Glenn Greenwald
Politics • Writing • Culture
Sahra Wagenknecht on the Failing War in Ukraine, the State of German Politics, and Her New Political Party
Video Transcript
April 19, 2024
post photo preview

Watch the full episode here: 

placeholder
 

Podcast: Apple - Spotify 

Rumble App: Apple - Google


 

NOTE: Exceptionally, this English-language transcript of the interview with Sahra Wagenknecht, originally conducted in German, was released without a paywall for all to enjoy. Locals subscribers have access to a transcript of every System Update episode.


Interview: Sahra Wagenknecht

xstYGYXNmv8R-lhVPTNefhZdSV-sPl-FN23tC95oZ-GiDJUAibsWS9p8Xb60dzrvs_BeFVY_IzfGESNEKc4F4QhRnjHLg_o5i84Of1qIN1vOx_aVBsFZSjjV1nmPwlBg3cUvgq0RqMLX

 

G. GREENWALD: Okay. Sahra, Guten Tag. It's very good to see you again. Thank you for giving us some time.

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: A pleasure. I'm also really looking forward to the interview.

 

G. GREENWALD: Let's start with the war in Ukraine. We spoke to you a little bit more than a year ago about your opposition to Germany's involvement in the war. How—14 months later—do you now see this war between Russia and Ukraine? 

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: Yes, it is horrible. This war is ongoing. Clearly, we can see that everything we've been told—including in Germany—such as, we have to supply the tanks, we have to supply the weapons and that would lead to a solution but none of this has worked. And Germany has become more and more of a war party. There are now politicians in Germany who are calling for the war to be taken into Russia with Taurus missiles. That is a very dangerous development. And it has demonstrated in all honesty that anyone who wants to end this war will have to negotiate and finally make a serious offer for negotiations. And I am very pleased that the Pope is also calling for this, that many countries in the South are calling for this, and that we in Germany will continue to call for this. But the German government has so far entirely opposed this.

 

G. GREENWALD: So, independent of moral arguments or geostrategic arguments, it has become clear to everyone that Ukraine cannot possibly win this war, especially as victory was defined by NATO as Russians expelled from all Ukrainian territory, including Crimea. The Ukrainians have no artillery, and no people left to send to the front line. The only movements in the front line have been in Russia's favor. Has support in Germany for funding and arming the war in Ukraine changed at all over the last year?

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: There is a considerable proportion of the population who see things differently and are also fed up with being told that Ukraine could win this war because they can see that they are unable to do so. But there is a very, very strong media debate in Germany that amounts to the narrative that if we don't stop Putin now, he will invade Poland or Lithuania or the Baltic states. In other words, they are now trying to sway people, who have also come to the realisation that arms deliveries have not led to a turnaround in the war, convinced by creating a new narrative. The new narrative is that we have to do everything we can to stop Putin because if there were to be another compromise now, he would invade other countries. And unfortunately, there are a lot of people in West Germany, and less so in East Germany, who believe that. So you can't say that the mood has now completely changed. 

 

G. GREENWALD: If you look at the history of the 20th century, the one lesson it shows is that very bad things happen when Germany and Russia are antagonistic, or see each other as enemies or involved in wars. And yet we've had the German Chancellor many times give pro-war speeches, saying that Germany must ensure Russia's defeat. What dangers does that create? And what do you think should be the relationship between Germany and Russia? 

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: Yes, relations are very bad. I can imagine that old traumas have been awakened in many people in Russia when they hear that German politicians want to supply weapons to attack Russia. Now, for example, it became public in Russia that there was a discussion among German officers about the delivery of Taurus missiles, where there was a debate about whether it would be possible to deliver them and disguise the fact that they came from Germany. And the Taurus missiles are so dangerous because Ukraine could use them to attack Moscow. They could destroy ministries and the Kremlin in Moscow. They could attack military bases, even nuclear bases in Russia. And when German officers discuss the possibility of delivering such missiles and how it might be possible to conceal the fact that they came from Germany, I can imagine that this will of course reawaken old fears in Russia and that a great deal of historical experience, especially among older people, may bring this back to the surface. The relationship between Germany and Russia is at a low point and that is very regrettable. And it is also incredibly foolish of the Germans because we are harming ourselves above all. Our economy is in crisis because we can't import cheap energy. No gas, no Russian oil. The German economy is now shrinking for the second time this year, probably. We have high inflation, people have lost purchasing power and they are afraid of their industrial jobs. So above all, it is a policy that is damaging the German economy and the people in Germany. 

