Glenn Greenwald: Propaganda, Putin, AOC, and the New Movement Rising From the Ashes of MAGA

Glenn Greenwell, thank you so much for doing this.

“I'm so pleased that you're coming right now because I need someone smarter than I am to explain”

the connection that I feel but can't quite articulate and it's this. So the free press run by Barry Weiss and financed by others, of course, just put out a video defending flock cameras and rather than playing it, you can find it on the internet.

I'm just going to read you the description in the headline and here's what it is.

Ever feel like you're being watched, this is the free press headline. You might be right but flock safety cameras aren't interested in you unless you're a kidnapper, a thief or up to no good, and it's like literally Soviet propaganda. You know, if you get nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear as long as you're, you know, soul is right with the party, you're okay, don't worry about the panopticon.

So this is obviously disgusting, it's anti-American, it's totalitarian, but it's also not that surprising coming from the neocon oracle known as the free press. I can't quite explain why that's not surprising to me, why is their support of flock cameras consistent with their support of

“say the war with Iran? Well, let's remember it was about 12 13 years ago that we started this”

note and reporting that really was the first meaningful broad-based reporting that showed that

the goal of the U.S. government was to create an absolutely ubiquitous surveillance state that monitored collected stored highly invasive and real information, not about terrorist suspects or potential pedophiles, but about every single one of us. A ubiquitous surveillance state is how they described it internally and what it was and obviously it had all sorts of connections to the military and to foreign policy goals. In fact, it spaces was in the NSA, which is a key part of the defense

department of the military planning unit, the U.S. security state, and all along, they also had a very close, really indispensable partnership with Silicon Valley, with the largest tech companies. In fact, one of the earliest stories we did was about how the tech companies were just handing over in mass, whatever information the NSA wanted without warrants or anything else because those

“companies need to keep a good relationship with the government because that's where they get most”

of their largest contracts from. There's really no separation between the pie, private, and public sector, but the companies and the sector that is most financially interested in this surveillance state are the people in Silicon Valley, the people who, for example, are running talent here and have gotten unimaginably wealthy, multi-millionaire, wealth from helping not only to create a surveillance state, but then merging it with the U.S. military. And this is what the Israelis,

of course, set up in Gaza. It's one of the reasons why a lot of people, one of the loudest ones being Charlie Kirk, were so incredulous that October 7th could happen, and the Israeli government just had no idea that it was coming because they have Gaza under one of the most extreme surveillance systems ever do exist in all of human history. And a lot of the reporting we did was about the partnership between the NSA and and the Israelis and the amount of just raw intelligence, the NSA

turns over about American citizens to the Israeli government. So you have all these component parts, Peter Teal and Palantir and Alex Carp and Jason Horowitz and his invested in a lot of these these AI surveillance companies, also invested in Palantir, also a major investor in the free press. And this is all part of the same group that, as you say, is inextricably linked, not just to building a domestic surveillance state, but also a foreign policy that is very neocond in nature, a very

warm-ungering in nature. They all wanted the war in Iran. They all love and worship and revere Israel. And of course, it is in the interest of people who wield the greatest power to find out and know as much about that, they can as their domestic population because that

gives them the greatest control and that's always been what the surveillance state is about.

But the irony of it is just is inescapable. I mean, we're fighting these wars abroad so we can be free here in the United States. We're fighting tyrants on behalf of freedom and democracy. And that's basically what we're doing. I mean, there's no one really making the argument that Iran was a physical threat to the United States. I mean, the fringe, Mark Levin types do, but most people would not make that case. They would say this is a tyranny. They're killing their own

people. They're throwing gaze off the roof. They're shooting protesters and saying, "What China? Same with North Korea, same with Russia." Because they allow their own citizens no freedom. We have to kill their governments. But those same people making an argument are now endorsing tyranny into totalitarianism at home. So it's like, what could possibly be the justification for their foreign policy? You know, somebody who has really had to immerse myself

in US war propaganda and just war propaganda generally as somebody who was opposed pretty much

things about war propaganda that I think are universal that aren't that surprising. It's a very

“effective science. It's been developed over decades, really centuries using multiple fields of”

discipline and anthropology and psychology and psychiatry. It's a very precise science. It's not surprising that it works. But sometimes there are things that are so brazen about it that even my respect for the efficacy of propaganda makes me shock that it does work and one of the things that I find most shocking is this idea that the United States goes to war against the tyrannical and dictatorial governments in the world because we want to free the oppressed people and bring

them freedom and democracy. When, if you know anything about American history, our history is exactly the opposite. We spent so many decades overthrowing democratically elected leaders and imposing on those countries, some of the most brutal military dictatorships ever known in human history, including of course on Iran and countless other places. Right now our closest allies that Trump loves most are the most brutal regimes in Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, the Egyptians,

all over the world. That has always been our goal and anyone who believed those actions are

to call last week and the New York Times about how these idiotic Iranian exiles who have lived for decades in London and Toronto and Chicago and LA somehow got held up as the voice of the Iranian people. And we're saying please, please come and bomb our country. We want you to free us. Now our saying, oh my god, we're so disillusioned. It turns out Trump really wasn't interested in freeing the Iranian people, nor was Netanyahu. They were fighting the war solely for their

own interests and they're willing to kill as many of us as possible in order to advance that all. And it's like, oh, that just occurred to you that that. So yes, if you were to believe that Neocons and the like and they're more propaganda about how they want to free the repressed people, the worlds were actually real, you would then find it oddly contradictory that they're imposing

“this tyrannical surveillance state at home. But if you understand, which I think most reasonably”

perceptive people do, that spreading freedom of democracy have nothing to do with, why we fight wars. In fact, if anything were more interested in undercutting freedom of democracy, we prefer dictatorships at our service who control their countries and suppress our populations for us. Then it makes all the sense in the world that those same people would want to maintain as much of a grip on the domestic population as they do on the rest of the world. And nothing,

there is nothing. This is, I think, the other point, Tucker, you know, when we were doing the stone reporting, and people really understood, oh, wow, it turns out that our government really was converting, well, we were told what's this very liberatory emissary technology, which was the internet, they were actually converting it into its exact opposite, the most coercive and potent means of human control ever in human history. I remember when we did one story about

the ubiquity of the ability to spy people from the Stasi, like who were actually in the Stasi and he's Germany, came out and expressed this kind of envy, and they were like, oh, wow,

we never dreamed of being able to have powers that were this significant. And one of the big

responses was, well, look, you know, the NSA tried to encourage people to think this, all the other corporations did as well. You don't need privacy. Privacy is for losers and criminals. It's for pedophiles and terrorists. And if you don't have anything to hide, then why do you need privacy? And of course, every single person has something to hide. We all do things in secret and in private that we wouldn't do in public. Every single one of us has that division in our lives. It's very

healthy. It's kind of fundamental to how human beings operate. And the surveillance state nothing gives greater tyrannical power to a centralized power than the ability to surveil and monitor and know what people are doing at all times. And so see Barry Weiss and the free press, justifying it, cheering it make it seem all benign is exactly what you would expect to people who have that as their goal. And not just benign, not just, you know, harmless and non-threatening, but they've actually taken

“it, I think, to step beyond that and they're scolding anyone who wants privacy. And by the way,”

these are all pro-choice people who believe Griswell versus Connecticut, the 67 decision that gave us the right to privacy is really important, but you don't actually get the privacy. But so just to restate the headline, it says if they're not interested in you unless you're a kidnapper, a thief

for up to no good. So basically, if you're worried about flock cameras, you're up to no good,

you're a thief, you're a kidnapper. I mean, like they're yelling at us for caring. Well, what they're trying to do is to essentially say that if you are somebody who craves privacy in your life, who wants to have areas of your life that are free of government or corporate monitoring and scrutiny, then essentially you're admitting that you do things that are wrong. In fact, Eric Schmidt, the CEO Google, for many years, that's actually one time what exactly what he said

this drag net of ubiquitous surveillance. He said, well, why don't you think about it this way?

