirrors out of the harness, which I think is really important, an important thing to have happened for Hvaldimir because I don't think he probably could have lived his whole life and not too comfortably.  

 

Can you believe this? I mean, you know, obviously there are lots of ways to mock this. I have refrained from doing so because of the gravity of the story. But if I wanted to, I could. I think the point here, though, is all of this is based on this whole story that emerged in 2019 about this Kremlin spy who's a whale and then, like, escaped as kind of like fleeing a repressive regime, quickly making it to the West, where he could be free and asked for help, and the Norwegians gave it to him. But now it turns out he really might have been a spy. Or maybe he went back and got What is any of this based on? It's like this woman just telling a story with music in the background designed to pull in your heartstrings, to make you think this whale is, like, benevolent, heroic. Except now he's being depicted once again as nefarious. This is the never-ending, incessant bullshit. But these corporate media outlets and under the guise of news, this is news, that Washington Post article that I read you before about how Russian civilians are finally getting what they deserve and this is going to make them rise up. That was also presented as news. This is what we are constantly bombarded with. There's not even pretense to have an evidentiary basis for it. It's almost like the more egregious they can be, the more flagrant they can be, and how they propagandize us, the better it is because it shows their power. 

If they can make you affirm things that you know are false or they don't even have to pretend to care whether or not you believe them, they just shove narrative constructions down your throat without the slightest regard for whether it even makes the most basic sense, that's real power. That's essentially saying to you we don't fear you at all. We don't even have enough respect for you to bother caring about whether or not you're convinced. And that is really the posture of the U.S. government and the corporate media outlets that serve that. And I think it's no wonder that it's one of the most optimistic and encouraging facts that we have that faith and trust in these media outlets have completely collapsed because, eventually, people see through this stuff. People know when they're being scorned and treated with contempt. 

And while you can mark this and talk about the absurdity of it, it does in fact, have very dangerous outcomes. We’re now at war with a country that the Democratic Party decided to blame for what for them was the most traumatic event in recent political history, which is the loss of Hillary Clinton and the election of Donald Trump. They fed their followers with the most severe form of anti-Russian animus. They basically made it a crime to even talk to Russians. And now we're in the middle of this incredibly dangerous, rapidly escalating war that has no geostrategic aim other than its continuation for its own sake. There are no efforts to resolve it diplomatically and instead, all we ever get is this constant narrative that we should hate Russia and Russians in lieu of any rationale for why these resources should continuously be expended and why these rights should be incurred in pursuit of this war. 

These institutions cannot collapse fast enough. They cannot collapse fast enough. There is no way to describe how fundamentally and irretrievably corrupted they are. And that's why I always say, and I will continue to say that: however much you hate the corporate media and the U.S. security state, it is nowhere near enough the willingness that they have to drag you into lies and then create dangers all around those lies is essentially limitless. 


 

That concludes our show for this evening. Because it is Tuesday night, we will now move to our Locals platform for our live, interactive show where we take your questions, comment on your critiques and feedback, hear your suggestions for the kinds of stories we should cover and whom we should interview, and just generally have a conversation with our audience, which I always find to be a very important form of journalistic accountability. 

To have access to that live aftershow, simply join our Locals community by clicking the join button here, on the video player. That also helps support the journalism we do here. 

As a reminder, System Update is available in podcast forms: you can follow us on Spotify, Apple, and every other major podcast platform. You can also rate and review the show – that helps spread its visibility.

 

 Thank you so much for watching. We hope to see you back tomorrow night and every night at 7 p.m. EST, exclusively here on Rumble. 

Have a great evening, everybody.

community logo
Join the Glenn Greenwald Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
5
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

LAWFARE "BLOWBACK"

After a very public plea on social media by President Trump (see post below), the Israeli judiciary announces that Benjamin Netanyahu's corruption trial (due to begin the following day) is to be delayed. These corruption proceedings began eight years ago and they now face yet another delay.

Donald Trump's social media post is suffused with references to "lawfare", supposed lawfare against Benjamin Netanyahu. This is plainly untrue as there is copious evidence against Netanyahu (see "The Bibi Files" documentary, free-to-watch online [1]).

But here we see the consequences of political elites playing the "lawfare" card, a card that was played sparingly up until the last 10 years or so. Morgan Tsvangirai [2] suffered severe lawfare at the hands of Robert Mugabe in 2007. The West recoiled in horror.

Now this tactic has migrated into Western politics...

• In Brazil against both Lula Da Silva and Jair Bolsonaro
• In Romania (where a valid election was recently annulled [3]...

post photo preview

Dear Glenn - I am under heavy attack in my own home and there's no help after a million pleas for help. Trump knows what is happening to me and he's not stopping it.

My ex-girlfriend from grad school in Italy was Croatian, went to her president, who went to Trump at the Three Seas Summit in Poland in front of all the cameras to ask for help for her.

He helped her but he won't help me. He only does favors for powerful people, not the people. I need a president to ask my own president for his help. I am being murdered right now. Please hold authority to account.

https://full-take-times.surge.sh

post photo preview

@ggreenwald
I really needed to share this.
I recently travelled through Russia. Backpacking, as I usually do. Anyone who has seen "New Mokva", would realize this is not some backwards commie country. It made me think of Glenn's interview with Dugin, and brought up a question in my mind. Why would any of us in the west want to interfere with this country? It's amazing and beautiful just the way it is. It's perfect because we are imperfectly perfect as people. We get to decide for ourselves what we want and what we don't want.
Why would any of us want to change what anyone is about on the other side of the earth from us? I really don't get it.
It's the reason why I have such a problem with Glenn's coverage of Israel. I really feel like he hates the country, and looks at it only through the eyes of his own life and experiences. Rather than seeing them as their own society, and their own country.
It's our differences that make us beautiful. Imagine the entire world was made in the wests' ...

post photo preview
Why Did Zohran Win in NYC? Plus: Gaza Pulitzer Prize Winner Mosab Abu Toha on the Latest Atrocities
System Update #476

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_4nXfJtEO736zZmhbu03029He2NIPgIwCSd0RIU3SmMbVVQJsIpozYQRKwJXRpuREKRc7lorAoninw1oXGzHd8iktV6mC_v9BiXr_wjVD9eXyP3SAX-8BYlkPPs38ylNHr9K8HzKNTIMXwiA3AU5Rrx5A?key=TIQi3Fa0JLGop5rXvVQtjA

Zohran Mamdani, who had been a relatively obscure member of the New York state assembly, scored one of the largest political upsets in New York city politics last night – arguably one of largest upsets in American politics – when he won the Democratic Party nomination for Mayor of New York City against multiple candidates led by Andrew Cuomo. 

Many on the political right, including people who had never heard of him until about six days ago, and even more so in the establishment Democratic Party politics, are absolutely horrified and even terrified by Zohran's win. They're acting as though it's some sort of invasion by al-Qaeda and ISIS combined with Mao's China. 

In fact, many on the right appear to think that Zohran, who's a leftist Muslim from Uganda, is some sort of unholy love child of Osama bin Laden and Josef Stalin. Establishment Democrats believe, as they did for Bernie's campaign in 2016 and the AOC's win in 2018, in her emergence as a leader of the left-wing of the Democratic Party, that their future as a party will be destroyed by having a young candidate energize huge amounts of young voters, including young male voters with an anti-establishment and economic populist agenda of the range of views that are absolutely hated by their big donors, who demand they adhere to corporatism, the kind of corporatist that most Americans on both sides of the aisle have come to hate. 

First, we will talk to Mosab Abu Toha, who is a Palestinian writer, poet and scholar from Gaza. He lived in Gaza with his family on October 7, after which the massive Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip began. His daughter is an American citizen, which enabled him and his wife to flee to Egypt with their daughter in December, but along the way, he was detained and disappeared by the IDF and was released only under significant international pressure. 

He wrote a series of essays for The New Yorker on the suffering and humanitarian crisis in Gaza, which won the 2025 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary, the awarding of which, needless to say, generated outrage and protest. The war in Iran has really served to obscure and hide the still-worsening crimes in Gaza over the last couple of weeks. We think it's very important to talk with someone as informed as he is about the latest Israeli atrocities and what has been happening in Gaza. 

AD_4nXfJtEO736zZmhbu03029He2NIPgIwCSd0RIU3SmMbVVQJsIpozYQRKwJXRpuREKRc7lorAoninw1oXGzHd8iktV6mC_v9BiXr_wjVD9eXyP3SAX-8BYlkPPs38ylNHr9K8HzKNTIMXwiA3AU5Rrx5A?key=TIQi3Fa0JLGop5rXvVQtjA

The Interview: Mosab Abu Toha

As we just noted, Mosab Abu Toha is a Palestinian writer, he's a poet, a scholar, and has worked hard on various libraries in Gaza as well. He was in Gaza when Israel began its massive assault after the October 7 attack, and he was able to flee with his wife and young daughter, who is an American citizen, though just barely. He was there for about two months when he was about to flee. He is now a Pulitzer Prize winner as a result of a series of essays he wrote last year in The New Yorker that chronicle and powerfully express the extreme human suffering of the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, and we are delighted to have him with us tonight to understand what has been happening there. 

G. Greenwald: Mosab, it's great to see you. Thank you so much for taking the time to talk to us. 

Mosab Abu Toha: Of course, it is my great pleasure. Thank you so much, Glenn, for having me. 

G. Greenwald: I wish we were meeting under better circumstances, I wish we had something less depressing and horrific to talk about, but the world is what it is. So, I just want to get a little bit of understanding from you since one of the things that you do is convey thoughts and emotions in words as a poet, as a writer, obviously, a now widely recognized one. 

As somebody who's lived in Gaza, it's not new to you to be bombed by the Israelis. Israel has been bombing Gaza, killing civilians over many, many years, but I think it was very obvious for a variety of reasons, not just October 7, but the composition of the current Israeli government, the obvious support the world was going to give them, that this is going to be far worse and quickly it turned out to be. So, you went to Gaza for about two months before you were able to get out. What were those two months like for you and your family? 

Mosab Abu Toha: First of all, it is important to note that I was born in a refugee camp. My parents were born themselves in refugee camps. My grandparents on both sides were expelled from Yaffa in 1948. So, I lived in Gaza all my life and I was a witness and a survivor of so many Israeli assaults. I was wounded in one of the airstrikes in 2008-2009. I survived by chance and I still have the wounds in my body: in my neck, in my forehead, in my cheeks and on my shoulder. So, surviving the genocide in Gaza was not the first time I survived the Israeli aggression. In fact, I was in the United States between 2022-2023. I returned to Gaza in 2023 after I finished my MFA from Syracuse University and I then traveled to the United States again for a literary festival, Palestine Writes, held at UPenn in Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. And I returned to Gaza 10 days before October 7 and I resumed my work as a teacher in Gaza. 

G. Greenwald: Can I just interrupt you there, because that literary festival that you're referring to shortly before October 7, as I recall, there was a gigantic movement, this was before October 7, to have that canceled simply because people like you and other Palestinians were participating and speaking critically of Israel. Can you just talk a little bit about that? Then I want to get back to what the experience was in Gaza. 