 

G. GREENWALD: So, at the beginning of the war, in 2022, there was a delusion in the U.S. and in Europe that maybe Ukraine could really win. But I think now almost nobody believes that Ukraine can expel Russia from Ukrainian territory. So what do you think are the real motives in Germany and Europe for why they want to continue this war indefinitely? 

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: Yes, of course, it's a permanent gateway. The war is also very, very expensive for Russia. This means that the economic sanctions will of course remain in place as long as this war continues. You also don't want to admit that you haven't achieved your goals. The German Foreign Minister stepped up at the beginning of the war and said, "We want to ruin Russia", and Russia has not been ruined. On the contrary, Russia now has a close alliance with China and is really very well-paced in the BRICS. Yes, the alliance is getting bigger, but you don't want to admit that, you don't want to acknowledge that either. And I think the German media is much more one-dimensional here. I have the feeling, I also read some of the American press, that there is a more open discussion there about the question of how we can perhaps end this war, how we can get out of it. Meanwhile, for example, the parliamentary group leader of the governing party SPD (Social Democrats) in the Bundestag addressed the issue here, saying that perhaps we need to discuss putting a halt to the war. He was attacked terribly for that. So to address a self-evident fact that we need to end this war means—if you are a member of the SPD in Germany and you recognize that—you will be beaten up for it. The Pope said in an interview that Ukraine needs to consider how negotiations can take place out of self-interest, which was also criticized in the German press. It was said that the Pope was calling on Ukraine to surrender, which he never did. Unfortunately, we also lack diversity and positions in the media here to promote negotiations and to advocate an end to the war, which tends to be pushed very, very much into a corner; these are the people who are allied with Putin, who is running Putin propaganda. And that, of course, has a certain impact on how many people here in the country view the war.

 

G. GREENWALD: It's exactly the same in the United States, everything you just described. Since we last spoke, one of the major developments is that you left the longtime party to which you belong, Die Linke, or the left, to form a new party called Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance for Reason and Justice. Some polls now show your new party polling as high as 20%. One of the things that is most obvious is that the word Linke, left, is not in your party's name, your new party's name. Why is that? And what motivated you to leave the party that you were a member of for so long? 

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: Yes, the Left has unfortunately alienated a large part of its voters. It has mainly focused on these so-called modern, progressive issues, which are mainly within academic milieus, in well-off, privileged milieus, and anti-racism, but also more out of symbolic politics, such as trans debates. But the truly fundamental social problems, wages, pensions, and social fears about the future, have been increasingly lost sight of. And that's why the Left has become very, very weak. Many former voters of the Left have moved to the right and are now voting for the AfD [Alternative für Deutschland]. It's a right-wing party in Germany and at some point, I simply said to myself along with others that we no longer want to watch how the left of the party spectrum is basically just going downhill and the right is benefiting, but rather we want a new force to emerge in Germany that embodies social justice and reason, but also peace policy. Die Linke is increasingly taking very, very unclear positions on the issue of peace policy, for example. A year ago we had a big peace rally with over 50,000 people. The left distanced itself and did not support it. And there are now clear voices on the left that are campaigning for arms deliveries to Ukraine. And that has also contributed to the Left losing voters. And this is where the BSW  [Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht] is now a clear voice for peace, and negotiations, but also for social justice. 

 

G. GREENWALD: So this formula that you're embracing, this new kind of politics, let's say, defending traditional left-wing economic policies to help the working class, but at the same time avoiding or rejecting these very elite left-wing dogmas on culture war issues, seems like that's becoming increasingly visible in other countries in northern Europe as well. Do you see the success of that kind of combination of politics, defending the working class, focusing on their economics, but avoiding these more elite culture war questions as being a framework for success in other left-wing parties in other countries in Northern Europe?