“If you're doing something that you don't want other people to know about it, maybe you should”

stop doing it. Maybe that's something that you ought not to be doing. As though the mere fact that human beings crave privacy and any realm at any point in our lives for any purpose suggests that we are somehow bad people because we want to hide things and you want to raise the hide things as if you're a pedophile or otherwise engaged in dangerous conduct that you shouldn't

be engaged in. And ultimately, I think you're right that is the most pernicious, instead of

just a part of this, which is to start trying to convince people that anybody who actually cares about privacy, cares about privacy only because they're doing things that you should want the government to know about because they're probably really bad and dangerous people. I think somebody would forget how un-American that is, you know, when I went to law school and like, you know, you studied the federalist papers and the constitution and the layout of it,

I remember being a kind of amazed, I get really struck me how the founders have this debate, and they purposely imposed restrictions on police power, on state power, knowing that it would make it easier for violent criminals, rapists, pedophiles to often escape and to do some

more of these, like the police would be able to catch so many more criminals if they could just

barge into your home at any time or search whatever it is that they wanted. Privacy is so foundational to, you know, the state can't just come into your home and use your house to court in their soldiers, this is all the value of privacy that pervades every part of the

“bill of rights, and what it means to be American in the idea that you should give up your privacy,”

they don't only bad people care about privacy, could not be any more anti-American in its ethos. A lot of people are using peptides to get in shape, not all peptides are the same, if you take them, do you really know what you're ingesting? Probably not. Join blocs makes it very simple, you start with an easy online health assessment then,

if necessary, your license-clinician will order a comprehensive lab work to understand exactly

what prescription is best for you, not everybody just for you. It's a complete review to ensure the best results. Your peptide protocol is built specifically around you, so there's no guess work, there's not a one-size-fits-all plan, it's totally customized. Prescriptions are filled by American-based pharmacies using ingredients sourced from FDA registered facilities. Tons of quality testing, no stone unturned, you're getting the best, you don't have to gas about

what's going in your body. Starting now, this shows listeners can get 65% off labs plus 20% off peptides and supplements by going to joyenblokes.com/tucker and using the code Tucker at checkout. This is one of the biggest discounts any of our partners have ever offered. That's joyenblokes.com/tucker. But you wouldn't, I don't think you would talk to your own population that way if you liked them. I mean, the normal reaction to complaint. If someone

you love says, "I don't like what you're doing," part of you's like, "Okay, well, I love this person. I'm going to listen. I don't whip around and scream at the person for complaining." And yet, again and again and again, you see this impulse from our leaders, particularly the ones were pushing the warner on, the neocons that suggest deep contempt for the American population. You saw it in the last 10 days in the debate over food inflation. Rather than just make the argument

that, "No, the numbers aren't real, your lived experiences, imaginary." It doesn't actually cost more to eat than it did five years ago. You're making it up in your mind, you're crazy. They've been scolding people, like yelling at them. How dare you complain about a $20 burrito? You're not doing it right. What is that? This is one of the things that I think we've gotten away from so severely. Maybe it was too gradual and the frog in the boiling water metaphor,

but the whole idea of why Congress was supposed to approve wars was because war is something that by necessity affects every single person in very fundamental ways. I mean, there was an assumption, even though it proved not to be true, that obviously in times of war, you're going to have to pay more taxes because someone asked a pay for the war. They didn't know that we were just going to create this fiat system of money and borrow trillions from China. But anyway, that was their assumption.

But it would also affect the country in every single other way. Your sons would be endangered because they were the ones who would have to go fight. And so it needed buy-in from the

“American people and the way to do that was to ensure that the only way the president could”

start a war is if the American people threw their Congress approved. We just completely got rid of that. That no longer exists. It's like we just rewrote the constitution. And even though there hasn't been a declaration of war, typically political leaders have wanted the buying of the American people before starting a war. That was what the whole 18-month campaign of what turned out to be lives. But still, it was an 18-month PR campaign by George Bush and Dick Cheney in the

thought it was important that Americans got on board and they did two-thirds or more of Americans favor the war in Iraq at the time that it began. That does not exist anymore. There was no campaign of any kind. No pretense of caring about the American population, but when trying to sell this

war in Iran that basically came out of nowhere, poll showed that Americans overwhelmingly were

opposed to it and they've only got more opposed. And the reaction is who cares? Who cares what the American people think? Who cares if they think it's not worth it to pay more gas prices and more of the supermarket when they're already facing economic difficulties too bad for them. They need to shut up and accept it and take it because our goals are more important. It's such an overtly punctuous message as you say that is being sent by our elite. And then these are the

same people who turn around and wonder why Americans are so disgusted by alien institutions that they're willing to vote for anybody left, right, socialist, far right, whatever you call them that they see are radically opposing the establishment and the people in power because they have

very good reasons, so many good reasons to hate them. So you're describing a political system

that's becoming legitimately volatile. You know people who had no chance at all who were truly fringe and ideas that were truly fringe, including some that I personally have in articulated a lot, are now much more mainstream. So that suggests that the system is changing really fast in a way that is good in some ways also kind of scary in other ways. And that's exactly why you don't, as you said, embark on a massive project like a war without the buy-in of the public,

right, because it could hurt you. But these people didn't even flinch and on a bipartisan level. I mean, Trump did it. But you know, there were Democrats, Democratic leaders were for it

“also. So why aren't they afraid and still are why aren't they afraid? Okay. So this is where I think”

this gets back to your first question and this is what I think ultimately. I almost sort of book on

this one. Actually, I was about to write a book on it when I met someone named Edward Snowden, that kind of derailed me for a few years. I remember growing up, I didn't know any rich people. And one of the very first few rich people I really met or ever talked to was right when I started my blog early on. I had this guy who was like a major high-level mathematician at one of the most lucrative hedge funds making enormous sums of money. But I remember after the 2008 financial crisis,

you know, I was doing a lot of reading about like all the garks in the past and how frightened they were of the public, like the greatest fear that the very wealthy had in America were of was of a populist uprising. And that was how FDR was able to sell them on the new deal was, look, you may not like the new deal, but we don't make these people's lives better. In some way, you know, you can say goodbye to the whole capitalist system. And then you stab yachts

where they had safe full of their jewels because they found any moment they were going to, you know,

“have a kind of Bolshevik revolution. And that's why like John Rockefeller and Henry Ford,”

he stood right down the street handing money out. That's where philanthropy became from to convince Americans that they were good people because they were scared. And I remember at the financial crisis that you know, it really seems like the elite class has completely lost its fear, like the greed that drove the financial crisis. And then the insistence that all the money be used to bail out the richest people who caused it and let everybody else

drown like the entire middle class with foreclosures and mortgages and all that signals a kind of utter indifference to like that fear is gone. And I think one of the, and one of the successes, yeah, I think it's absolutely gone. And I think the reason it's gone is because they believe that the police state that they've constructed is enough to keep them safe no matter how angry the peasants are. And I think that is a lot of where this surveillance state come from. Like

“you, if you have this massive wealth inequality, there are two ways to to I think maintain it.”