Mosab Abu Toha: Yeah. I would like to say, Glenn, that the criticism that I or other people are critical of Israel is not true. We are not critical of Israel. All we are doing is exposing the crimes that Israel has been committing, whether it's in the Gaza Strip or in the West Bank. So, I don't care if it was a different country, if it were a different people, I would still do the same thing, because this is happening to me and to my people, to my parents, to my children, and also to my grandchildren. So, it is not that people in Palestine or Palestinians or even pro-Palestinian people who care about human rights, it's not that they are critical of Israel or whatever you call it. It's that people are talking and advocating on behalf of the people who have been living under occupation for 77 years and this is perceived as a crime when you talk about crimes that are committed by a state that has been created in 1948 and that's been funded by, unfortunately, Western countries and also the United States until today, even as they are committing an ongoing genocide. 

So, it is shameful that some of the participants in the festival were canceled or not permitted to be on campus at the University of Pennsylvania in September 2023. But here we are, in 2025, Palestinian people, Palestinian writers and Palestinian journalists have been the main target of the Israeli airstrikes and Palestinian activists and pro-Palestinian activists have been canceled from so many places, even artists, even singers. They were canceled from big events because of what they say about the Palestinian people and their right to exist and to exist with dignity. 

G. Greenwald: Yeah, I mean, we covered so many censorship-based reactions to suppress pro-Palestinian speech, but I just thought it was important to remember that that's been happening in the United States well before October 7, and in fact, just a week or two before, at one of our great universities, the University of Pennsylvania, where apparently just the mere presence of Palestinian voices in the view of a lot of people justify trying to get the entire event canceled and ended up getting some of the people banned. 

All right, so you went back to Gaza after that event and shortly thereafter, the October 7 attack happened, then followed by this massive Israeli air assault on Gaza, unlike, I think, anything that has happened in Gaza for a long time, despite how terrible and fatal so many of the other ones were. Just in your own words, what was that like, just to be constantly surrounded by death, by the risk of death, by the fear that you would go to bed and not wake up? How did you navigate that? 

Mosab Abu Toha: So, it is important, Glenn, to note that Palestinians in Gaza have been massacred by the Israeli forces, the Israeli army, without – I mean, I was 31 years old when I left Gaza for the last time, I've never, before October 7, in my life, seen an Israeli soldier. Israel was bombing us from the sky, Israel was firing at us from gunboats and warships in the sea, in our sea, just seven or eight nautical miles off our shore. They were shooting at us, they were killing us, they were dropping bombs on us without us seeing. I've never seen an Israeli, not even one Israeli soldier, never seen any Israeli soldier or Israeli civilian, in my life. So, we have been killed, we have been abducted, we have been injured, our houses have been destroyed on top of our families, without us seeing who these people are, who have been killing us without us seeing. 

I mean, they see us from a screen. They see us as dots, black and white dots moving on the ground or maybe structures on the ground. Lately, they have been filming us through their drones, people who are trying to get aid. There are so many videos of people who try to go back to their homes to collect food and then there is footage of an Israeli drone missile hitting them and killing them. 

So, I lived in Gaza all my life and I've never seen an Israeli soldier. I was wounded and I don't know whether that soldier knew or whether that Israeli pilot who dropped the bomb in 2009 knew that they killed seven people in that airstrike and they wounded a 16-year-old child who became a Pulitzer Prize-winning author. 

So, when Israel attacked Gaza, it was not only a military attack. Israel did not only drop bombs, they did not fire bullets at people, unarmed people, but they also shut off electricity, shut off water, shut off food trucks. They control everything, right? So, it's not like Israel just attacked Gaza militarily. No, they blocked everything, even as we are talking, people do not have, not only enough food, because we always talk about the lack of food, the lack of water, the lack of shelter, but there is a lack of medicine. 

One of the relatives of my brother-in-law who was wounded in a strike that killed his brother 20 days ago, and I wrote about him in my last piece in the New Yorker, he was at the hospital, at al-Shifa hospital, and the shrapnel covered his body, and his arms and his body was wrapped in gauze, and he complained to the doctors that he has some pain in his body. And do you know what they gave him? They gave him something like Tylenol, something that you take when you have a headache. There's no medicine in Gaza. And even though there is no healthy food – the kind of food that is entering Gaza is canned food: canned beans, canned peas, sugar and frying oil. There is no fresh food, not only for people to grow normally, but even for those, the dozens of thousands of Palestinians who were injured. There is no healthy food. Fresh food like vegetables, fruit and meat, for them to heal. 

So, people in Gaza are dying several, times and if you allow me I mean because now as we are talking, today in Gaza, it's 2:20 a.m., it's Thursday today, June 26, as we are talking, just in the past hour, Israel bombed a tent in Khan Yunis, killing five people. And before that, yesterday, they killed 101 people all over the Gaza Strip. Of these people, there was a whole family, the Al-Dahdouh family. I wrote their names on my social media, I mean, we don't get to know the names of these people who are killed. The father is named Salah al-Dahdouh, his wife is Salwa al-Dahdouh, their children are Ahmad, son, Abdallah, son, Mostafa, son, and Alaa, his daughter. The brother of the father was killed, and then there was a nephew. So, the Israel attack on Gaza is not by killing them, but even by bombing the internet, bombing the electricity, not allowing people even to report. So, there is difficulty in reporting, not only by not allowing journalists, international journalists, to go to Gaza, but they are also bombing every means that Palestinians can use to report on their miseries and their suffering and their demise. 

So, that's why it is very important to talk about what's happening in Gaza and also in Palestine every day. Israel is killing people in Gaza and Palestine every day. That's why every day we have to speak, to talk, about Palestine. 

G. Greenwald: There's a lot, obviously, we could talk about; we cover a lot of the atrocities pretty much on a daily basis, or close to it, on this show. I do want to get, to that as well, just some of the more recent things that have been happening that, as I said, have been even more covered up than usual, not just by the lack of media in Gaza, international media, and the lack internet, but also by so much attention paid to what was happening in Iran.

I had John Mearsheimer on my show yesterday and we were both talking about how is it that the world can watch what's going on in Gaza, even to the extent that we get to see it, how is it the West, that's paying for it, that's enabling it, can watch what's happening? It's just no one seems to mind, nobody seems to care, nobody seems to be bothered by it, it just kind of goes on, no one is even close to stopping it. 

We just saw Trump order Netanyahu to turn the planes around from Iran, which obviously Biden could have done, Trump could have done at any time, and they just won't. I'm trying to figure out, like, how can this be? 

I think one of the ways that that happens is the language of dehumanization. So, I think a lot of Americans have this perception of what Gaza is, what Palestine is, radically different than the reality. I was interested in the work that you've done in creating libraries in Gaza. You're obviously very well-spoken. You just won a Pulitzer Prize for your writing in English. I've had Gazans on my show before who are very similarly highly educated, well-spoken. 

There is a whole network – there were at least – of Gazan universities and advanced centers of learning that are all now destroyed. Gaza had one of the highest literacy rates in the world before October 7. Some of the best doctors, respected all around the world as specialists in their field. Can you talk about what Gazan society and Gazan culture are like and how it has been just so completely destroyed in the last 20 months? 

Mosab Abu Toha: Sure, yeah, I mean, before I answer your question, I would like to highlight the fact that, for two years now, not a single student in Gaza has gone to school. The schools have become shelters, as we are talking. Just half an hour, at the same time that Israel bombed a tent in Khan Yunis, Israel bombed a classroom on the third floor of a school called Amr Ibn al-Aas in Sheikh Radwan, in Gaza City, and two or three people were reported to be killed. 

So, two years, no schools. So anyone who was five years old when Israel attacked Gaza on October 7 hasn't gone to school for two years. So, if my children were to be there at the moment, my five-year-old would have missed his first and second grades. For two years, students have missed their high school diploma tests. So, people in Gaza are missing not only their lives, but even those who survive are missing a lot in their own lives. 

The Gaza Strip lies on the beach of the Mediterranean Sea. Gaza is rich in its plants and trees. One of the best places in Gaza is a city or town called Beit Lahia and it's very, very famous for the strawberry farms. My father-in-law is a strawberry farmer and they also used to plant corn, onion, watermelon, oranges, and they used to even, I mean, when it is allowed, to export some of the strawberries to the West Bank. But I think Gaza is very beautiful, even though it has been under occupation since 1948 and it's been under siege since 2007. 

Israel controls how much food gets into Gaza, how many hours of electricity is available in Gaza, how much medicine is allowed to enter Gaza, what kind of equipment, medical equipment get into Gaza, how many books get into because when I was trying to build the Edward Said Public Library, two branches in 2017 and 2019 – and unfortunately Israel destroyed the two libraries just like they destroyed all the universities in Gaza – Israel was in control of the entry of these books into Gaza. Sometimes the books would be delayed by months. It usually takes eight weeks for any books or packages to enter Gaza. So, Israel was controlling every single aspect of our lives in Gaza, despite that, we managed to make Gaza as beautiful as we could. 

This campaign of destroying Gaza is nonstop. Israel has been blowing up the houses in Bethlehem: 70%, this is an old statistic, 70% of Gaza has been either destroyed or damaged by not only Israeli airstrikes, while people are sleeping, but even the houses that people had to live in because Israel announced them to be a combat zone. Israel has been systematically blowing these houses up, and there are so many videos of Israeli soldiers documenting the blowing up of neighborhoods and of schools, of their bulldozers destroying a hospital in north Gaza just next to the Indonesian hospital in Beit Lahia. 

Israel has systematically been destroying everything in Gaza. So, the question is not about when there will be a cease-fire in Gaza, although the cease-fire is just the beginning of a bigger change in Palestine. The question is, even after the cease-fire, Israel is trying to make it impossible for people to live again. So, let's say there is a cease-fire today. There are no schools in Gaza; 70% of the population in Gaza do not have homes, they are living in tents. Even though they are living in tents, including some of my family members, these tents get bombed. 

Just a few days ago, Glenn, my neighbor was killed in an airstrike when Israel hit a group of people walking next to it. She was inside her tent. These tents are pulled up on the street. So, she was killed while she was inside her tent. Her mother is still critically wounded, and all her brothers were wounded. So, Israel continues to destroy, to decimate as much of Gaza as possible, and there is a systematic destruction of the refugee camps in Gaza. Something that I wrote about in one of my pieces in The New Yorker is that Israel is not only destroying Gaza, the cities, the villages and the towns, but they are also destroying refugee camps. 

The refugee camps after 1948 were groups of tents here and there. Their refugee status continued for years and years, then people started to build rooms from concrete, and, over the years, they started to build multistory buildings. So, the refugee camp changed into a small city. 

So, Israel currently destroyed most, I mean, much of the Jabalia refugee camp, the largest refugee camp in Gaza. So, these are people, now, who lived in the refugee camp or people who were born in refugee camps like me and now are living in tents on the street, and maybe sheltering in a school, in a hospital, these people now are dreaming of returning to the refugee camps. So, this is the fault of the world. 

This is the fault of the word because they left the Palestinian people to live in refugee camps, they left them without protection and they not only left them without protection, they continue to support, to fund Israel's genocide, like the United States cut its funding for UNRWA, which has been responsible for the delivery of aid and for the education of so many people, including me. So, this world is not working properly, really. It's very strange for us to be watching this, even 20 months after the start of the genocide and for me to watch it from here, from the United States. 

G. Greenwald: Yeah, it's got to be almost impossible.

I know I don't need to tell you, but for people who are watching, I mean, the control of Gaza by the Israelis – including it probably intensified since they removed troops, which they had there in 2005 – the control that continued was so great that the Israelis had phrases like really macabre, horrific, dark phrases like mowing the lawn, which meant let's just go in and kill some Palestinians or let's put the Palestinians on a diet when they would cut back the amount of food that they allowed in into Gaza. This has been the mentality going on for a long time. 