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: Well, we can't complain about the response and the support we have. It's been very, very strong. We only founded the party in January and we're currently at over 5%, in Germany, in some eastern German states we're in double figures. That really is something that is quite unusual when a party is so new. And that's why I can tell that there really was a big gap in the political system that we are now filling. And I am firmly convinced that we can also change politics in Germany as a result. The stronger we become – we hope to achieve a good result in the European elections – the more we can influence German politics. So if we campaign as a voice for peace, then this will also put pressure on the German government. Or, if we make it an issue that wages have been falling in Germany for three years. That is something that has never happened before in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany. It's actually a scandal that people have been losing income for three years and are completely resisting it. And at the same time, we also recognize that people have a longing for stability, and security, that you can't ignore that. In Germany, we live with very high levels of migration. This is something that the Left has always denied. In my opinion, we consider this to be an important issue because it takes place primarily in poor neighborhoods and not in rich ones. So this is already a policy, a policy offer, it also has a logic to it and it's very well received by people. 

 

G. GREENWALD: In the United States, there was a long-time opposition to mass emigration that came mostly from the left, from labor unions, who argued that the people who suffer from mass migration tend to be the poorest, and the working class people whose jobs are taken, whose wages are declined. One of the first, and I guess, most important events that began to drive a wedge between you and your party was your opposition to the policy of Angela Merkel to accept a million refugees from Syria. What do you see as the conflict between immigration, on the one hand, and the interest of the German poor and the working class on the other? 

 

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: Yes, there is a conflict. My own father is from Iran. I understand that people are looking for a better life and that's why they move to wealthy countries. And I also think that we should talk about why people are fleeing their homeland. Many of those who come to Germany are from countries where wars have taken place and these wars have often been waged by the West, or in part, as in Syria, the West has armed certain groups there and supported this civil war because it wanted a regime change. So there are causes of displacement and migration. But you don't eliminate the causes by saying we're going to open the borders and invite everyone in. You need to achieve changes in the home countries. But here in Germany, it is also the case that housing shortages have of course worsened in the poorer residential areas. There is a lack of daycare places, the schools are swamped, there are many districts where first grade is starting and 80% of the children can't speak a word of German. Integration doesn't work either when the numbers are so high. And that's why the less privileged in Germany are very strongly opposed to such high levels of migration. Incidentally, people who have a migration background themselves even express their desire that this uncontrolled migration be stopped. And that's why this is an important issue for us because it strengthens the Right. High levels of migration, as it is happening now, naturally favor low wages and high rents, overburden the infrastructure and ultimately strengthen the Right. 

 

G. GREENWALD: One of the best-known parties in Germany that claims to be on the left is the Green Party, and it has become successful. It now has, among other people, Annalena Baerbock as its foreign minister. And I recall when the Greens were running, they ran on a platform of what they called a feminist foreign policy. This idea that if you have women in positions of power in foreign policy, it would make war less likely. And yet you have Baerbock and the Greens, along with the president of the EU, who are among the most aggressive supporters of Germany's involvement in the war in Ukraine, Israel's war in Gaza, support for NATO generally. Why did that happen? And how do you understand what role the Green Party plays in Germany?

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: Yes, the Greens really are a remarkable phenomenon. The party emerged from the peace movement. So alongside the question of environmental policy, peace policy was a very, very big issue for the first generation of the Greens. Petra Kelly was a great pacifist. She co-founded the Greens. Today, the Greens really are the biggest warmongers. They are the most fanatical about supplying weapons. In some cases, they are people who previously refused to do military service themselves, but who now know all the different types of tanks that are produced in Germany and are pushing aggressively for them to be supplied to Ukraine. Why is that? Well, the Greens are very, very strongly oriented towards the U.S., also on other issues. I can't say for sure why that is, but it is noteworthy. In many respects, the Greens are really the mouthpiece of U.S. politics and represent what is currently being discussed or expected in U.S. politics, and they have completely changed. It certainly also has something to do with this approach of a strong moralization of politics—i.e. you don't do politics to do something good but to be part of the good side. This approach results supposedly to “We are the good guys, the good West is fighting against Putin and the Russian dictatorship”. After all, this too resonates very, very strongly with the Greens as a narrative. In other words, we need to fight for human rights and democracy. It's all a lie. But that's just the Green tone. And in the party, there are now hardly any obvious functionaries who contradict it in any way. There are some in the SPD, but among the Greens, there really is a massive drumbeat for war and also an arrogance towards other countries, which they lecture on how they should be governed, including China, for example. But now the Greens are really the absolute worst when it comes to war policy. 