One is to play keep the public, the the majority just enough so that they don't really feel like it's worth it to go risk their lives and and wage violence and a revolution because they're at least minimally fed. They have enough of a decent life, just above the system's level. But if you're not going to do that, the alternative is just paramilitarized society build huge walls behind which all the rich live, give extreme authorities, violence and and surveillance to the police forces that

you fund and construct that are there really to protect that system and to protect you. And I think so much of this, mass surveillance and everything else is that the recognition that that is the path that has been chosen. And you know, I mean, I guess the French elite thought that they were safe behind the walls of Versailles and to some extent, you can probably make yourself pretty safe. But at some point, if you keep creating this kind of complete loss and and of faith and trust

and institutions of authority and a belief, a very well-rounded belief that the suffering that people have in their lives is due to those in power, not left right, not democrat versus

being done with the distribution of power and wealth, I don't think that even the greatest amount of of paramilitarization and surveillance will be enough to stop it. But that is definitely the goal and it's tied into their ability to go around having wars and not care people are are supportive of it or angry about it because they just believe Peter, you know, Peter, you'll believe

he can build his own private island and have talent here surveilled everybody and he'll always

“know whatever threats are emerging and I think that is a, that is the mentality that they have”

opted for. I've always thought that pharma played a role and this is not simply surveilling and threatening people into obedience, but it's also changing the nature of people through Benso de Asapes and SSRIs and there's the whole cornecopia of sort of supressive drugs that it's handed out, you can get them online without ever seeing a doctor. And that seems like an instrument of social policy to me of social control. Yeah, I think marijuana is part of that as well. I mean, I'm definitely

somebody who believes in the legalization of marijuana just because it gives the state way too much power to criminalize it. But the fact that so many people are ingesting so many substances that

are being given to them, fed to them, recommended to them, promoted to them. But they're basically

designed to just almost create a zombie state, like sometimes anxiety is good. Yes, it's good. These are the things that, you know, are our drivers of us wanting better alive. And if you sandpaper, all the edges off of humanity and just turn them into kind of like dumped up, narcoticized, you know, people who are willing to accept that, everything and anything and just kind of be content with it. That is, I mean, it's very dystopian. It sounds very dystopian,

but it's also in a large, to large extent. And if you know people in your life, what you probably do, you're taking large amounts of time to press in, or Xanax, or any of these medications may or want to to put themselves constantly in a state of tranquility and acceptance and submission,

you can see the effects of it in their daily lives, but also on this kind of macro level that is

very, very beneficial to people in power. You want a population that's content and happy. Turns out, OPM is the OPM of the masses, right? Drugs are the--we are strongly prodog on this show. We make no secret that dogs are one of the great blessings of this life. And to keep them healthy,

“we recommend Dutch. It's the solution to skyrocketing veterinary costs. Why are those costs so high?”

Well, private equity in case you didn't already know that. Big investors who bought up veterinary clinics across the country and doubled the amount they charge. So they're exploiting your love for animals to make money and are they providing better services? Well, if you can't afford to go to the vet, you get no services at all. We did a whole show on this, and it's really distressing. Dutch is the solution to this. License veterinarians, easy remote appointments, start with a code

Tucker plans at just $82 per year. That's like nothing compared to what you will get if you walk into a private equity own vet. 50% of Dutch customers say they had not seen a vet in three years because they couldn't afford it. Dutch fixes that. Ten minute calls, no waiting room, no clinic, mark up free shipping on products, coverage vector five pets. Visit Dutch.com/tucker, use the code Tucker for $50 off. Truly Dutch is real. It works. We did a lot of research into this.

Use it before recommending it. Dutch.com/tucker. So can you expand a, I, I snorted in agreement, but I, if you wouldn't mind just explaining a little more precisely, you're point that anxiety can be good because I do think Americans are trained to see pain in general, but specifically

“anxiety is like the last thing you ever want to deal with, you should do whatever it takes to avoid”

ever feeling anxious. Why do you disagree? Why do you think it can be helpful? All of these human emotions that we have, all of these human instincts that we have, these are fundamental to our survival. They're the reason why natural selection has produced human beings that are capable of feeling all these things, if you do react in these ways to all of these events because these are the sentiments and feelings that maximize your chance of survival and not just survival,

but your thriving and your prospering and your ability to find happiness. And, you know, it's sort of like fear. Nobody likes feeling fear, but I really glad that I have the ability to feel fear if something actually dangerous is nearby because then I'll either protect myself from it or I'll try and flee or I'll try and do things to save myself. If I just took pills that constantly illuminated by sense of fear, I might feel better day to day, but it will also drastically

impede the capabilities that I have that are fundamental to my being a human being who can survive and thrive in the world. And the same is true of anxiety, anxiety is what tells us or something wrong. You know, anxiety tells us there's things that are going on that are not as they should be.

social and political change and revolutions. If you are willing to just take medication every day in order to drown out out or suffocate it and you're killing it, you're taking away one of the

“most important valuable drivers that you have as a human being and you'll just kind of study.”