I want to just to ask you something: we talk a lot about the number of people in Gaza who have been slaughtered since October 7, the Israelis are now open about the fact that they want to make Gaza uninhabitable to force people to leave, to kill them until they leave, to destroy civilization until they leave. It's at least a policy of ethnic cleansing. One thing that I think about a lot, though, is, for the people who do survive, who are able to survive the genocide, survive this ethnic cleansing, this onslaught, I have to think about, how is it possible that they'd have a future? 

I live in Brazil, in Rio de Janeiro, which is a city, especially in poorer areas, that has a very high level of violence, drug gangs and the like, very high murder rates and I know some people who grew up there and they talk about, one time when I was seven years old, I saw a dead body on the ground twice, when I was in my teenage years, I saw a gun shootout, and they talk about how psychologically scarring that is for life, like to be exposed to those kinds of horrors even once or twice while you're growing up. And here you have this massive civilian population in Gaza, 50% of them are children, and the last two years, their lives have been nothing but bombing and destruction and murder and fear of death. Just psychologically, how do you think that the people who are there who do survive will be able to overcome that and, at some point, return to a normal semblance of life? 

Mosab Abu Toha: Well, this is a very hard question to answer. It's very obvious that the population that's been trying to survive – I mean, I don't like to say that people live in Gaza. No, people are trying to survive in Gaza because there is a difference between living in Gaza and trying to survive a genocide. 

So, these people, for 20 months, at least, haven't lived a single day without suffering, without looking for food, looking for medicine, looking for water. I mean, Glenn, I was in Gaza for the first two months. I remember walking in the street looking for water to fill a bucket of water for my children and for my wife, to wash the dishes, maybe to have a shower in the school, because there are no services in the school shelters, by the way. 

I remember walking in the city and seeing five-year-old children standing in line to fill a bucket of water for their families, or children maybe 10 years old. I saw some of my students standing in line to get a pack of bread and that was in October and November 2023, that was before Israel tightened its genocide. So, these children, five or seven years old, are no longer children. These children are not practicing childhood. 

This is a very dangerous reality and it should also be a signal that there would be a very dangerous future for these children. So, 50% of the population in Gaza is children. So, the question is for the Americans, for the Europeans who have been funding Israel's genocide and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians in Gaza and also in the West Bank: what do they expect of these Palestinians once this genocide comes on in? So, what kind of people is the world expecting to see in the future? That's a question that I don't have an answer to, but I'm sure that these people, Palestinian people who have been surviving the genocide in Gaza, will no longer be normal. 

I'm not a scientist, I am not a psychologist, but I think people in the world, especially officials, politicians and decision-makers, should think seriously about this. What kind of people are we going to see after the genocide comes to an end? What kind of people are going to be those who have been living under occupation? I don't have an answer to that, but if you think about it, I think there are many answers. 

G. Greenwald: Yeah, I couldn't agree more. A couple more questions: there's this old phrase, it's often attributed to Stalin, I'm not really sure. I don't think anyone is sure if he's really the one who said it. It’s this idea that when one person dies, it is a tragedy, when 1000 people die, it's a statistic. We often talk about, oh, 50,000 people are dead or 100,000 people dead in Gaza, and so often, as you said, the names of the people aren't very well known. We don't talk about them; we don't humanize them. 

One of the people who was killed after October 7 is a friend of yours, Refaat Alareer, who was a very well-known and accomplished poet. He has a book, “If I Must Die,” a poem that was turned into a book after he died, which became a bestseller in the United States and the West, and it's really remarkable. I got a copy, I read it and I really encourage people to do so. 

He was killed in an airstrike in December, so just a couple of months after October 7, and he was killed in his house, along with his sister and several of her children. Then, I guess, I don't know, what is it, five months later, his eldest daughter and her grandson were separately killed in airstrikes on their home as well. It just kind of gives you a sense for the number of families being wiped out. 

He was English speaking, he participated in the American Discourse, and one of the things that happened – I think people have really overlooked this, I want to make sure it's not forgotten and I want to get your views on this: after October 7, as we know, there were all these lies that were told about what was done in Israel, that children were killed in ovens, which obviously invokes the Holocaust by design; that babies were cut out of the wombs of their mothers, none of which ended up being true. Refaat, on Twitter, responding to these kinds of insane lies that were being told, mocked them. 

We have the tweet on October 29 where he said, “With or without baking powder?”, obviously mocking the idea that they were killed in ovens, which turned out to be a complete lie: 

AD_4nXerf2K5MrSKeKmWkMOl72MKiEBDlDx4hqzNJsmIz38o0Hxvzl9zwS1UiD0Xu6a4TjeRnprR1wRerKjfZ0sbyxtHP34mjYdmUOQM95fYthLEUJav40zF1bwjONBvrruubeH0wZIbTp0-ddEM5Zlynq8?key=TIQi3Fa0JLGop5rXvVQtjA

And Bari Weiss, who obviously has a big platform, immediately seized on that and put a target on his back: 

AD_4nXduUz3N_uoMUocamdkV4kMYB_G17QaVuYoUrISWhcfFV5_j8V9F_sQyqxiWi6vSuqtrd74DXr4fydwv6w9RkOyMoKLf8myVCd1RjZMiMB0iJEYHhNmJHbOfTyPXNJTaYtqNOCGZjZrB7qofTuIPcD8?key=TIQi3Fa0JLGop5rXvVQtjA

An obvious distortion of what he said. The claim that Bari Weiss made that babies were killed in an oven was a complete and total lie disseminated by the Israeli government. And then he went the next day and said:

AD_4nXe4cc6Th_f_BiOooTd8He-WZqgATARn_ro-mP_7GA5G-LbmBSZovnU3x9ddzrlmigL7ONq2Or4vzvqYop4PAvs3oUq5k9Up98pbXtf9CafcN5-DiU5Fh9t6P17q0SdNQ-uMfAKsVENiS89G9k42Dyw?key=TIQi3Fa0JLGop5rXvVQtjA

Then, about a month later, he was dead at a targeted bombing of his home. Lots of human rights groups believe it was deliberate. Can you reflect on him and his work, but also how you see that killing and Bari Weiss's role in at least spreading these lies, if not helping to target him? 

Mosab Abu Toha: Of course. First of all, Refaat was a professor of English and Comparative Literature at the University of Gaza, where I studied, where I did my bachelor's degree. He was someone like a mentor. He was one of the founders of “We Are Not Numbers,” which is a group that is dedicated to mentoring emerging writers in Gaza, in the West Bank and also the refugee camps in Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria. So, Refaat introduced me to that project in 2014-2015, so, in fact, Refaat was killed in his sister's house in Gaza City. His sister, Asmaa, lived in Gaza City, and he also lived in Gaza City, but he evacuated his house, so Refaat, by the time he entered his sister's house, he was bombed in that apartment. He was killed along with his sister Asmaa and four nephews, along with one of Refaat’s brothers. 

Refaat was known for his satire. Of course, he and me and other Palestinians would never believe that any Palestinian, whether it's Hamas or other people, would burn babies, put people in ovens, or behead babies, I don't know what, I mean, even an evil person wouldn't do that. So, of course, he thought that this was a lie, this is a joke or something, and there is no evidence that that happened.

G. Greenwald: And it was proven to be a lie. He was absolutely right. It did not happen. It was a complete fabrication. 

Mosab Abu Toha: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, if you go back, if you go to Refaat’s social media accounts before October 7, you would see a lot of jokes. So that was one of his jokes, and it was used against him. It's like one of the posts when I say, when I commented about an Israeli hostage, Emily Demary, and I said, how on Earth is this soldier a hostage while other Palestinians, like me, who were abducted from checkpoints, from hospitals, from school shelters, are called prisoners or detainees. 

G. Greenwald: Right, they're putting them in danger without any charges, and they're convicted of nothing, and those are prisoners, and yet people who are active IDF soldiers found in tanks, found in combat, who are taken as prisoners of war, those are all hostages. 

Mosab Abu Toha: Yeah, so that was one of my questions. And then that was used against me, until after I won the Pulitzer. Oh, he is denying his status as a hostage; this is an anti-Semite. She called me a Holocaust denier. So, it's really irritating and it's ridiculous even to call someone like me a Holocaust denier, someone who has never talked about the Holocaust. In fact, I have some of the books that are about the holocaust that I relate to, that I feel very outraged when I read about the experiences of the Jewish people at the hands of Europeans, not Palestinians. 

So, Refaat's tweet, and I remember that post when Bari Weiss posted that, just to get a lot of hate, more hate for Refaat. Refaat was a Palestinian poet, essayist, a fiction writer, an editor of a book called “Gaza Writes Back,” which he published in 2014, an anthology of short stories by some of his students at the University of Gaza and other students from other universities. 

It's been devastating that Refaat was killed in his sister's house and then, a few months later, his daughter Shayma was killed with her baby, whom Refaat himself didn't see because his daughter was still pregnant. So, Shayma was killed with her baby, Abd al-Rahman, and with her husband, an engineer called Mohammed Siyam. And, by the way, Glenn, there is something that people don't know, which is that that poem, If I Must Die, which is the title of that book you referred to, in fact that poem was written in 2011 and that poem was dedicated to his daughter Shayma.

G. Greenwald: The one who died in that airstrike with her infant son. 

Mosab Abu Toha: Exactly. So the poem Refaat re-shared the poem after October 7. So that's how people came to know the poem. So, just imagine, in that poem, he's telling his daughter, if I must die, you should live, to tell my stories, to sell my things, to make a kite, that's the meaning of the poem; if I must die let it bring hope, let it be a tale. And we, truth tellers, writers, poets, journalists, we should write the tale of those whose voices were taken away from them by killing them and their families. So that was his message to his daughter, who unfortunately was killed in an air strike. 

So in that poem, to me, it's very clear that the I and the you were killed. That's why the you must become a collective you, that every one of us, the free people of the world who care about the human beings, especially those who have been living under occupation and siege and apartheid for decades, not for months, not four years, for decades, we should be the voices of these people, especially because we know what's happening or what has been happening. 

G. Greenwald: Yes. Mosab, I know you have time constraints. It was such a pleasure speaking with you. I think your voice is uniquely valuable and important to be heard by as many people as possible. So, we're definitely going to be harassing you to come back on the show. I had a lot more to talk about, but I want to respect your time as well, but super appreciative for you to come on. It's great speaking with you. 

Mosab Abu Toha: Thank you so much. I appreciate it. 

G. Greenwald: All right, have a good evening. 

AD_4nXfJtEO736zZmhbu03029He2NIPgIwCSd0RIU3SmMbVVQJsIpozYQRKwJXRpuREKRc7lorAoninw1oXGzHd8iktV6mC_v9BiXr_wjVD9eXyP3SAX-8BYlkPPs38ylNHr9K8HzKNTIMXwiA3AU5Rrx5A?key=TIQi3Fa0JLGop5rXvVQtjA

So, I want to talk about the extraordinary victory – and it was truly extraordinary – last night, in the Democratic Party primary, of Zohran Mamdani, who has really vanquished a political dynasty, the Cuomos. 