 

G. GREENWALD: So Ukraine is one war that Germany is providing arms to, but there's another war where Germany is also doing that. That is the war by Israel in Gaza. There's currently a case in the International Court of Justice brought by Nicaragua against Germany, accusing Germany of aiding genocide by providing the arms and bombs to Israel that they use against Palestinian civilians. What is your view of what the German policy toward Israel and its war in Gaza should be? 

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: Yes, I think it's really horrible what we've been seeing in the Gaza Strip for months now. These are war crimes. It's a terrible war against the civilian population, against women, against children. And of course, Germany, or even every German, is special—and they naturally have a different relationship or responsibility towards Israel because of German history, because of the Holocaust. We have always said, and I support this, that we understand or share Israel's right to defend itself against these attacks by Hamas, but what is happening over there has nothing to do with self-defense; it is a major war crime. And that is why we, the BSW, have now submitted a motion in the Bundestag to impose an immediate arms embargo on Israel, i.e. to stop supplying weapons, because Nicaragua is right. Therefore, all countries that supply weapons are partly responsible for this terrible killing in the Gaza Strip. That is why I think it would be deeply appropriate and urgently necessary for us to take a different path here, to stop supplying arms immediately and to condemn this action. Condemn the fact that this is a campaign of revenge and not self-defense. In my opinion, we need to make that very clear. And Netanyahu has now even announced that he may launch a ground offensive on Rafah. And that would take death and horror to a whole new level. So here, I think there is no reason to say that we as Germans should stand on the side of the Israeli government. On the contrary, the Israeli government is basically pursuing a course here that could actually cause the entire Middle East to enter a major war. When I look at the development of relations with Iran, the attack on the Iranian consulate, there is also a possible threat of military escalation. And we absolutely must not allow that to happen, we cannot support it, we need to clearly condemn it and distance ourselves from it, and above all, we need to stop providing weapons. 

 

G. GREENWALD: I think everybody understands the very unique German duty and obligation after the Holocaust and World War II. But I think there are two ways of looking at what Germany's obligation is. One is to say our obligation is just to support Israel in everything that it does, no matter what that is. The other is to say we should oppose genocide and violence against civilians in every instance where it occurs. How does Germany understand the difference between those two options? 

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: In the meantime, the German media, including the German government, has been mildly critical. It's no longer the case that they support everything the Israeli government does. But there is still far too little criticism. I also believe that we have a responsibility to defend Israel's right to exist, but the kind of warfare we are now seeing does not increase security for people in Israel or for Jews worldwide; on the contrary, it endangers it. It is an extremely right-wing Israeli government, whose defense minister even announced at the beginning that they wanted to wage a war against civilians. He spoke of human animals when he spoke of Palestinians. And that wording is fascistoid and we simply need to speak out and recognize that this is not something we can support and that we have no responsibility whatsoever arising from our history in sharing or engaging in such actions and such contempt for humanity, on the contrary, we must condemn such very clearly. 

 

G. GREENWALD: I know that Germany has a much different approach to free speech than the United States has, especially when it comes to expressions of anti-Semitism, for reasons that I think everybody can understand. At the same time, there have been a lot of reports about attempts to punish and repress defenders of the Palestinian cause or critics of Israel, even sometimes when the critics of Israel are Jewish, we see actions by the German government against them. How serious of a problem is this, and do you think it is something to worry about this attack on free speech in the name of defending Israel? 