You may be happier in the sense that people who perceive nothing are happy. You know, if you perceive nothing, if you just limit what you know to a very small number of things, you might be kind of that ignorance as bliss kind of formula. There is a level of happiness to it, but it's very shallow. It's

very superficial and ultimately it's designed to make you accept things that really you want not to

accept, not not to feel good about it, not to be happy about it. It also refrains reality in a way that's very dishonest. To basically therapy culture tells you, it's on you. Like you've got this trauma that you're carrying around with, you know, there's truth in all of that by the way, I don't know, I'm not dismissing it, but like big picture, a lot of Americans are really unhappy because the system is working against them, the system that they did not create into which they were

“born, which has changed a lot over the past 30 years. It is bad for you. The way we're living is bad”

for you, and that's the result of decisions that others made. But when you get prescribed, SSRIs or benzos, what is the therapist really saying? Like, your real problems are internal. It's like, yeah, I've got internal problems, but I don't know, a $20 burrito and a lifetime of debt, other people decided to create that system and it's hurting me. So do you see them saying, you kind of like shift the blame from the guilty to yourself? Yeah, I mean, you do want all the tools

as an individual that you can acquire to kind of combat external forces and to keep yourself from, because sometimes those, those human instincts can become excessive or off-kilter, you know, fear is good, but paranoia is in course because anxiety is good, but you know, like crippling

anxiety is a disorder. So it's not as though those things can't go wrong and you want to always

like turn them up to ten and maximize them. And sometimes those things can help, you know, individuals who are struggling with some sort of disorder, you know, get themselves in order, but in general, and you know, this was, this is, you know, this has become, you know, such a common anecdote now when when Trump won in 2016, which is very shocking to most people, but to especially the liberals to, to liberals, you know, in every city and every, every part of the country,

therapist reported that they had so many patients seeking out therapy as a way of dealing with Trump's victory, that they couldn't even accommodate, you know, a portion of them during COVID, people basically went insane and they should have because the conditions in which we're forced to live were so completely diversion from what human beings need, just the minimum things you need of interactivity and going outside and, you know, just normal human life that

those kind of things are, are positive reactions. Those are the kind of things that make you angry and say, no, we're not going to accept this, but you're right. And our culture we've been told that if we're to satisfy with something, if we're angry about something, if we feel anxious about something, you go in, take a pill for it, or you go and fix it. And sometimes it shouldn't be

“fixed. Sometimes you feel those things because you should feel those things. And, you know, again,”

I mean, there's from the 1950s and 1940s, there's, you know, books by Orwell and Huxley and all these kinds of dystopian books about what to them was the future, but to us as our present, based on the idea that we were essentially going to be just, happened this constant state of chemical or entertainment, distraction, tranquility in a way that would allow those empower to exploit us as much as they want because we've turned off those, those, those reactions that are

are so vital to resisting it. Why is distraction bad? You mentioned, it's, it's so interesting, mentioned distraction, which is a tool of control, but it's also a source of suffering. What, what role does distraction play? Well, it's interesting. I mean, I don't think distraction, as an, in an absolute sense is bad. I think distraction, sometimes can be a positive, you know, you go in, you watch some sporting event with your family or you watch some. Yep. Good,

film or read a good book, you know, you're, in a way, part of what it's, it's value is, is it, it takes you away from your reality and put you into a different reality. So I don't think if, if, if managed and limited, it's, it's necessarily about thing, but distraction is, is, is very addictive. I mean, we have companies that build products that are designed to do nothing, but to predict you to the distraction that they provide. I mean, I still think one of the most

amazing articles was, by the New York Times, there have been a bunch of parents who work for

the products that I'm creating for kids because I know what they're designed to do, which is to

completely distort and trap their brain into this never-ending need for just constant

simulation that is nothing to do with the real world. They're designed to be addictive, like cigarettes were or all other kinds of substances were. And if you can just keep people continuously distracted, meaning not focused on reality, then the people who are focused on reality have a gigantic advantage, which is that they can do anything that they want and very few people pay attention and you just feed them enough propaganda, you feed them enough justification and they're more eager to get back to

that that distraction, which really becomes an addiction. Well, you certainly see it in the country since February 28th, you know, the day that the war with Iran started and kind of the certain precipitous decline of the United States began. Obviously, there's kind of no way out without a re-adjustment downward in our living of standard of living, like we know that's going to happen. And yet people don't seem as agitated about it as you might have expected at the beginning.

And most interesting at all of all, there have been almost no protests into war protests. And having seen a lot of anti-war protests in my life, I'm baffled this the most significant war

that we have fought, I would argue since the Second World War in the little change balance

“power globally. And there are no protests. What is going on?”

Well, I think if you look at what has sparked anti-war protests in the past, it basically requires some visceral interaction with the war that makes people horrified and sick and by what's happening, the Vietnam War protests were almost certainly induced primarily by the fact that huge numbers of coffins and body bags were coming back to the United States on a very regular basis. And so people's neighbors and communities and people who they went to school with or who

worked with all had kids who were going over the jungles of Vietnam and coming back dead. But it was also, you know, one of the first really televised wars. I mean, it wasn't televised in

the sense that the first Iraq war was the Gulf War or the wars now are. But it was still there

was enough of a, you know, with the reporting that was done on some of the massacres by the US military and the amount of death that was taking place. So people felt that in their neighborhoods, they felt it in their communities and was no way to avoid it. And then even wars that have sparked anti-war protests were recently that didn't involve American troops come back home like the US funded and armed Israeli destruction of Gaza was one where every single day people were seeing

the most horrific carnage. You know, babies have in their limbs blown apart entire families being incinerated intense, even though they were completely defensible. Basically the most horrific

“things you could possibly think of. And I think anyone with a basic moral conscience knowing that”

their government was paying for it, that their money was being used for it, that their government's forces were being diplomatically militarily harness to participate in it and to protect it, felt this kind of immediacy, this visceral disgust that also caused them to protest, we don't really have that either of those in Iran. The number of American deaths have been relatively limited by virtue of the fact that Trump has not ordered ground troops into Iran.

At the same time, we've gotten very little visual idea of how many people who are civilians have been killed in Iran. The very first day, we know that we killed 165 schoolgirls, the very people we claim we were going to word of liberate by just dropping a gigantic missile on their school and then a second missile when people showed up to help them, the literary double strike missiles that the Israelis use constantly in Gaza. So it's not like this war has been free of

“atrocities in the like, but I think it's been kept hidden enough. We don't know the names of”

Iranian victims. We don't really get a full glimpse of it is. And at the same time, given the few number of people who are fighting the war, the fact that not many of them are coming back dead, I think it's been enough to just kind of numb people and make them think, well, this isn't really something that's affecting me directly, even though I'm paying more. I think there's a there's not pretty high trigger for when people are going to go out into the street and actually protest.

I should also add Tucker, this is something to consider as well is the protest movement that occurred on the American campuses about the war in Gaza did not just Peter out. Those were crushed. They were crushed through a combination of police violence, but especially essentially the criminalization of those protests. Many of those protesters got expelled. A lot of them got deported. They mirbade Mary very clear the government did that they regarded protests against

government policy even though it's one of our most foundational rights that's protected by the constitution as something that was going to be crushed through the use of police force and

the government's war policies, there's a good chance they're going to suffer personally.

“I think you raised the bar by design even higher for when people are going to go out into the streets.”