However, I just want to note, though, in relation to that last segment, that shortly before we went on air, Donald Trump, I guess, just learned for the first time that Benjamin Netanyahu, who is facing extremely serious corruption charges and is on trial for those corruption charges. These are not things like an accounting scheme to cover-up payments to a porn star or anything else like Donald Trump was accused of. This is hardcore, real corruption. It would have probably gotten him out of office a long time ago, had it not been for the various wars that he started. Lots of people believe that's one of the reasons why he needed these wars: to stay in office. 

Right before we were going on air, President Trump put out a quite lengthy and passionate, spirited statement on Truth Social in which he essentially said, “I know that Benjamin Netanyahu is now being called to return to his trial on Monday. This is an outrage.” I read it several times and I'm summarizing it very accurately. He said these trials should be canceled and/or Prime Minister Netanyahu should be completely pardoned. Then he went on to say that he and Bibi Netanyahu just secured a very tough, important victory against what he called Israel's longtime enemy, not the United States’ long-term enemy, but Israel's long-time enemy, Iran. 

He's essentially saying we just together fought a war against Israel's enemy, which is, of course, exactly what that war was and the reason why it was fought. Then he went on through this long, lengthy expression of outrage over the fact that Bibi Netanyahu is facing criminal charges. At the end, he said, the United States just saved Israel, and the United States will also now save Bibi Netanyahu. 

So, Trump himself is describing this war as one against Israel's longtime enemy and that the United States just saved Israel. There are a lot of people who get extremely outraged when you observe that it seems like this is another war for Israel being fought, not for the United States' interest, but for Israel, against Israel's enemy, not the United States’ enemy. Yet, President Trump, apparently, sees it that way as well, based on what he's saying, and instead of focusing on the people that he promised to protect and work for, namely the forgotten American worker, remember he's right now back to trying to interfere in the Israeli court system and the Israeli domestic politics by demanding that his very close friend, Bibi Netanyahu, be pardoned because he fought a good war. I don't really understand the relationship between those two things, but that is what President Trump said. 

AD_4nXfJtEO736zZmhbu03029He2NIPgIwCSd0RIU3SmMbVVQJsIpozYQRKwJXRpuREKRc7lorAoninw1oXGzHd8iktV6mC_v9BiXr_wjVD9eXyP3SAX-8BYlkPPs38ylNHr9K8HzKNTIMXwiA3AU5Rrx5A?key=TIQi3Fa0JLGop5rXvVQtjA

AD_4nXcSIISp-Ah6qbCH1ZgWDtri0mNTsFJFxDYUqWec3dLUQc3N6sMZ4UNXUnAwVs2v1R3XQtX5h43nI2HpHkSY3XAXkO4MNmOhpPuCYDNEj4oI5c8r3rZwGeOWHk_J34yn5uR2bAbJTcR3IAd-AHydk9w?key=TIQi3Fa0JLGop5rXvVQtjA

Zohran Mamdani's victory last night is extraordinary for a lot of reasons. Back in February, so I'm not talking about a year ago, I'm talking about four months ago. All the polling showed Andrew Cuomo with his gigantic lead. Obviously, he has massive name recognition, part of a beloved political dynasty. I mean, Mario Cuomo, for those who didn't live through that time in the eighties, was probably the most beloved Democrat in a long time. But then he had these two sons, Andrew and Chris, and Chris ended up parlaying that last name and those connections into being a journalist and his other brother, Andrew, was basically groomed to be the president of the United States from a very young age. He went around with his father everywhere, just the absolute classic nepo baby. And then he got all sorts of positions in Democratic Party politics because of his dad. At a very young age, he was made a cabinet secretary in the Clinton administration. In the early 1990s, he married a Kennedy, Kerry Kennedy Cuomo. 

The entire thing was being shaped, from the very beginning, to groom Andrew Cuomo as part of this political dynasty based on the nepotistic benefits he got from being Mario Cuomo's son, not just to be governor of New York, but to be the president of the United States. That was absolutely where Cuomo is headed. It was supposedly remembered that liberals turned him into the hero of the COVID crisis saying only he was acting with the level of aggression necessary and all of that came completely crashing down because he had a litany of women who credibly accused him of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and this was a couple of years after Democrats made the Me Too movement. His brother also ended up getting fired from CNN because he was plotting with his brother about how to discredit these female accusers while he was still on CNN. And then it turned out that his greatness on COVID, which was his greatest strength that was going to jettison him to the presidency, ended up being one of his worst disgraces because he kept a bunch of old people locked in nursing homes and a lot of them ended up dying as a result. 

We covered all that before, but suffice to say, nonetheless, four years later, he comes back with much less ambition, already the governor of New York with three terms. He resigned in the middle of his third term, having been groomed to be president. 

Now they kind of convinced him, look, you're 67, the only thing there is for you to do is to run for mayor. He clearly thought it was beneath him, wasn't particularly excited, thought his victory was inevitable, and it looked like it was. Who's going to beat a Cuomo in Democratic Party politics? And not just because they're Cuomo, but he has all the billionaire money behind him. 

 

In February, when I really started paying attention to Zohran's campaign, because I could kind of tell it had the big potential to really take off, I could just tally at a lot of political talent, that he was forming a campaign that can really connect. You don't know for sure, but I noted at the time that it seemed very interesting to me that what he was doing was very different. You can see he had a lot of political talent. It reminded me of AOC, where, say what you want about her now, and I have mostly negative things to say about her, there's no denying that she has a kind of charisma and a political talent as well. 

But anyway, still, I mean, even though I was interested in and could see the potential, I never imagined that he would actually win. I just thought, oh, this is going to be a political star, he's probably going to end up attracting a good number of left-wing voters. But never imagined he would defeat the Cuomo dynasty and all the billionaire money behind it. 

As Zohran started increasing in the polls and then clearly became the main threat to Cuomo, huge amounts of billionaire money, largely afraid, in part about Zohran's democratic socialist policy, kind of a type of democratic socialism of Bernie Sanders and AOC. I know people want to call it communism, which just isn't. But obviously, people on Wall Street hated it, which definitely means things like increasing taxes on the rich, redistributing resources to the working class and poor people. It is that philosophy that people on Wall Street hate, that big billionaires hate. Also, he's a very outspoken critic of Israel, which in New York, with a very large Jewish population, a very large pro-Israel faction that's very powerful, is typically not something you can be. I mean, even the Democrats who won, like Ed Koch and Bill de Blasio, have been typically pro-Israel. That's just a red line for any politician who has ambitions in New York. 

He has said things like he supports a boycott and divestment sanction; he's talked about globalizing the intifada. Interestingly, unlike people who, when they run for office, have their past quotes dug up and are confronted with them and they repudiate them immediately, like Kamala Harris reputed everything she said she believed when running for president in the Democratic primary in 2019 and they brought it all to her when she was running in the general election. 

Mamdani did not do any of that. He was asked, “Do you still support the globalizing intifada instead of running away from it?” And he said, “Yeah, I do, but I think it's often distorted. It doesn't mean anything more than a struggle, a resistance, not blowing people up.” He supports boycotting Israel; he didn't repudiate that. He was asked whether, given Benjamin Netanyahu's indictment and the warrants for his arrest issued by the ICC, he would have him arrested if he came to New York, and he said he would. So, obviously, a lot of billionaires like Bill Ackman, whose primary loyalty is to Israel, were desperate to make sure Mamdani didn't win. 

I promise you, Bill Ackman does not care about zoning laws or the efficiency of services in New York. He has about 10 estates all over the world. To the extent he lives in New York, he lives in a $30 million duplex apartment very high above Manhattan, he chauffeured around in cars and the like. That's not his interest. His interest was in stopping somebody who was critical of Israel, and he put huge amounts of money, as did other billionaires, into packs for Andrew Cuomo that largely just attacked Zohran Mamdani as an anti-Semite, all the rest. And none of it worked, even though usually those things are guaranteed to work in any major democratic race. 

It's very difficult when I watch Democrats trying to convince Americans that Donald Trump was a Hitler-like figure, it's like a vicious dictator who was going to put people in camps. One of the reasons why it was so hard to do that, why it was so obviously destined to fail, was because Trump doesn't read that way. Americans watched him for four years in the presidency and they, even the ones who didn't like him, didn't see him as Hitler. And so, this attempt to try to turn Zohran Mamdani into a raging anti-Semite, I mean, we showed you a few of these tweets throughout the week, just absolutely insane ones from people saying his election would be an existential threat to New York Jews. What is he going to do, like round them up from synagogues and put them in concentration camps, is that what Zohran Mamdani is going to do? 

The reason it doesn't work is that you just listen to the guy for three minutes and you see that he is not anything resembling that. He has a lot of policies, especially culture war ones, with which I'm uncomfortable. His economic policies are ones that obviously a lot of people are going to have problems with, but the idea that he's like Osama bin Laden, or Joseph Stalin, that just doesn't work. If you just listen to who he is, how he speaks, what he says – there has to be some alignment with the smears with the person in order for it to work. 

A lot of liberals have this monolithic view that everybody on the right has the same exact views of everything, there are no divisions, and of course you pay attention to right-wing politics, there are major ideological rifts and divisions and debates. We saw it with the Iran war and many other issues already, H-1B visas, all sorts of things. But a lot of people on the right see the Democratic Party as this monolith as well. They think like Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi are the same, like, AOC or Bernie or Zohran, and it's completely untrue. 

New York City doesn't elect socialists. When they elect Democrats, they elect very established – Ed Koch was a very centrist member of Congress for a long time, very pro-Israel, always at war with the left-wing of the Democratic Party, kind of the classic New York city mayor, very outspoken, loud, kind of charismatic in his own sort of way. And even Bill de Blasio, who was considered more progressive, had very close relations with the large New York City developers, even though Wall Street didn't like Bill de Blasio. 

So, it's hard to overstate what a sea change this is. Even if you think New York City is a cesspool of baffling, it's not. I mean, it is in little places, but a citywide election, that's not who wins in New York. 

Here, just to give you a sense of the funding gap. I'm doing this because I want to underscore to you how improbable this victory is, what a reflection of it it is of a remarkable sea change in how American voters are thinking about politics or thinking about elections, what they respond to, what they don't respond to, not just on the left, but on the right, not in Democratic Party or the Republican Party, but across the spectrum. 

AD_4nXfmqcyWY5hszM_ZgVpseXQysH8q33M0UFFFfhBhMEyFZbHrymX_5KWejL6IAx99ZNKjkMxoFgP29o-N_WY9adfaxtFkksZb-CW1ZoBtKgHq1SPMG8rqGU1-VN2UTqTiRWbQ7-lBuXBXMguj2hpO_do?key=TIQi3Fa0JLGop5rXvVQtjA

You have three types of funding: campaign funding directly, matching public funds and then aligned super PACs. Andrew Cuomo had at least $35 million, $35.6 million. In second place, was Zohran with 9.1, almost entirely small donors. So, look at this gap, talking about a gap of $25 million – $25 billion for a city-wide race. And that's why people are describing it as such a major upset.