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: So we don't really have an open debate in Germany, we have a clear narrowing of the spectrum of opinion on many issues, including this one. So anyone who formulates harsh criticism here is met with the sledgehammer of anti-Semitism. For example, my co-chairwoman of the BSW was recently on a television program, a talk show, and she was accused of the BSW  being an anti-Semitic party. In other words, we are a party of anti-Semites because we criticize Israel and because we condemn the actions of the Israeli government. This shows that a truly absurd debate is taking place here. We will continue to point out that there is a big difference between anti-Semitism and a completely justified and absolutely necessary criticism of a far-right Israeli government that is committing the worst war crimes in the Gaza Strip. 

 

G. GREENWALD: The last time you and I talked, you made it very clear that you were very opposed to the far-right German party, AfD. And we talked about the differences between yourself and that party because there had been reports that some people on the right are supportive of you and now your new party. And I understand that. But there are also reports, especially in the wake of this explicit racist discussion, that this party may need to be outlawed or prohibited from the ballot. What are your thoughts on how the AfD should be treated legally? 

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: I am strongly against banning the AfD. In my opinion, the whole debate about it is completely misguided. Ultimately, this will help the AfD. We need to deal with its policies and positions. For example, they have European candidates who clearly have a nationalistic worldview. They define being German by blood. That's racism, it's very bad. But you can challenge this in terms of content or you can address the AfD's economic positions. It has a radical position about the market, wants to dismantle the welfare state, and opposes higher minimum wages. Or, for example, it is not a peace party. When it comes to Ukraine, the AfD has positions that are actually similar to ours in that they also advocate a negotiated peace but, regarding the issue of the Gaza conflict, for example, they are a radical supporter of the Israeli government. That has something to do with the fact that they are very strongly anti-Islamic and not ultimately that they are a force for peace. However, you need to challenge them in terms of content and not with blanket bans and blanket exclusion. The main reason they are now gaining so much popularity is because of how poorly Germany is being governed—because the coalition government is so unjust, so haphazard, so incompetent, the economic situation is very bad and people are afraid. That's why the AfD has doubled in the polls in these two years. But that's not because people are right-wing. And if you want to win back these voters, you need to deal with the AfD objectively. 

 

G. GREENWALD: Well, I find your political project not just very interesting, but very relevant to other countries in the West, including the U.S. And it's always a pleasure to speak to you, and I really appreciated your time today.

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: You're very welcome, thank you very much. And yes, perhaps until next time. 

 

G. GREENWALD: Guten Tag. Tschüss.

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: Okay. Tschüss. 


And that concludes our show tonight.

community logo
Join the Glenn Greenwald Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
51
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Watch Tonight's Monologue

Due to a connection issue, our stream was cut short tonight.
You can find the entire episode below.

We apologize for this technical difficulty - thank you so much for your continued support.

00:43:24
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

For those of you who are interested, today The Duran had Aaron Mate as a guest. It was a great show, and they discussed key points in his most recent article in depth. Here is the link:

17 hours ago

Feeling pretty overwhelmed by all the chaos but I know that this is a mind control step. When people are overwhelmed or anxious they feel confused and become susceptible to propaganda and look for safety and tend to side with authorities in power. Our covid debacle is a great example of mass mind control from the deep state. The lies told and truths suppressed alone were enough to remove President Trump, not even including the election rule manipulation, and poor oversight that was permitted in large cities (as usual). Valid objections were rigorously suppressed and the investigators were defamed immediately, just as many were during the covid pandemic which was actually planned by our deep state. It was led partially by Anthony Fauci, the socialist leader of the United Nations Health department and our tax dollars of course.

I fear that, if Trump is not elected and fully supported, we will become another European type nation and quickly lose our Bill of Rights and that all of our ...

12 hours ago

Chris Hedges no longer at TRNN. Get him on Rumble.

post photo preview
As the Daily Wire Publicly Negotiated a Debate with Candace Owens, it Secretly Sought -- and Obtained -- a Gag Order Against Her
Due to a prior restraint order against Owens, the much-anticipated Israel debate with Ben Shapiro appears to be off.

On April 5, Candace Owens publicly invited her former Daily Wire colleague Ben Shapiro to a debate about "Israel and the current definition of antisemitism." It was Owens' criticisms of U.S. financing of Israel, and her criticisms of Israel's war in Gaza, that caused her departure from the Daily Wire two weeks earlier.