Home ownership has always been at the center of the American dream and is an actual asset

in place. People work their entire lives to build, place of stability and security and real value. Right now, though, too many homeowners are stuck, sweeping credit cards to cover groceries, there's basically a survival tax of 20% interest or more. So why keep handing your money to the banks when you could keep it for your family, interest is what kills you. Our friends at American financing have a better way. They're helping homeowners use their hard

earned equity and they're supporting Americans looking to fulfill the dream of owning a home with mortgage rates currently in the fives. American financing saves its customers an average of $800 a month. That's about 10 grand a year. It's not just a loan, it's a true financial reset. We recommend American financing. They're called America's home for home loans for a reason. So get out of credit card debt. I mean, it is just crazy to borrow money. No judgment,

but it's making any sense to borrow money at that rate. If you want out, call 800-685-5696-865-5696 or visit Americanfinancing.net/tucker. One of the reasons those protests took place is because there was evidence as you just said of what was happening in Gaza. But there's no coverage of the war and run or for that matter coverage of the war against Russia from Russia's perspective. So when the first Gulf War broke out on the winner of 1991,

CNN famously was there in Baghdad as the United States began its barrage of Baghdad and you could wash it live on television. That's been true for every war. It was even true in Afghanistan to some extent in Iraq, but this war, how many American network correspondents are in Toronto right now? How many are in Moscow covering that side? It does seem intentional. The propaganda is founded

“on lack of information, I think. I think this is so crucial that the easiest way to prevent”

public outrage about public policy or public behavior that deserved outrage is simply to hide it. I did a lot of reporting on the atrocities inside factory farms. The way factory food is produced through the torture and slaughter of billions of animals and not just their slaughter, but their actual horrific torture. But also the grotesque public health conditions in which these food, these animals are kept that contaminate the food pile, the risk of epidemics,

antibiotics, etc. And so one of the ways is industry purposely ensures that nobody gets outraged by it is to cover it up. They actually got used their control of state legislatures and all of the farming states to pass what are called agag of laws that made it a criminal offense for anybody to go get a job inside a factory farm and then film what was taking place, which was basically the way the only way that we ever got to a glimpse of what was happening there. They criminalized it.

Eventually courts overturned it as the obvious prohibition of violation of the first amendment that it was, but that was their goal was to say, okay, we're going to use barbarism and savagery, but as long as we prevent the public from knowing about it, they can't care because they

will never see it. That has been very much the case with war. I remember one time I don't remember

this, but in 2015 there was this kind of like loan gunman attack on the parliament, the Canadian parliament in Ottawa. And it turned out the guy, even though he was Muslim, was mostly just psychologically ill, had a long history of psychological illness. And he killed one young guard who stood outside the parliament and nobody else. And that guy became kind of an icon. In Canada, I was there the whole week, they, you know, had marches in his name, the interviewed

all his family members, and something was the sense of, wow, our society has really suffered the loss of this, you know, valuable precious human life, which it has. When have you ever heard the name of one of our victims from all the countries that we bomb

and have been bombing for 25 years, all throughout the war and terror, all always. Now, all these

bombs that drop, these drones that have dropped on wedding parties, they're all just dehumanized, they're all kind of just swept under the, the rug. Did you hear of any of the families of the 165 school girls who we kill on the first day of the war in Iran? No, that's a very deliberate strategy to make sure that Americans don't think about and don't focus on the amount of carnage and suffering and bloodshed that our military is causing against innocent people because that is the

only way that you can get population to accept these constant wars is if you don't let them realize

“what actually it entails. And I think the reason Gaza was an exception was because so many people”

in Gaza had so many cameras in their hand and we're uploading and had allies who could upload

avoid it. But they made a lot of efforts to try and prevent that from being seen as well. That

was what the band of TikTok was ultimately about was it was not a fear of China because that

had been around forever. The idea that we have to band TikTok because the Chinese have too much power and not went nowhere. The only time the TikTok band picked up enough steam and got votes in ball parties in the support of the Biden White House was when the ADL came out and said, the reason young people are being turned against Israel in the war in Gaza is because there's too many of these videos circulating on TikTok. And that's when the government intervened and said,

we can't allow TikTok to become this uncontrolled realm of free speech because it intimidates

“our youth with the things we don't want them to know. And that's why they took it out of the hands”

of bite-dands and basically put it in the hands of Mark Andreessen and Larry Ellison and people

like that. How bitterly ironic that it was a Chinese-owned company that was bringing too much free

speech into the United States. Yeah, well, I mean, that is one of the issues is for no one thinks China is a beacon of free speech, especially when it comes to them and people that's for sure. But in a way, they were the only outlet that the US government couldn't fully control, right? Like during COVID, the US government had no problem whatsoever cracking down on any debates about the origins of COVID, about the efficacy of the mask or social distancing or school lockdowns

and its advisability. They were easily able to censor it because they had basic control over all of the American big tech platforms because it was big tech platforms, need the US government for all their defense contracts, all the other contracts to get with the CIA and the Pentagon.

“They're never going to be adversarial to the US government. Bite-dands didn't really have that”

vested interest in the United States government and didn't need to obey the US government's

censorship borders and slice you say. Ironically, it was one of the only messages of a large platform that the American government couldn't censor it and that is why it had to be taken out of their hands. Not because Americans wanted to make sure we were free of Chinese repression. Imagine the sensation if you win, of going to sleep feeling like you're floating, then waking up rested with no soreness from a hard or stiff mattress. That is the daily

experience of people who use Brooklyn bedding. We can probably guess what you're thinking. A mattress like that is super expensive. Only Bill Gates uses a mattress like that. It's probably made in Bangladesh anyway. Oh, wrong on all counts. Brooklyn bedding is an American company with a seriously impressive 650,000 square foot manufacturing facility in Arizona. The company started a guy called John and he built it from the ground up right here in the

US with no college degree, by the way. Brooklyn makes mattresses for every sleep style and body type plus uses temperature regulation to make sure you stay cool throughout the night. They offer a hundred and twenty-night sleep trough many nights so you can return your mattress if you don't love it. Don't expect that to happen, though, because Brooklyn bedding has been worded the best mattress by seeing it in the best hybrid mattress by wire cutter. People love it. Check for yourself.

Brooklyn bedding.com. Use the promo code Tucker at checkout for 30% off site wide. Everything on the site 30% off. That's Brooklyn bedding.com promo code Tucker 30% off site wide all summer. My concern about the censorship that just covers all the main facts of these two wars and progress in Russia and Iran is that obviously it hardens us to the effects of what our policies actually do, but it also makes it hard to make wise decisions because you have no idea

the other side's perspective. So, for example, I keep including a dinner last night running into people who sincerely believe that Ukraine is winning the war against Russia and who have no idea that the United States is actually fighting that war NATO, but our proxy NATO. But we're, the CIA is allowing all the targeting to take place and we're running Ukraine. But they don't, I don't know once you said no that and they seem, so it seems like a feedback loop like we're winning where

Ukraine is winning amazingly and Russia's going to surrender at any moment now and give back the dumb boss that if you really believe that and it's not true of course, but if you believe that you're likely to do really dumb things that could, well, God knows where they could wind up. Do you see that happening? Oh, I mean, the, I'm sure you've had this experience, but sometimes I see things that happen that actually shock and amaze me and don't fully understand why

it doesn't produce more shock and indignation in other people. And so I just, I, everywhere I go, I just

“try and bring it up and just remind people, hey, remember when that happened, hoping that one day”

people understand how not just alarming it is on its own, but how reflective it is of how severely our discourses controlled. One of them was when young people in TikTok discovered the Ben Lawden letter and started passing it around and they bullied the Guardian into taking that document

of the Ben Lawden letter because a bunch of young people were like, wait for it, I never knew before