Now, just so you don't think I'm like hopping on some train once it left the station, pretending that I knew all along, I've watched Zohran for quite a while now, but I'm going to show you the reasons why. Back in February, when he was at less than 1% of the polls, I just wanted to draw people's attention to him, even though nobody was paying attention then, because I could see the kind of campaign he was running. I, for the first time, understood what his political talent was. It's just like a native inborn thing that you either have or you don't. He has it. He's a very effective political speaker, but he just kind of has an energy that people find attractive and appealing. And to be clear, I hate the fact that if you analyze somebody's political appeal in a positive way, people are like, “Oh, you're a cheerleader for him. You must love him.” I went through this with Donald Trump for so many years, I would say liberals don't understand Trump's appeal. He's funny, he is charismatic and exciting and he vessels and channels anti-establishment hatred, which is the driving force of American politics and American political life, and you should understand that about him. 

I can admit that the people I can't stand most, Dick Cheney, are very smart. I can acknowledge that attribute of theirs without liking them. So, what I'm saying here is it's important to understand why's Zohran had this political appeal. It doesn't mean you like him or hate him. It's a completely separate question. 

So back in February, I wrote this:

AD_4nXcK-v6KCEnuwTyp7LP-G1IrHv4NjO_qnW10En5eUeH0cO2jXySdE6PniaI6EZbt36kMRiPzGwCX4wQ35SydndF5AwV21DUhEhJGCW_cptLcj6RG56VJr7ZxTDTEYUvdg5FhjpP0_czm3sF_SgZVuW4?key=TIQi3Fa0JLGop5rXvVQtjA

So, it was clear to me something was happening there. I'm not suggesting I knew he was going to win. I just knew that there was a lot of potential there, people should pay more attention to him. And so the question is, okay, why did this happen? 

So, I want to show you a video that was probably the first thing that really attracted my attention to him and why I thought he was just a very different kind of Democrat. 

 This is at a time when Joy Reid and MSNBC were telling everybody that Trump won simply because white voters are too racist and misogynist to vote for a black woman, which is a very self-certifying, pleasant narrative to tell yourself. But here's what Zohran did. He went specifically to the neighborhoods in New York City that had the biggest swing from Democratic voters to Trump. They weren't the Upper West Side or the East Side. They were poor neighborhoods, working-class neighborhoods, racially diverse neighborhoods, or even predominantly Black or Latino neighborhoods, immigrant neighborhoods. All he did was go around and ask them why they voted for Trump and the things that they told him clearly shaped what he decided to do when forming his own campaign and the issues that he wanted to emphasize. In other words, he went to speak to the people of New York and asked why they were dissatisfied and then formed a campaign to speak to what their dissatisfactions and desires were. Imagine doing that. He didn't go to consultants or political strategists or whatever; he really just went and talked to voters. 

Listen to what happened. Listen to how he did it, too. 

Video. Zohran Mamdani, X. November 15, 2024.

That's a very good sampling of why a lot of people voted for Trump. The Democrats want to send all our money to wars in Ukraine and Israel, we can't afford things, they only care about the wealthy. 

The things that they care about are obvious, the things that they encounter every day in their lives, the bus fares and the cost of rent and the like. And that's what his entire campaign was structured around. 

A lot of people found tweets of his from 2020 when he was in his mid to late twenties, running for New York assembly right during Black Lives Matter. Tons of left-wing culture war, nonsense, lots of extreme positions. He was positioning himself for a very left-wing seat in the state assembly, stuff like defund the police over and over, queer liberation requires defund of the police. Things that, obviously, if you're running in a citywide election, you're not going to run on. And he didn't. He ran a very economic populist campaign, despite being called a communist or a socialist or whatever. 

I want to show you this clip that I also found incredibly interesting. So, this is one that he did in January, when again, people really weren't paying attention to him and he posted a video with a tweet, and the tweet said: “Chicken over rice now costs $10 or more. It's time to make halal eight bucks again.”

Video. Zohran Mamdani, X. January 13, 2025.

 If you live in New York City, one of the things you see everywhere is street vendors. Lots of people buy food from street vendors, like snacks, pretzels, or all kinds of ethnically diverse food that you can eat from. If you don't have time to sit in a restaurant, you grab something from one of these street vendors and, especially in the more working-class neighborhoods, it's where people eat and people are complaining that the price of that food is increasing. If you're Andrew Cuomo, you don't eat at these; you have no idea about any of this. If you're Bill Ackman, obviously you don’t have any clue. You think that voters are going to vote on the fact that Iran is not pro-Israel enough, voters in New York City, that's what they wake up and care about? Just like the Democrats thought voters were going to wake up and care about Trump having praised a fascist, or fascist or Hitler, or whatever, so removed from their lives, or Ukraine. 

This is what populism is. I saw people today, a lot of conservatives, saying when I called it economic populism, “Oh, socialism is an economic populist.” No, when you appeal to people's life, when you tell them the rich and corporations are running roughshod over you, are preventing you from having a survivable or affordable life, and that's what became his keyword is affordability which obviously a lot of New Yorkers are being driven out of New York City, they can't afford it anymore, things are too expensive. 

So, look at what he did in this video. You tell me if this is like some sort of Stalinist communist, at least in terms of how he ran his campaign. He wanted to understand why chicken over rice, something that people eat every day in New York City, especially in more working-class neighborhoods, and why that food has increased. So he did his analysis, and concluded that the solution was to change a few things.

The laws that he's promoting here, the four laws are number one, better access to business licensing, repeal criminal liability for street vendors, services for vendors, and reform the sitting rules. It's almost like libertarian, like “Oh, there's too much bureaucracy, too many too many rigorous permit requirements, they have to pay someone else as a permit owner $20,000 a year, which obviously affects food prices. 

I mean, on top of the very kind of regular person appeal of that, talking about things that people care about a lot, things that are affecting their lives, talking about solutions to them in a very non-ideological way. There's also a lot of humor in there, a lot of kind of flair, something you want to watch. It's not like a lecture, it's not like an angry rant. You look at this and it's not hard to see why he won. 

Now, let me show you the counterattack, the way they thought the Andrew Cuomos of the world thought they were going to sabotage him. It's an amazing thing.

 This is the New York mayoral debate. There were, I think, seven candidates, eight candidates on the stage, and it was hosted by the local NBC News affiliate. And just listen to this question that they thought was important for people wanting to be New York City mayor to answer and how they all answered, except for Zohran. 

Video. New York Mayoral Debate, NBC News. June 4, 2025.

So, do you see how excited Andrew Cuomo got? He really did base a huge part of his campaign on his loyalty to Israel, his love of Israel, his long-time support for Israel, his father's support for Israel, his family's support for Israel. And you heard those voters who voted for Trump when asked why. Did any of them say, “Oh, I think Democrats are insufficiently pro-Israel?” No, no one said that. These people aren't waking up and thinking, I want to make sure my mayor is going to go to Israel as the very first foreign visit. 

It was supposed to be controversial that he said, “Look, I'm the New York City mayor. That's what I'm running for. Not the Secretary of State. I'm not thinking about foreign trips. I'm actually wanting to represent the people of New York City. I'm going to stay here at home and talk to the people I'm supposed to be working for. Why would I plan my overseas trips and make sure Israel is for?” 

“Oh, a lot of them said Israel. One of them, said, “Oh, the Holy Land, Israel.” So that was supposed to be the kind of thing that they thought was going to sabotage him. They have these old ideas on their heads about what you can and can't do. That's why Trump won, too. He broke all of those rules that people thought were still valid and he proved they weren't. 

Now, just a couple of things here. If you want to win in the Democratic primary in New York City, you can't just rely on left-wing voters. Like DSA, Democratic Socialists of America, AOC-Bernie types, that can give you a certain momentum, a certain energy, but you're not going to win a city-wide race just with those kinds of voters. You have to attract a lot of normie, liberal Democrats. That's who lives in New York City. 

 They're not people who hate Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden. These are not them. There are some in places like Brooklyn and Queens, but the majority of Democrats in New York City and most liberal American cities are very normal Democrats. They love the democratic establishment; they love Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. Chuck Schumer represents New York and has forever. That's who they like. That's what you need to attract: those voters. 

 

They've become convinced that the Democrats has this kind of aged stagnant, listless, slow, uninteresting leadership base. And it's true. It's basically an aristocracy. Obviously, the debacle with Biden underscored that more than anything. They were being told they had to get behind someone who was suffering from dementia. And so, they want this kind of new energy, this exciting energy. That's a big part of it. 

It was kind of a referendum on what Democrats want their party to be. They don't want to be voting for a 67-year-old person of politics for 40 years, who has billionaire money behind him as part of the democratic establishment, who was in the Clinton cabinet, have Bill Clinton kind of come in from wherever he is and be like, yeah, I'm endorsing Andrew Cuomo. That's not appealing to these Democrats anymore. They know that they can't keep going down that road. 

So that's part of it. But I really think a big part of is that the primary division, not just American politics, but politics throughout the democratic world, certainly something we've talked a lot about before, is the difference between someone perceived to be part of the establishment and someone who seems to be an outsider, who hates the establishment. There are a lot of people in the United States, millions, who voted twice for President Obama in 2008, 2012, and then voted for Donald Trump in 2016. That's a reason why Trump won. And people who continue

Read full Article
post photo preview
Glenn Takes Your Questions on War with Iran, Executive Power, the Trump Presidency, and More
System Update #473

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_4nXe8KrWPtheBtj3TNK0GTDJj-j-IRu5nvWvk6JFZaj2gK7NumsQriYbJVofe0xyTCkr6A2DjUogTRL4myoKLBSd-lye4oNJ-N2wUST3Q4Ep3jFRp1Z9LK_LALNMUMHq5hGBg2kUMTKdHR-FcCBOkr14?key=e_ZHnrFqkrp2Zy5WcoMRBg

As you probably know, Friday night is when we try to have our Q&A session. The questions are submitted only by our Locals members. We try to do it every Friday night, but when news events are developing, major news events that we have to discuss – and preparations for a huge war, a huge, dangerous, destructive war, are the kind of thing that we're going to cover and often everything is very fast-moving so, oftentimes, we end up having to cover something on Friday and not being able to do the Q&A we wanted. 

The list of questions is always eclectic. We try to choose a variety of topics, people who haven't asked questions and who have, people who are critical and people who aren't, we always look for good-faith, critical comments and we have a couple of those tonight. So, let me just dive into this. You don't need all the prefacing and the explanations. Most of you are probably very familiar with this arrangement and it's not particularly complicated; it doesn't require a lot of explanation. It's just a Q&A. 

AD_4nXfaWfmyoPkXx-ZomkmyTHWNh152WuY7LMYfyMX6YqKglDa4hgBXUp2J3tQmbjdG4ln-lbXY8VbWgrwQljSIV2xqS9YB3Oy3qCCe-seZumEQzTYt37BfdSTtJ48npmh8qLKhapbGNGRbZXHvxE6ee7s?key=e_ZHnrFqkrp2Zy5WcoMRBg

The first question comes from @wineverett:

AD_4nXejGgF2oFWtXcLHWYVib7eofz5CHIae8dHUYiabn_FF4TLkumNwoymkSH6hh384RkykamSMNRBR59rbywp8Dyb4sKz9UkPIAME-2HM_Tq6mEEqTy4uvJQFQFMAtbuztTciaBQbys6pS7TW4zNT29A?key=e_ZHnrFqkrp2Zy5WcoMRBg

AD_4nXevbaJAHezTziEqaR9BALxVFd8__O0IVRA9cS0nCq3OFHQ6dfWIpd9fjVnuuxHDPIJ9GRBEJSZTXK0amA6lAxOI9fK-Mu6QFCa-9Zntvdpng0BbSlQ3xcw-rJNOey5lDcRQWI9yk7Xb271di8JudR0?key=e_ZHnrFqkrp2Zy5WcoMRBg

All right. I could not agree more with all of that. I think a major reason for Donald Trump's victories and, by victory I mean starting in 2016 when he was never even remotely considered a candidate or politician and he's gunned down the field of all those professional, highly funded Republican politicians starting with Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, all through them, got the nomination and then crushed the Clinton political machine, obviously filled with nothing but political animals, long-term professional career politicians, is precisely for this reason. People understand that both political parties speak a language, live in a world, spend money on things, talk about things, vote on things completely detached from their concerns and their lives and that's why they've lost faith and trust in most institutes of authority because they perceive correctly that people in power who are there to essentially represent them care about everything other than what they care about. It's so incredibly obvious from how these people speak to what they say, and Donald Trump was the first to come along and sort of break all those rules that people have come to hate about how they speak, how they talk, what they talk about, the things you're allowed to say and he was basically a weapon to smash that glass, to smash the system that they were so eager to smash. 