Both Shapiro and Daily Wire CEO Jeremy Boreing responded by saying they would like to arrange the debate requested by Owens. That night, Shapiro appeared to accept her offer, writing on X: "Sure, Candace. I texted you on February 29th offering this very thing." The Daily Wire co-founder added: "Let's do it on my show this Monday at 5pm at our studios in Nashville; 90 minutes, live-streamed."

After Owens objected to the format and timing, she and Boreing exchanged several tweets in which they appeared to be negotiating, and then agreeing to, the terms and format for the debate. Owens had suggested the debate be moderated by Joe Rogan or Lex Fridman. Shaprio said he wanted no moderator. They ultimately agreed to the terms, with Boreing offering a series of conditions, including a no-moderator debate, and with Owens publicly accepting

Two weeks later, many readers of both Shapiro and Owens noticed, and complained, that the debate had not yet happened. On April 24, Owens addressed those inquiries by explaining that the Daily Wire had yet to propose dates, while reiterating her strong desire to ensure the debate happened.

But the debate was never going to happen. That is because the Daily Wire -- in secret and unbeknownst to its readers -- sought a gag order to be placed on Owens after she had called for a debate. They did this under the cover of secrecy, before a private arbitrator, at exactly the same time that they were claiming in public that they wanted this debate and were even negotiating the terms with her. To this date, the Daily Wire has not informed its readers, seeking to understand why the much-anticipated debate had not yet happened, that they had sought and obtained a gag order against Owens.

When seeking a gag order to be imposed on Owens, the Daily Wire accused her of violating the non-disparagement clause of her agreement with the company. To substantiate this accusation, the company specifically cited Owens' initial tweet requesting a debate with Shapiro as proof of this disparagement, along with concerns she voiced that Shapiro appeared to be violating the confidentiality agreement between them by publicly maligning Owens's views to explain her departure from the company. While the company claimed before the arbitrator that it did not object in principle to a "healthy debate," it urged the imposition of a gag order on Owens by claiming that the way she requested the debate constituted disparagement of Shapiro and the site.

To justify the gag order it wanted, the company also cited various criticisms of the Daily Wire and Shapiro on X that Owens had "liked." This proceeding took place as part of an exchange of legal threats between the parties after the public agreement to debate about Israel was solidified. Those threats arose from the fact that various Daily Wire executives and hosts, in both public and private, were castigating Owens as an anti-Semite. On March 22, Daily Wire host Andrew Klaven published a one-hour video that hurled multiple accusations, including anti-Semitism, at Owens. The Daily Wire cited Owens' response to that video -- her defense of herself from those multiple accusations -- as further proof that she needed to be gagged.

The initial tweet from Owens not only requested a debate, but also included a video from the popular comedian Andrew Schulz, who had mocked the Daily Wire for firing Owens over disagreements regarding Israel, and specifically mocked Shapiro for his willingness to debate only undergraduate students. The tweet underneath Owens's original debate request included a summary of Schulz's mockery of Shapiro which stated: Schulz now "realizes Ben Shapiro is only good at debating college liberals & can’t win debates against serious competition." 

After the prior restraint hearing sought by the Daily Wire and Shapiro, the arbitrator sided with them and against Owens. The arbitrator agreed with the Daily Wire that Owens' call to debate Shapiro, and her follow-up negotiations of the debate, constituted "disparagement" of the company and Shapiro. The company argued that any further attempt by Owens to debate, as well her suggesting that the debate would expose the Daily Wire's real "priorities," constituted criticisms of the site and of Shapiro, criticisms that the arbitrator concluded Owens was barred from expressing under her contract with the company.

The arbitrator thus imposed a gag order of prior restraint on Owens. Among other things, the order banned Owens from saying or doing anything in the future which could tarnish or harm the reputation of the Daily Wire and/or Ben Shapiro. Given that the Daily Wire had argued, and the arbitrator agreed, that Owens' offers to debate Shapiro about Israel and anti-semitism were themselves "disparaging," the Daily Wire has ensured that the debate with Owens that they publicly claimed to want could not, in fact, take place. Any such debate would be in conflict with the gag order they obtained on Owens from expressing any criticisms of the site or of Shapiro.