“that this is why people said there was so much hatred toward the United States of the Middle”

East because we sanctioned Iraq and killed 100,000 children, but, you know, our military on the most sacred zone Saudi Arabia, but also have been funding Israel in the middle of the region to win all this aggression. I always thought it was because what we were told like these Muslims hated women walking around in bikinis and hated the fact that we vote and they were shocked to discover the history that they had never been told and immediately the attempt was

taken off the Guardian website so that there's nowhere they can read that letter and then make TikTok shut down the hashtag. But, and that's one of the examples that I always bring up. But the other one is right after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February of 2022, the EU parliament quickly enacted a law that made it a criminal offense to platform any Russian state media. So if you're an adult citizen of the Netherlands or Spain or wherever and you want

to hear the Russian side of the story or you want to hear what Russia is saying about why they decided to do this or what's actually happening, you can't because it's a crime now to platform Russian state media Europeans citizens were not allowed to hear it. And when I was at Rumble, they came to Rumble and said the French government did and said, you have RT and

“Sputnik that you will out on your site and you need to take those down because you law doesn't”

permit the dissemination of those media outlets in our countries and when Rumble said no, they banned all of Rumble at the IP level. So Rumble was not available in France. That's how rigorously enforced it was. Now even at the height of the Cold War, you could go to the New York Times and cruise ships would come to the United States and give a speech and they would print the

full tax on the speech. He would be interviewed. We would always hear from Soviet leaders. The Soviet

Union, Richard Nixon would go to the Soviet Union. He would go on a national television and talk about the virtues of capitalism and freedom and the like, this is a level of censorship. So extreme that it shocks me that people tolerate. But the reason for it is is because if you actually hear the perspective of the Russians and I know you did this and I have got the impression of interviewed Russian officials because I do want to hear what they're saying. I do want to hear

the perspective of the other side in a war. But it's become almost like treasonous. You know, this climate has been created where you're not supposed to listen to them and he journalist to publish it or talk about it or somehow traders to the country or accused of being on the payroll of propaganda simply for reporting what their perspective is, not just what our government officials want you to know. And it is nothing is nothing makes propaganda, propaganda is a population

easier than if you get to just vanish the population or hearing any alternative views.

“What do you think the purpose of this is? Like what's the goal in the war against Russia?”

What's the endgame? I'll just say, for my perspective, it's the biggest country in the world it's a civilization as well as a nation state and it has the world's largest nuclear arsenal. So you're probably not going to defeat Russia, right? Just let's just start there. So, but do they not know that or what, you know, like what is the plan here?

You know, I have to confess, I've never had a clear answer. I've never gotten a clear answer

I've never settled on a clear explanation for why the US National Security State has so much deep animosity toward Russia and wants to destroy it. And because this goes back way before Russia gate, it's one of the reasons why I hated Russia gate so much not just because it was a scandal with no evidence but because I thought it was dangerous in the extreme to start feeding Americans again on this idea that the gravest threat to our democracy, the existential threat happens to be the

country with the largest nuclear stockpile that we've all been trained for generations to hate and fear. I just knew that that was not just dangerous but very purposeful. And if you go back even to, you know, 2010, 2011, Hillary Clinton at the State Department was absolutely obsessed with undermining a subverting Russia. She was openly funding in the name of, of course, democracy, anti-pood and opposition groups, a lot of the protests that appeared in the streets of Moscow

in St. Petersburg, and other places were funded by the National Movement for Democracy under Hillary Clinton's orders, all kinds of covert operations. When Hillary Clinton wrote her book, hard choices when she got the Obama administration, the only real topic on which she clearly criticized Obama was what she thought was his refusal to quote and quote confront Russia, both in Syria and in Ukraine. And there has been this, you know, a neocons and we Jeffrey Goldberg

this did this interview with Obama when he was on his way out about what there's so called

why did you let Russia annex Crimea and why did you do more to stop Russia when it came to Ukraine or

“Syria? And Obama said, and if you go back and read this, you're going to have a kind of different”

view of Obama, he said, everybody in this town loves to beat their chest and talk about how we're going to go to war and we're going to, you know, take, not allow this and stand up to this.

And he said, we don't have any vital interest in Ukraine. We never have and we never will.

And Russia will always have, look at Ukraine rather than his border, one of the most vulnerable hearts of his border as a vital interest for obvious reasons. The same way Mexico and Canada are always going to be a vital interest to us. And we're never going to, they're always going to have escalatory dominance there. And if anyone in this town wants to end up in say, we should go to war with Russia, risk war with Russia over who governs various provinces in the Donbass

than let them actually say it. But to me, that's kind of insane. And it's just odd because that was 2016. And it was just a couple months later when the entire Democratic Party became utterly fixated on the grave threat posed by Russia. And you know, I'll just tell you this quick story,

Tucker, that I find always sticks with me. It's so interesting. When I went to Russia one time,

“I think it was like the second or third time, after working with Snowden, there was a time when”

Snowden was trapped inside the International Airport. And the US government didn't want anything more in the world than to get their hands on Snowden. And he was in Russian custody, but inside the the airport because Russia hadn't led them in, and he couldn't, and he couldn't leave. They were offering the Russians everything that the Russians wanted. You may have all these Russian fugitives, well, hand them over to you. And the Russians refused and I thought for sure, Snowden was going to

be handed over to the US, given what a high priority was for the US. And when I went to Russia, I asked like, there was such an obvious deal there to be made. Why wasn't the deal made? And what I

was told was, in part, it's because Russia has, the Russian identity has always been about

offering free haven to those oppressed and persecuted in the West, and they seeking a refuge in Russia. It's kind of fundamental to Russia. And so a Putin turned Snowden over to the US. It would be seen as anti-Russian would be, I know a lot of people in the US think he's a totalitarian leader who doesn't have to care about Russian public opinion. Of course, that's an absurd fairy tale. And they said he probably just would promote so much outrage that nothing would be really worth it.

But they said the real reason is that so often the US and Russia end up not being able to do deals that are so obviously in both sides, rational self-interest, because it's like this DNA, generationally cultivated hatred within the military and intelligence establishments of both countries that still believe the other is just existential enemy, long out for the Cold War is over, that just almost like inertia drive each country to want to harm the other. So I don't know why

Tucker, I mean, it seems to me like the US and Russia could do a lot of business. It did do a lot of business under Obama. They helped negotiate the Iran deal. They were fundamental in fighting al-Qaeda and ISIS alongside the US in Syria with Assad. And for some reason, people in the national security state for all kinds of, I'll tell you one quick part of it too. A lot of the most hawkish, neocons in the United States are people who are refugees, Jewish refugees from from the

Soviet Union, Ukraine and every part of the Soviet Union. And Russia, when it was the USSR, was considered pretty hostile toward Israel. And so a lot of people who feel alignment with Israel who are loyal to Israel have long looked at Russia, the Russians, the Soviets, as being one of their worst enemies because they were adversarial to Israel. They often were aligned with the Arabs in the Middle East. And I think a lot of it is that residual kind of cultural allegiance that

these people continue to harbor even once they come and become American and start working in the US national security state. For the last 50 years or so, oil has been priced pretty much exclusively in US dollars. It's called the Petro dollar. And the point was to give the dollar our currency built in demand around the world. And it's worked pretty well, but it's changing. Fast, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf nations are increasingly selling oil trades in Chinese one or other currencies.