Obviously, Donald Trump is now a politician. There's no denying that. It doesn't mean it's bad, it doesn't mean it’s good, he's been president for four years, spent four more years running for president and is now president again. So, the last 10 years of our political lives have been dominated by the political figure of Donald Trump. It's clearly the Trump era of politics. He's not really an outsider force anymore. He can't be president twice, having run a third time and almost won, just constantly running for president for 10 years, and be a political outsider anymore. 

He's still an outsider in a lot of different ways, compartmentally and the like, but it's not as appealing, I think, as it once was and especially now that we're watching in the first five months of this first term, that was consumed by things like tariffs which was a major promise of the Trump campaign, no doubt but I think people ended up feeling like economically they had been beaten upon and crushed for so long, including by the Biden years, that there was, even Trump admitted, short-term pain, the stock market became unstable, it went down, people's investments and retirements funds became less valuable, small businesses struggled. So, that was already kind of a feeling that, wow, we have Trump again, who promised to help us in the working-class, but instead, we seem to be suffering with this tariff policy that we're being told will have long-term benefits, but for the moment, we don't seem to have them. 

And now, political discourse is being dominated by a potential war with Iran that I just don't think most people have spent the last two years caring about. I used to always say about Russia when Democrats are spending all that time on the evils of Putin and the threats posed by Russia, it's just so obvious there's a huge gap between what Democrats spend all their time talking and warning about and what Americans wake up thinking about. I just know that Americans are not waking up worried about Vladimir Putin and the threat posed by Russia. That's not something they're scared about. They were during the Cold War, when nuclear war was very possible, people were taught to go to shelters, which was very much part of the culture, and there was an existential war between communism and capitalism. There was a lot at stake. But people don't worry about Russia anymore. They don't consider Vladimir Putin one of the leading threats to their well-being, unless you are an MSNBC viewer. And so, there was this gigantic gap between what Democrats were talking about and what people care about. I think that's the reason they ended up losing. 

But now you look at what Republicans have talked about. What has Trump done aside from tariffs? He's gotten in and he resumed a bombing campaign in Yemen against Houthis and unleashed the Israelis again to continue their destruction of Gaza, which the United States is paying for. Started deporting, not people in the United States illegally or who have committed crimes, but people who were guilty of the crime of protesting Israel or speaking out against Israel. I think that's what people were worried about: people in the country legally, PhD students, Fulbright scholars, biologists, chemists, with nothing but a record of achievement, being booted out with a new precedent because they spoke out against Israel. I mean, people were definitely worried about illegal immigration, especially people who are dangerous to their children or their communities. You think they're worried about Harvard and Yale biologists who wrote up ads about Israel? So, a lot of that as well. 

And now we have this war with Iran, which, if you ask, you can get polling answers or polling data about anything the way you want, based on how you ask the question. So, if you say, “Look, Iran is about to get a nuclear weapon, should the United States do nothing, or should it try to do what it can, even if it means military force, to stop Iran from getting a new weapon?” Yeah, we don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. But if you say, “Israel has launched a war against Iran, do you think the United States should involve itself militarily in a new foreign war in the Middle East? Overwhelmingly, people say no, and polls are showing both. 

I don't care what the polling data is, if you ask somebody, “Do you want Iran to have nuclear weapons? Yes, or no?” I do not believe that Americans are waking up saying in the morning, “Wow, I couldn't sleep last night because I'm really worried about the prospect that Iran is going to get nuclear weapons.” 

By every account, they don't even have the missile capability to send one to the United States. Even if they could, why would they? North Korea doesn’t. Everyone understands that it's going to be immediate mutual suicide. I just don't think that's what people care about in their lives and polls constantly should have shown that. I don't think people elected Donald Trump to go to war with Iran or to restart the bombing campaign against the Houthis. And that's all they're hearing about now. That's what the Trump administration is focused on, which is not what the American people are focused on. I know this from polling data; I cover politics and we've all seen over time what Americans care about and what they don't care about and when they feel like their interests are ignored and when their interests are not. 

I want to just answer this with a story about Marjorie Taylor Greene. Not really a story so much as kind of my thoughts on Marjorie Taylor Greene. So, I want to be very honest and say that I really like Marjorie Taylor Greene, I have always liked Marjorie Taylor Greene. I think she's a good person. I think that she's sincere and earnest about the things she says and believes. Obviously, Marjorie Taylor Greene has said things over the last many years that I don't agree with, that you can describe as whatever, outside of the realm of what reality is. I think most politicians do. I think Donald Trump running around talking about how Iran's about to get a nuclear weapon and use it or whatever, that's way outside the realm of reality, to say nothing of what was said about the Iraq war and the 2008 financial crisis. But the reason I like Marjorie Taylor Greene is that she is what a lot of people wanted and were so fond of, so attracted to Trump. 

Marjorie Taylor Greene was never a politician. She didn't run for office, she wasn't like on the city council and then in the state legislature in Georgia and then worked her way up to the Georgia state Senate and was being groomed by the Republican Party to one day run for Congress, like kind of a career politician. That was not Marjorie Taylor Greene. She has a business, the business is prosperous, she's not incredibly rich, but probably upper middle class; she lives on a good upscale Georgia suburb. And she became very politically active with the MAGA movement and America First. It resonated with her just as a citizen and then she got politically involved and probably had some connections and money that helped. 

However, she wasn't part of a political dynasty, nor was her father the governor or anything. She really just did the kind of classic “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” type of political trajectory, where a citizen wakes up and says, I'm starting to get angry and concerned by what my government is doing. I think it's totally on the wrong track, the things they're saying make no sense, and I don't think they're representing our interests. 

She got very inspired by Donald Trump and the MAGA movement and took it seriously and she suddenly became a member of Congress. And, yeah, because she's somebody who was not a trained politician, she often was not on script. She's charismatic and she says things that get people riled up and that bring a lot of media attention. That's why there's so much attention on Jasmine Crockett as well, not because she is some important figure in the House Democratic caucus, but because she says that gets people angry and cable news loves that and builds those people with a big platform. That's what happened to Marjorie Taylor Greene, but I don't think Marjorie Taylor Greene was ever doing or saying things on purpose to make people angry. I think she was doing and saying things that she really believed in that if you go to her district, I guarantee you, people like her, people who live near her, people who lived in her district, which is why they voted for her and keep re-electing her, despite how much the media hates her and says she's so evil and bad. 

I've talked to her before. I found her to be exactly the same when talking personally to her and when I listened to her in public. I've had her on the show before, and one of the things that really I found so interesting and eye-opening about Marjorie Taylor Green is that she's been reluctant to criticize Donald Trump too much previously. 

I remember I had her in the show. She was one of those people very much against the Ukraine war, making all those good arguments that I agree with about how we have women who can't get baby formula and our communities are falling apart. Why are we sending billions to finance a war that has nothing to do with us? I remember I asked her, like, does that apply to Israel, that rationale? It seems like it should, does it? And she wasn't enough confidence to say like, yeah, also Israel. That's a very sensitive topic, she knows that. But sometimes you get to Washington, and you have to find your way, you've got to understand how things work, especially if you're not a career politician. 

I remember when I started journalism, there were a lot of things I didn't understand. I hadn't done it full-time, I thought I knew about things, but once I really started looking, I started learning things and realizing how much I didn't know. And so, it took me a while to kind of feel like, okay, I have a good, secure sense of where things are. And I think that's where she is.

 When Donald Trump announced this new bombing campaign in Yemen, she was very outspoken against it and the way she made the argument really struck me. She said, “You know what, I've been a Congresswoman now for six years, or whatever it is, representing my district, but I've lived in my district forever. Nobody in my District even knows what a Houthi is. Nobody talks about Houthis, nobody has met Houthis, nobody is threatened by Houthis, nobody fears Houthis and nobody understands why we are spending all this money to bomb the Houthis. What does this have to do with us?” 

I thought about it. I was like, that's the benefit of having people who are not professional politicians. One of the things that makes Kamala Harris such a terrible candidate is that she worked her way up that ladder from her mid-20s. She's basically been a politician her whole life. She got elected to the San Francisco District Attorney, very ambitious. You can go find national interviews with her because she was doing things like imprisoning parents for truancy if their kids didn't go to school. “Good Morning, America” and those types of shows loved her. She parlayed that into a run for Attorney General of California, won that, worked her way up to the California Senate, and then became Vice President. And she never had a moment where she was off script, where she was saying things that people in Washington would be like, “What? What is that?” She clung to those scripts like her life depended on it. She was petrified of saying anything that official Washington would find odd or strange to disapprove of. And as a result, she was totally vacant. She never spoke naturally, she never spoken like a human being because that's all she knows is she's been clicked into the political system and she speaks about the things that her donors care about, that other politicians care about, that the media she consumes talks about and she has no ability to say what Marjorie Taylor Greene said, no courage to say it, even if she understood it. 

You can take that too far, before 9/11, and nobody in America, for the most part, understood what al-Qaeda was, thought much about al-Qaeda, didn't mean the government should not do anything about al-Qaeda. Of course, sometimes the government has to work on things that are real threats or problems that most people don't know about or think about or understand, but I think there's a basic wisdom to the idea of asking, especially when we're going to war, why are we bombing and killing these people on Yemen? What do they have to do with us? And at the time, they were not attacking American ships, we've gone through that timeline before, and the only reason they had been previously was because they knew we were arming and funding Israel's destruction of Gaza, so even that was because we were financing and fighting a war for a foreign country, and the way Marjorie Taylor Green said it was like, “a Houthi, well, who knows even, in my district, what a Houthi is? I'm not going to cheerlead a war against the Houthis that have nothing to do with the lives of the people who sent me to Washington.” 

And then, when it came to this war in Iran, she lost all fear or concern about recognizing the relationship between the United States and Israel, and in whose benefit that relationship is, and who's really pushing and shaping the decisions of the United States Congress and the executive branch when it comes to war. 

I think she has enough confidence now, she's seen enough, she’s learned enough, she's read enough, and she understands enough. Marjorie Taylor Greene is not dumb. I'm sure Democrats will say she is. She's not dumb, she is smart. She just doesn't speak like Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton, or Joe Biden because she's not from that. She doesn't emerge from that; she's a citizen. 

That was the idea, by the way, of the Congress, we weren't going to have a professional class of politicians, we're going to have people who represented their constituents, get sent to Congress for a few years and then go back to their lives and do what they were doing previously. And that's the kind of person she still is. She's very much still a resident of her Georgia district, much more so than a creature of Washington and so, she can think about things and say them in a way most Americans are still thinking and saying them. 