When asked for comment to be included this story, Owens replied: I "wish I could comment on this but I can’t." She added: "can neither confirm nor deny."

Boreing said: "your story is inaccurate to the point of being false," though he did not specify a single inaccuracy, nor did he deny that the Daily Wire had sought and obtained a gag order on Owens at the same time they were publicly posturing as wanting a debate with her. The confirmation we obtained of all these facts is indisputable. Boreing added: "I’m sure you can appreciate how fraught a high profile break-up like this is. For that reason, we are trying to resolve our issues with Candace privately."

It certainly seems true that the Daily Wire is attempting to achieve all of this "privately." Nonetheless, Ben Shapiro has constructed his very lucrative media brand and persona based on his supposed superiority in debating, a reputation cultivated largely as a result of numerous appearances at undergraduate schools around the country where he intrepidly engages with students who are often in their teens or early twenties. Both Shapiro and the Daily Wire have also predicated their collective media brand on an eagerness to engage in free and open debate with anyone, and to vehemently oppose any efforts to silence people, especially those in media, from expressing their political views.

It was the imperatives of this media branding that presumably led the Daily Wire and Shapiro to publicly agree to a debate with Owens over Israel and anti-semitism in the first place. Indeed, when it became apparent early after the start of Israel's war in Gaza that Owens had major differences with Shapiro, Boering responded to calls from Israel supporters for Owens to be fired by proclaiming in November: 

[E]ven if we could, we would not fire Candace because of another thing we have in common - a desire not to regulate the speech of our hosts, even when we disagree with them. Candace is paid to give her opinion, not mine or Ben’s. Unless those opinions run afoul of the law or she violates the terms of her contract in some way, her job is secure and she is welcome at Daily Wire.

But a mere four months later, Owens, despite being of one of the company's most popular hosts, was out. The company had concluded that her increasingly vocal criticisms of Israel, opposition to U.S. financing of it, and her views on anti-semitism were incompatible with the Daily Wire's policies.

All of those issues would likely have been the subject of the public debate that Owens sought, and that the Daily Wire claimed to want. Instead, the Daily Wire has succeeded in obtaining a gag order that, on its face, prevents Owens, in advance, from questioning or criticizing both the Daily Wire or Shapiro in any way.

 

 

Read full Article
post photo preview
Campus Protest Propaganda Snowballs; Congress Moves to Criminalize Israel Critics
Video Transcript

Watch the full episode here: 

placeholder
 

Podcast: Apple - Spotify 

Rumble App: Apple - Google 


Good evening. It's Wednesday, May 1. 

Tonight: A massive show of police force was deployed at various colleges throughout New York City, designed to forcibly shut down protests and arrest protesters with the largest presence at Columbia. Many journalists who have covered protests around the world said they have never seen so much police force gathered to crack down on political dissent. Meanwhile, a group of pro-Israel counter-protesters appeared at UCLA and violently attacked the pro-Palestinian encampment, screaming anti-Palestinian vulgarities and using force, including wood and other weapons, to attack the protesters long gathered there. 

It was really remarkable to watch how much propaganda and even lies were so glaringly unleashed and spread by the American media to attempt to demonize the protest against the U.S.-supported and financed Israeli war in Gaza. As just one example, it was alleged by the NYPD and then mindlessly recited by media outlets that are obsessively pro-Israel, such as CNN, that the wife of a known terrorist was a menacing presence at the Columbia protests. 

As it turns out, they were referring to the wife of former University of South Florida professor Sami Al-Arian, who was arrested right after 9/11 and became the first test case for how far the Patriot Act could be stretched when the Bush administration accused him of “material support for terrorism” as a result of his fundraising for charities in Gaza that were alleged to be linked to groups the U.S. had designated as terrorist organizations. I followed and reported on that case very closely at the time, including interviewing Al-Arian and his family while he was under house arrest. It was really one of the worst abuses of the criminal justice system I had ever seen. Al-Arian was acquitted by a jury on the most serious charges, namely providing material support to terrorism, even though the government had been spying on him for many years. While that trial produced a hung jury on the more minor charges, and yet he was never let go, he ended up being consigned for years under house arrest, until he finally agreed to be deported to Turkey as the only way to finally end that case and the persecution of his family. His daughter, the longtime broadcast journalist Laila Al-Arian, will be with us to discuss this case. 