So the dollar's share of global reserves has dropped to its lowest level in a quarter century. Central banks are in the world now have more gold than they've had in decades. China's buying so much gold that's affecting the global price. Don't wait until the dollar continues to lose value. You can protect your wealth today by opening a precious metals

“IRA or by buying gold. I mean, shipped to your home or stored for you. That's why we started”

battalion metals to give Americans an honest, fair-priced way to buy precious metals. It's not a scam. You do exactly what we're making. It's like three points over spot. Battalion metals.com/tucker

But a lot of these people, well, I mean, Jeffery Goldberg at the Atlantic, for example, Tori and Nulin, formerly Dick Cheney's office and then the State Department. I mean, these are American-born people. They're not from- They're American, so people, though, vera, or whatever. Yeah. No, but their families are from there. You know, Mark Rubio is an American-born American, but his parents come from Cuba. And if you grow up in an immigrant home, I didn't.

But I know plenty people who did my grandparents were- kill my grandparents were immigrants. You hear and then develop a kind of affinity for the world view that looks at that country, that country of origin, as a very special country to which you owe some kind of an allegiance. And so you

“don't have to come from that country, although some of them do. But, you know, I think one of the”

reasons why Mark Rubio is so eager to rule Cuba, which he absolutely is, and on the verge of doing, is because that was the life-long dream of his parents and his extended family and community,

was that the United States government, the power of it, would be used to fix what they always

regarded as their country, the one to which they always planned to go back to once it was fixed. And that's now what Mark Rubio is going to do. And the fact that he sees the world through this Cuban immigrant experience obviously is a major role in that. I think that's true for a lot of different groups, including people who were Soviet Jews or his families became refugees from Soviet Russia. -Why do you tell me what you think? Well, I think there's something,

I don't know, for first of all, I don't know the answer, but I do know, because I've listened very carefully as someone who's been agnostic on Russia in my entire life. I've never had strong feelings about it ever. But I've listened carefully to people describe it in Washington at the

policymaking level, and you always get this sense that they feel, and sometimes even to say it,

that they have a right to control what happens in Russia. I've always been confused by that. Where does that right come from? It's almost like an ownership like it was ours and this guy called Putin showed up and took it over and he's illegitimate. And for my American perspective, I'm like, I don't know, whatever you think of Putin, but it's not my country. He was elected. He is very popular. No one can dispute that. All polls show that. Putin is way more popular than

Trump or any American leader has ever been since Teddy Roosevelt. So it's like, I don't where do you get this feeling that you have a right to control what happens in this country? But I haven't, we notice that a lot of these people seem to feel they have that right. -Well, there's a, you know, one of the, I mean, I still think Russia gate of all the moral panics that we had, you know, like AOC yesterday called woke is them quote unquote crazy. Even they're being forced down to acknowledge

that was some insane moral panic. I mean, I'm just trying to laugh it off like it was just some funds, any trivial thing that went a little away as opposed to this deeply repressive McCarty 8, you know, blood thirsty, campaigned to destroy people's lives for the slightest deviation or thought crimes. But in any event, that was one. COVID was one. We've had a lot of these. And I still think Russia gate was probably among the most strange, and especially the one that got the most buy-in.

And when people started saying with the straight phase, oh, this is the Russians trying to

“interfere in our secret democracy. And so that was something that only the Russians do,”

that there's some kind of unprecedented crime. There's a, there's a, a time magazine cover story from 1992 or 1993, where they have on the cover, Uncle Sam, and then two like prominent Clinton adjacent political advisors and a big picture of Boris Yeltson. And I forget exactly the headline

is, but it's something like how Americans help Boris Yeltson win. And it was basically an

armata of Americans political assault in some strategists in the like going over and creating the brand of Boris Yeltson so that we could control the privatization process and every other aspect of Russian public life, which was one of the absolute worst moments for Russians and all of their history, and they've had a lot of terrible moments. But that post-Gorbid sub post-Cold War privatization, Yeltson era, Russia was absolutely sickening in atrocious in terms of the suffering

that abroad. And Americans were boasting of the role that they played, the central role they played in causing all that to happen so that they could have basically an American puppet,

“which was born Yeltson at the helm of Russia. And I think you're right that when Putin came in”

and this is so often what drives American foreign policy is obviously there's nothing to do with whether a country is or a leader is democratic or repressive, we love more than anything pro-American dictators, the more savage the better, the thing we can abide, the things that causes us to want to overthrow countries and governments and do coups in the like is when we can't control a particular leader. We had to worry in Libya once Gaddafi wanted to use revenues from

his country lived in poverty and misery. That's typically what happens. And Putin very much represented this kind of nationalistic figure who wasn't hostile at all to the last, but also wanted to preserve his own country's traditions and especially its sovereignty.

“Well, I think that's really worth saying. I mean Putin on the spectrum of Russian politics is”

firmly on the moderate side. I mean, yes, right. And pro-European in his early career was in Europe and he's Germany as a KGB officer famously speaks German. I mean, he's tried to join NATO. So this idea that like he is a Russian nationalist who hates the West on principle or for ideological reasons or whatever is like totally insane. And I do think we're going to see someone like that lead Russia next. I was no doubt in my mind. But where did that why the

fixation on lying to us about who Putin is and what that system is seems crazy to me? I mean, this is what the U.S. government does and its allied media institutions do when they want to demonize a foreign leader to justify a war. I mean, I, you know, the Democratic Party, and not just, you know, say like the Chuck Schumer wing the Democratic Party, but AOC, Iliano Mar, the whole squad, like every as far left as you can go to the far

center right as you can go. Where you nanomiss from the start in wanting to take hundreds of billions of dollars that they claim they really want to use to improve the material lives of American citizens at home. And they wanted to send it to the coffers of Rathion and Boeing and Palantir in order to fuel the NATO war that does not save Ukraine. It sacrifices Ukraine. So for the

“geological of weakening Russia, not a single Democrat, decented. I think now there was recently”

some exchange really on Omar and summarily said something to some Neocon number of the Senate with whom they were arguing online. Well, you're the one who paid for the bombs that are dropping on on these people and he reminded them. No, you're at, you, you also voted to decend the money to to buy those bombs for for Ukraine. And I think some of them are starting to have a little bit of second thoughts once they see just how this war is escalating. It's still very dangerous.