And when it came time for the war in Iran, too, she was like, “I am just sick” of having all of our money and all of her service members be put in harm's way for these wars that have nothing to do with our country. “Ukraine is not our country and Ukraine's wars are not our wars. Israel is not out country and Israel's wars are not out wars.” And I think she's able to speak so plainly about these things and insist that we focus on the things that her constituents and people in America really care about because she's not subservient to or taking orders from a political party or a kind of system. 

There are other people like her in Congress, too. I'm not suggesting she's the only one. I'm just saying she's been very noticeable over the last three, four months, because, especially when it comes to foreign policy, that's where politicians typically step most delicately and she's not stepping delicately at all. To me, she's become a voice of great clarity and confidence, and I think she's earnest about everything she's saying. I'm talking about these things the way most people talk about them. 

I've told stories before, and I hate to romanticize them. I'm not going to even tell the stories because I've told them too many times. Probably you've already heard them. But if you go to the United States and you get anonymous and you just go to some, like, again, it sounds so cliche, but like a diner, where you talk to drivers of Ubers or taxis or whatever, it is enlightening. You hear things that are actual wisdom, just common-sense wisdom, that no people who work on politics and are paid to work in politics in D.C. and New York ever say that is that chasm, it's a huge chasm.

Now, all of official Washington is worried about a war with Iran that I do not believe most people in the United States view as a threat or something that ought to be subsuming their lives. I don't think they want Donald Trump, whom they elected to benefit their lives as working-class people, to be focused on yet another new war in the Middle East. 

I think that's why he's hesitating too, that he has a sense for that. A good sense for that. He's a good politician in that way. It's like instinctive and I think the more Trump goes in those directions that are basically the Bush, Obama, Biden direction, the more people are going to start to see him as like every other politician in that attachment that people had to him, similar to the attachment they had to Obama, who people also viewed as a transformative figure of change but quickly became a just a mouthpiece for the establishment of the perpetuation of the status quo in Washington. They lost that inspirational connection to him. I think that's going to happen to Trump as well if he continues down this path. 

AD_4nXfaWfmyoPkXx-ZomkmyTHWNh152WuY7LMYfyMX6YqKglDa4hgBXUp2J3tQmbjdG4ln-lbXY8VbWgrwQljSIV2xqS9YB3Oy3qCCe-seZumEQzTYt37BfdSTtJ48npmh8qLKhapbGNGRbZXHvxE6ee7s?key=e_ZHnrFqkrp2Zy5WcoMRBg

All right, next question. @Commissar69 asks:

AD_4nXcbot7Ll9rtFzXT-Ak1-3GHSwnAyBq0-XAXB0mjAw0_uXqDWzQL7Tvt2BlPRJtRxcmt3AzMWavKtZGFt3lEnpaYUp9v5PwCH9hu8SgzI0eRqfAfAQNmN2m-YbmVRgVX27_jFjLbaI8HJBTBtRNXSMs?key=e_ZHnrFqkrp2Zy5WcoMRBg

It is amazing to me that you go study the Constitution, you go to law school, not even law school, our civics class, and the design of the Constitution, in some cases, is kind of ambiguous. They constructed that on purpose, that was part of how they obtained the votes they needed to ratify it: leaving some things purposely left ambiguous that would be interpreted in the future. So, you could tell people whose votes you needed, it could mean this: you tell other people you needed who thought differently, it could mean that. 

So, some of it is ambiguous, but some of it is not. It's not ambiguous because of the language, it's not ambiguous because of what the Federalist Papers say, it's not ambiguous because of the debates that were had. 

One of the things that was not ambiguous is that if the United States is going to go to war, it can do so only if Congress declares war. Only Congress has the power to declare war. The rationale for this is very clear: it was assumed, based on experience at the time, that if we go to a war, people are going to be drafted and it's the ordinary citizen who's going to go and die in these wars and the only way the United States should go to war is if the people consent, through their representatives in the House and the Senate. And I can read you so much from the Federalist Papers talking about this. 

The president is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. By the way, the armed forces were not intended to be a standing army. The founders really feared standing armies, meaning like armed agents of the federal government, like the ATF or the FBI. They're basically like armed permanent agents or armies, but also the army itself. That's why they talked about well-regulated militias. You compile an army when you want to go fight a war, but you don't have a permanent standing army. They thought that was dangerous. 

So, when they said the president is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, what that meant is Congress approves a war and we go to war, and the person responsible for executing that war – because you cannot have Congress managing the war, you need a leader, a military leader, and we wanted civilian rule, it's not a top general – it is an elected president, he becomes the commander-in-chief of the armed forces that makes the decision about how that war will be fought. 

For a lot of reasons, over the last decades, we've completely forgotten about, ignored, the congressional power to declare war. I believe the last war we declared was the Korean War.

Now, the idea there is if Congress really was serious about this, they could have cut off funds for the war, but mostly it's been a desire by Congress not to have to take the hard vote of voting yes or no on a war. I mean, it destroyed political careers. Hillary Clinton lost because she was forced to vote on the Iraq War and voted yes. It got tied to John Kerry when he tried to run against Bush in 2004, against the Iraq War, when he had voted yes on it 18 months earlier. Joe Biden voted for it as well. It definitely was a huge reason why Hillary Clinton lost to Barack Obama in 2008 and even why Hillary Clinton was weaker than she could have been when running against Bernie Sanders in 2016, because of that Iraq War vote. They don't want to vote on war. They're happy to leave it to the president. So, they purposely kind of gave up the power that the Constitution assigned to them. It's really an abdication of their responsibility. But politicians don't want to take hard votes. 

And now the view of the executive, I remember very well that Bush and, I mean, of course, if our country is attacked, it's like this sudden invasion, the way Iran had with Israel, suddenly attacking it out of nowhere, of course, the president has the responsibility to order the country defended without first going to Congress and waiting for a vote. That's the one exception. 

That didn't apply to the war in Iraq, but Bush-Cheney said we have the right to go invade Iraq even without congressional support. And now that's the view of the Trump administration: we don't need to go to Congress to start the war in Iran. Why? Why don't you? If you want to enter a war with Iran, that's not an emergency war. Iran is not attacking the United States. Why don't you need a vote in Congress? But most people in Congress don't want that responsibility. They'd rather let Trump take the blame for it if things go wrong. 

And so, we basically have a president who single-handedly runs foreign policy, runs the intelligence community. We barely have a functional Congress at all. 

I mean, I'll just give you one example that's kind of amazing. Most of you who watch this show for a while know that I was vehemently opposed to the ban of TikTok or the forced sale of it, talked about a lot of reasons about why it’s a major act of censorship to just ban a social media app that a third of Americans – a third – and a majority of young people are voluntarily choosing to use, just saying, “No, you can't use it. We don't like that one anymore; we don't like the content there.” 

It was originally justified because Chinese ownership and influence were nefarious. That wasn't enough to get the votes, what finally got the votes was the view that there was too much anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian speech being allowed on TikTok and that was what was turning the nation's youth against Israel. And that's the reason why Democrats finally joined, and the Biden administration advocated the banning of TikTok. 

I was vehemently opposed to that, but Congress did pass it. The House passed it, the Senate passed it with a bipartisan majority, an overwhelming bipartisan majority. Their argument was that it's vital to our national security to ban TikTok. Joe Biden signed it into law and it had a deadline in the law that it had to be banned or sold the day after the election. They didn't want TikTok being shut down during the election so that Biden would get blamed, so they cynically made it the day after, and then Trump had 90 days to extend it if he wanted one time. 

Trump extended it, that 90 days came and went; he extended it again, for another 90 days that came and went, he just extended it again. In other words, he's just refusing to implement the law that Congress passed. And nobody cares! Do you hear anyone in Congress saying, “President Trump, we passed this law because we said it was vital to national security, what right do you have to ignore the law?” 

We basically are a country now that has centralized so much power in the presidency that Congress barely exists, except as a sort of symbolic body of pretense of democracy. George Bush and the Democrats under Obama and Biden, and especially now against Trump, of course, the whole idea: each branch is going to want to grab more power for itself. In that fight, the Congress is trying to take this from the executive, the executive says “No, that's ours,” the court says, “No, that's ours,” Congress says, “No, that's ours,” and you get a balance of power. But when one of the branches, Congress, just says, “We're content not to fight for any of our power. You can have it all, we just want to get reelected, enjoy the perks of our office, travel around the world, get the title, be perpetually re-elected, have these nice offices in the Capitol building, go on TV, get special privileges and perks,” then you don't have balance of power anymore. You have the centralization of power in a president and an executive that the founders were really here to avoid. That has completely twisted and distorted what our political system is supposed to be. It by no means started with Trump. 

The Trump administration came in as one of its major plans to eliminate anything that could oppose it, including Congress. Trump uses threats against the Republicans and all sorts of other means. But he's just continuing a trend that started, I would say, that ideas were formed by the Dick Cheney in the 1980s, but really implemented with 9/11 as the pretext by Bush-Cheney. It's just all grown as powers do from there, and we have a model of the government that is very unlike what the founders envisioned. Of course, it affects all the discourses as well. 

AD_4nXfaWfmyoPkXx-ZomkmyTHWNh152WuY7LMYfyMX6YqKglDa4hgBXUp2J3tQmbjdG4ln-lbXY8VbWgrwQljSIV2xqS9YB3Oy3qCCe-seZumEQzTYt37BfdSTtJ48npmh8qLKhapbGNGRbZXHvxE6ee7s?key=e_ZHnrFqkrp2Zy5WcoMRBg

All right, @Readalot. That's a very good name. I hope it's accurate. 

AD_4nXfx_M3YejPrJpL3UOJSujJcYOcwX0Y6FdXMmADcw5AtoQTbEaVO6Zq-hUuUgoJBo34M9J7UHjdH3dIXHWGjo6WmjTMf3iAuW1w2l0LEjtHBKcJTw6tCss1xrLPIa0CT9oUUZLXgTnKYQGfNev9cUi8?key=e_ZHnrFqkrp2Zy5WcoMRBgAD_4nXdzJh-F8T8lAU49bkBx2iFU0CS0ALQcAkDa_-DkIxRAoGtQLmXpqKVwIGCA6xv8yOBofxXML8Y-o2LVpxJWVST_y1wQ67tj24sFkQ7FFQkUS1m8wPc3AzQXxQD0VSXgisoE1zpIBEfm-uaE1KFJXUQ?key=e_ZHnrFqkrp2Zy5WcoMRBg

All right, so that's a critique, a pretty strongly expressed one. So, let me just clarify, because I do think it's good sometimes to just talk to, especially, our members, about how we think of the show, how we try to put the show together. 

When I say that we don't want to be captive of the news cycle, what I mean by that is that 24-hour cable networks are forced to talk about things every day. And even if nothing significant is happening, they'll make something trivial or insignificant the centerpiece of what they talk about so there'll be some offhand comment by Trump, or there'll be some rumor about somebody resigning or somebody being in trouble, or there will be some bickering in the Congress, or there'll be some law that might get passed, that they're speculating about, or some scandal. 

When I say we don't want to be caught at the news cycle, what I mean is, I don't want to come here every night and feel obligated to talk about things that I don't think are interesting or important just because every other media outlet, newspaper, podcast or other show is discussing them. 