But perhaps the most disturbing aspect of all of this is how cynically these alleged human rights concerns are weaponized. Whenever the officially designated “bad countries,” such as Russia, China, or Iran, send police to arrest protesters and crush protest movements in Hong Kong or Tehran or throughout Russia, it is immediately denounced in the United States as pure evil tyranny. Yet when dictatorships that are the U.S.'s closest allies crush protests with police force—say, Saudi Arabia or Egypt—that is ignored because there's no benefit in denouncing the world's most savage, pro-American tyrants. And yet, when the U.S. engages in the same human rights abuses, when it indefinitely imprisons Julian Assange or tries to kill him, or when the government deploys massive police force to crack down on political protesters, that same act is cheered by the people who feign horror when done by America's enemies. We'll examine all this propaganda and deceit surrounding this use of police power over the last week to try and finally end these protests against the foreign government in Tel Aviv.

Then: The House of Representatives today, by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 320 to 91, enacted a law designed to wildly expand the official definition of “anti-Semitism,” a definition that, as we will show you now, explicitly includes all sorts of common, valid, normal criticisms of the Israeli government. By doing so, Congress is proclaiming that the desire to shield this foreign country and its government is more important than preserving the free speech rights of American citizens. We will look in detail at this bill and the vote to examine all its implications. It has horrified even many people on the right who are supportive of Israel, and yet who are saying that this is one of the gravest attacks on the First Amendment in years. 

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

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
Dems Vow to Save Mike Johnson and Jill Stein Talks Campus Protests, PLUS: Interview with Lee Fang
Video Transcript

Watch the full episode here: 

placeholder
 

Podcast: Apple - Spotify 

Rumble App: Apple - Google


Good evening. It's Tuesday, April 30. 

Tonight: For months, Democrats were accusing House speaker Mike Johnson of being all the things Democrats always call people whom they dislike; a racist, a fascist, a religious fanatic, a pro-Kremlin asset, etc., etc. But then, Speaker Johnson began radically reversing many of his longstanding views to become the most valuable tool or the most reliable ally of the Biden White House and the U.S. security state. And now, for understandable reasons—I don't blame them—Congressional Democrats speak of Mike Johnson not with scorn, but with affection. And now, in response to a motion by Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, of Georgia, and Thomas Massie, of Kentucky, one that's designed to exploit the thin majority that Republicans have in the House and will attempt to remove Mike Johnson from his speakership, similar to the way they did Kevin McCarthy before him, House Democrats today, led by their minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries, of New York, announced that they would protect Mike Johnson and keep him as speaker by giving him all the votes he needs to remain. That Johnson has become such a popular and useful fellow among Democrats and the intelligence agencies in the Biden White House, speaks volumes about how Washington works and how easily it exploits those like him, who are desperate to cling to any modicum of power. We'll tell you about the latest with this bizarre spectacle and examine all of its implications. 

Then: The intrepid independent journalist Lee Fang has a new article today on how the gutting of the American industrial base is one of the reasons the U.S. is bizarrely incapable of keeping up with the Russians when trying to arm Ukraine. We'll speak to him about his latest report, as well as the genuinely disturbing trend of so many Republicans and conservatives embracing the very censorship and safetyism theories they long claim to loathe, all to restrict free speech and the right of protest in the United States to protect the foreign country called Israel. 

Finally, Doctor Jill Stein, an actual medical doctor, not a doctor Jill Biden type of doctor, is running for president again this year on the Green Party ticket. She's the only Jewish candidate running of the major presidential candidates. Earlier this week, she was arrested along with dozens of students at Washington University in Saint Louis while protesting against the Israeli war in Gaza and U.S. support for it. Doctor Stein will be here to talk about all of that, as well as the other primary issues driving her presidential campaign and how she sees the 2024 election. 

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

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