In part, I don't want to talk about things I find trivial. That's what I mean by I don't want to be captive by the news cycle. But it also means sometimes there are important things that are going on that I don't feel competent to talk about or I don't have anything particularly interesting to say, I try to be very mindful that when I was writing a lot and I hit publish, and I hope to get back to writing a little more soon, we'll talk about that sometime in the near future, that when you press publish, you're making a claim to your readers that they need to rely on, that when you hit publish, you're saying to them, “Look, I'm promising you that I've written something that I think is worthwhile for you to take your time and read, that I have something to say that is unique or interesting or that sheds light on something important.” I was always very mindful of that. I would rather not write something on a given day than write something that was just I'm writing just to write or because everyone else is talking about it. 

And that also means that I try not to write about things I have no specialized knowledge of and that's why we don't cover economic policy or economic debates very often, almost at all. And if we do, we'll have a guest who's an expert. Every time I covered tariffs, I had a guest on to talk about it. So that's what I mean by not being captive to the news cycle.

Now, having said that, there are obvious topics, major topics, that I do cover, that I've covered for a long time, that I have a specialized knowledge in, a lot of expertise built up over the years, a lot of knowledge about, a lot of passion about, things like foreign policy, things like war, the intelligence community, civil liberties, free speech and when there's major debates like there were with the deportations of students who were here legally because of the speech that they made, or taking immigrants out based on allegations that they were in gangs without any due process, or when there is a new war or foreign policy, obviously I'm going to not just talk about it, I'm going to cover it in depth. 

And so, I don't necessarily want to talk about Israel every night, but the reality is it has been the center of our politics since October 7. We have fought a massive, dangerous war, one of the worst wars, and it's not really even a war, it's just sort of an attack on a population that the United States has paid for. We've supported Israel taking land from Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq – bombing, not taking land from Syria and Lebanon, bombing them and bombing Iraq. And now we're on the verge of a major war with Iran. Of course, I'm going to talk about that a lot. I'm going to talk about it in the lead up to it, I'm not going to talk about it while the war is occurring, which is now, I'm talking about everything related to it, that's not being counted in the news cycle. That's right at the heart of what we do. 

And I think we talk about it and I hope we talk about it in a way that's not being talked about in many other places. They're getting a different kind of perspective on it, a different way to understand it, different types of information, different voices. And when war broke out in Ukraine and the Biden administration decided to be heavily involved in that, we did endless numbers of shows on Ukraine and Russia because that was a proxy war between the two largest nuclear powers on the planet. It had all kinds of things to do with the alignment of each party. We do a lot of political talk that way about what it means to be left and right. What is Democrat and Republican? How has that changed? Is that meaningful? 

So, when we talk about major events like the war in Ukraine, like the destruction of Gaza, like the imminent war in Iran, the ongoing war and our relationship to Israel, as we talked about with Tuck Carlson and Ted Cruz, the attacks on free speech on the Biden administration, the ones from the Trump administration, we don't just repeat over and over whatever the headline is. I think we try and delve deeply into it and talk about everything ancillary because it often sheds light on other parts of it that aren't directly related to it. That's what I mean by not being captive to the news. 

I don't feel obligated to follow the cable news framework of doing a movement, I don't think you have short intelligence span where you can only talk about a topic for four minutes and every four minutes we have to move or talk about something for two minutes, bring on a guest for five minutes, seven minutes maximum, and then move to another topic. We don’t do nine topics a night like a cable show does for an hour. We do one or two topics at the most. We want to dive deeply into them. We respect our audience enough to believe that the people here want to pay close attention, want detailed analysis and want to dive deep into things. And then, when we can and when we have something to do, we will do a show completely detached from the news cycle. 

Last week, we did a very deep dive into Palantir, what that company is, how it started, what its history has been, what it was built for, who runs it, what their ideology is, and what function they're now playing in the government. We do a lot of those. We've done deep dives into the anthrax and things like that, even though that had nothing to do with the topic. We spent a lot of time on COVID and related policies like that. So, I think our range is pretty broad, but yes, if there's a major war that Washington is heavily debating, getting more involved in, that's going to be something we're going to talk about, maybe not every night, but certainly close to it. The consequences of that make it impossible to ignore. 

And it's the sort of thing that, as I said, I think we naturally cover and it would be very odd if people came here, and I spent maybe one night a week, two nights a week, talking about the war with Iran and then just talking about a bunch of other stuff on the other three nights and didn't mention it, especially given how fast moving it is, how much of a debate there is, how much other topics that it implicates. 

We make our own decisions about what's important, what we think we have something unique to offer, provocative, interesting, informative to say, and just say it in a way that other places are not saying it, and we try and take our time to delve in, even though we know that maybe we would have more viewers, potentially, if we just constantly, can get members of Congress to come on the show every night, people want to come on the shows all the time but I want to do one or two topics that I find extremely interesting that give you a kind of an analytical perspective, a depth of information that other platforms don't allow you to. That's the reason I like this platform so much, and I think we try to use it for that end. So that's how we think about putting the show together. 

AD_4nXfaWfmyoPkXx-ZomkmyTHWNh152WuY7LMYfyMX6YqKglDa4hgBXUp2J3tQmbjdG4ln-lbXY8VbWgrwQljSIV2xqS9YB3Oy3qCCe-seZumEQzTYt37BfdSTtJ48npmh8qLKhapbGNGRbZXHvxE6ee7s?key=e_ZHnrFqkrp2Zy5WcoMRBg

All right, last question is a tennis question, which I'm always happy to take. It's from @Alan _Smithee, who I recognize as somebody who submits tennis questions, who says this:

 

AD_4nXdRo06TuEyGEY46oA4Gtzmfwq83LJXXxCV41dIgvv8-eoehmGXPVONPJn04sGytwAnehc1do9YFqgFN5WVVDLhSdJe7mEOvdhWsH-6p7VsE3zVOhlmJoEFkN_rWe6F3_2PwKZaB0KL9B7YGF_pGMfQ?key=e_ZHnrFqkrp2Zy5WcoMRBg

Okay. First of all, that is slander, that last part. I don't pick the slam owners after the event is played. No, I do pick them after, say, the first round. So, I don't like to pick somebody who then gets eliminated in the first run; I like to see how they're kind of playing. It's still not easy to pick the slam winners just after the first round, and I have done a great job on that. 

I did actually watch the Onyx Center match today. He played a player who's one of my favorite players, Alexander Bublik, who has an extremely exotic and idiosyncratic game. He's very funny as a person, but he's extremely talented and inventive, especially on grass, so I like seeing him toy with Center. I don't think it happens a lot that when you move from clay to grass, you lose your first match. Corey Gauff won the French Open, but she lost her first match on grass as well. It just takes some transition. I don't think it means that he's in trouble or he's going to have a bad Wimbledon or anything. 

But anyway, I'll probably pick the winners of Wimbledon when we get a little bit closer to the tournament, as you say sardonically, maybe once we start the tournament, right at the beginning, then you can go and take those to the bank. But if you do and you lose, do not blame me, don't leave me rude and abusive messages, because I do have a lot of knowledge about it. My predictions have been weirdly good for the last year, but that could stop at any time. So, although I'm telling you can rely on me, that doesn't mean that you actually should or can, especially when it comes to betting money that you can't afford to lose. 

All right. Those are all the questions we have for tonight.

Read full Article
post photo preview
Will Tulsi Remain as DNI? Is Bombing Hospitals Permitted Only When Israel Does It? Plus: Glenn Takes Your Questions on Locals
System Update #472

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_4nXdTU4VPQACrdL52oTmVd8b2NLVvbSYD2AtuBUxC6VJb5IyZ6zEjGKjdaQSOgjgj__iMVzzIuMl2Q0Siffp4Yc70Trp5HUz18jEM--f59q1jysd68ejqffcUE9pUygNzN68EyCmvoXNMvi2wjuKyvDs?key=q-KTPUcNzZqsDQH2ZKBp9A

What will become of Tulsi Gabbard? That was the question we posed last night and didn't have time to get to, but we will tonight. She spent years mocking and attacking Donald Trump when he was running for president for wanting to go to war with Iran instead of doing something like reinstating the Iran deal or something similar to it. Her statement to the Senate last March, when she was already confirmed as his director of National Intelligence, where she said the consensus of the intelligence community is that Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons, was not only ignored by Donald Trump but mocked by him. Tulsi has also been excluded from key war planning meetings. Is there any way for her to cling to this position, and should she? We're going to take a look at that. 

Western media outlets today are awash in outrage that one of the ballistic missiles launched by Iran against Israel fell in a hospital that was used, among other things, to treat IDF soldiers injured in Gaza, to send them back to the battlefield. Israeli officials used every single media outlet and social media platform available to demand that the world stop doing what it's doing to honor their unique victimhood and condemn the unique Persian evil of bombing hospitals. I mean, what kind of evil, wretched, immoral country would bomb a hospital? In this case, there were no reported deaths at the hospital that was bombed in Israel. 

It should go without saying that this is the same country, Israel, and the same people, its supporters, who have spent the last 20 months not lobbing ballistic missiles 1,000 miles away, but using precision weapons to shell and destroy the vast majority of functioning hospitals in Gaza, one after the next. 

So, how should we react to Israeli cries of victimhood over this singular landing of a missile on one of their hospitals, given that they have invented endless justifications for almost two years now for why it is not just morally permissible, but imperative for them to bomb not one or two hospitals in Gaza but all of them, to say nothing about their far worse atrocities still? Is it justified to bomb a hospital or not? Or have brand new rules of war and morality been invented over the last two years to justify what Israel, and Israel alone, is permitted to do? We'll take a look at that question as well as some of the most recent updates and news about this still-unfolding war. 

AD_4nXdTU4VPQACrdL52oTmVd8b2NLVvbSYD2AtuBUxC6VJb5IyZ6zEjGKjdaQSOgjgj__iMVzzIuMl2Q0Siffp4Yc70Trp5HUz18jEM--f59q1jysd68ejqffcUE9pUygNzN68EyCmvoXNMvi2wjuKyvDs?key=q-KTPUcNzZqsDQH2ZKBp9A

Most of you know the political history of Tulsi Gabbard. She was elected to Congress in 2016 as a Democratic member of the House of Representatives, representing the state of Hawaii. At the time, I remember all the cable networks that aligned with the Democratic Party, people like Rachel Maddow, were incredibly excited about her election and the political future they believe she represented because she was a young, charismatic, telegenic soldier in the U.S. army who volunteered to go fight in Iraq, fought and saw combat in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and returned as somebody who turned against those wars, who felt she was betrayed in what she was told about those wars and this is the kind of thing Democrats salivate over former soldiers or CIA officials, they've been recruiting people like those for a long time. 

So, when Tulsi Gabbard got elected to the Congress, representing Hawaii as a new member of Congress, again, someone very young, a woman of color, all the things that Democrats get giddy over, they really thought she was going to be the future of the party so much so that they made her very quickly the vice-chair of the Democratic National Committee. She held that position into the 2016 primary, which, although nobody expected it, ended up being this very protracted and contentious war between the Hillary Clinton campaign on the one hand and the Bernie Sanders campaign on the other. Tulsi Gabbard was one of the first to perceive and then to publicly note that the DNC seemed to be cheating to ensure that Hillary Clinton won, even though the DNC's role is to be neutral among the candidates. 

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