But that when you can create a kind of demonized single headed figure and it's always based on

the slide that he's an absolute autocrat. You just make the country personalized into that leader. It's a very standard Neocon Pro War propaganda technique. It's like, I don't know if you're remembered, but back in 2008, 2010, we were constantly told that Mach modad is the new Hitler. You know, there's been so many new Hitler since then. And before, you know, he served two close totutional terms, walked out of office peacefully. No one that's ever heard of him again until recently

when apparently these were trying to like reinstall him as the new leader of Iran, like the new Hitler. And of course, you know, Saddam, all these people we were once aligned with did business with, suddenly become overnight, you know, this wild caricature of you go back and look at what every American leader has said, who dealt with Vladimir Putin going back to Bill Clinton and George Bush.

And Obama, they always said he's a very rational trustworthy, you know, calculating leader.

You can do agreements with him. And again, both Bush and Obama were closely with Putin in all sorts of ways. And then suddenly when it was time to fuel a war into redeemedized Russia, suddenly became Putin is this madman, unlike anything we've seen since Hitler, you know, overnight, the narrative changes and so many people succumb to it. And that is one of the main problems of war propaganda, it's just demonized these other political leaders. So if, if AOC is describing wokeness as, you know,

excessive or trying to make it, you know, laugh it off or I saw that she said yesterday that calling for the abolition of police, such as something you say during a pandemic, I mean, just kind of joking around. It's just a Halloween costume she wore for a day and discarded. If she's talking like that, she's running for president, obviously. What? How would you evaluate her politics? Like if you're trying to understand, particularly for some like me who's not a life-worn Democrat, who is she and how different

“is she from say Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer or Steny Hoyer or just a, you know, the Democratic leadership?”

I think the person who understood much earlier than almost anybody else, who AOC was, is Margaret Taylor Greene. Margaret Taylor Greene, even before, you know, what kind of he came

her eye opening and awakening and transformation, used to always object to this notion that AOC

was some kind of radical, some kind of like threat to establishment status quo dogma. And she would always say AOC is not a radical. AOC is a fraud. She's a partisan hack. She's there

party and make them feel as though they're joining a party that isn't really Chuck Schumer and Joe

“Biden's party or Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton's party. It's like a nicer, more socialistic,”

kind of softer, younger, hipper version. And in that way, she kind of becomes the Democratic party's principal tool. There's nothing in AOC's life from openly that suggests any kind of anti-establishment or radical impulses of any kind. You know, she got lucky. She ran against one of these kind of guys who even though he is extremely powerful within DC, you know, spends all his time in the back rooms with lobbyists writing the laws with just Joe Crawley who was going

to be the successor to the Pelosi. He's a kind of guy that never goes on. He shows no one in his

district knows him. Doesn't know his name hasn't seen him. He has nothing to do with his district. He's something like nominally represents it. So because she took out a member of the Democratic establishment and was normally part of the essay, her branding was that suited her that she was this very radical figure. She's anything but that. To me, she already has morphed into Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi used that one time, be considered, you know, far too to the laugh from San Francisco.

And then all she did was she actually became extremely hawk. Nancy Pelosi made this very product and visit to Taiwan to treat the Taiwanese. It was almost like a state visit. It was very provocative to Chinese against what the Biden administration was willing to do. She was an absolute hawk on Israel and Iran and pretty much everything else. She was few people served corporate power in corporate interest more than Nancy Pelosi. AOC is well on her way to the being that. And we've

seen it. So I mean, it could give you a thousand examples. But to fight to say that, that's who she really is. The DSA is descended obviously and DSA candidates are trying to win in primaries famously

“in New York 3-1. Are there DSA lead protests against the war with Russia?”

Because it seems to me if you were like actually against the establishment, there's no bigger establishment project than the war against Russia. It's been ongoing as you just said for 30 years. And it enriches Rathion and Boeing in the rest of the defense contractors. So like if you were a radical political party, you'd start by opposing that. Are they?

Well, some are. I'll tell you this interesting thing. You know, when when I start first

started really kind of connecting to and immersed myself in critiques of foreign policy and U.S. oligarchy and the like, you know, the models that I use were kind of what you might now call the old left, like the ACLU civil libertarian. Yeah, exactly. Goki. You know, even Nome Chomsky, who was like just, you know, who thought that the intelligence agencies and the military industrial complex were the greatest evil. What is the last time you heard anybody associated on the left

with any kind of platform like Bernie Sanders or AOC, talk about the evils of the CIA or the the NSA. Oh, the endorser Abigail Spanberger as the CIA literally leads over the Commonwealth of Virginia exactly at the least end of the Democratic Party. And the reason is in so many ways because

Russia gate was a basically. It was a hoax that emanated from the CIA and the FBI. And those people

became the allies of the Democratic Party against Trump and they aligned with those with those people. It's just to give you a very quick little anecdote into that, well, not how you do want to testify about the Twitter files that showed this constant, endless coercive pressure from the Biden administration on big tech, including Twitter to censor COVID dissidents. They had this guy calling our our red, who was a who's a Democratic Congressman for Texas, who said, you know,

“you should take off your tinfoil hat and realize that maybe the good folks of the CIA and the”

FBI are censoring not for it any nefarious purposes, but because they want to keep you safe. That was like that. The Democratic Party is now the one that tells you that you should be grateful for CIA censorship because all they want to do is just help the good people stay safe. And now to the Democratic Party has become, and that's why there was basically no opposition to the, they were told Russia was what put Trump and office that that Russia was

the absolute aggressor and this was these were work crimes similar to the worst words. You can imagine they all got just overnight convinced to want to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into the arms entry. One of the candidates who won in New York, Darlisa Shabalye, who was actually, who was actually one of the least likely to win. She ran against that eight year incumbent. It was the head of the House Progressive

Hispanic Caucus. And she won. She was actually somebody who has a history of saying, "We're not going to support this need of war. Why are we spending all this money to keep the to fund the need of war against Russia, that sacrificing Ukrainians?" I was so happy to finally find someone on the left, reconnected to that old, and she kind of quickly has downplayed it because

some of these DSA candidates. The problem though, Tucker, you see this with Trump and the Mugam movement. And you've definitely seen it with a lot of these supposedly radical candidates who became adjacent to the Democratic Party, is you can think that you're taking over these parties in order to come and deer them and their power to change their dogma to yours. But infinitely more likely for so many reasons is that it will come and deer you. And it will suck you in,

and it will severely limit. Even if you have radical ideas or impulses or outside of the norm or anti-establishment thoughts, we'll severe them at your ability to advocate them and to impose them. That is the most bracing fact. And I'm glad you said that, but I'm also sure of sorry you said that because it's so depressing. Do you, I mean, is there anywhere? And I almost hate to use

“word radical because I think this is also reasonable and prohuman. Like don't fight wars”

if you don't have to. Don't, you know, lie to your own population. These are not radical. They should be like foundational beliefs. But anyway, they're radical in this context of our politics. Do you see any movement, actual reform movement rising out of the betrayal of mega and the corruption of everyone else?

I mean, the problem is that our system of government has been constantly fortified each decade

to make it harder and harder to exist outside of the doopily. And the reason is obvious that all politicians are either members of the Republican or Democratic Party. And one of their most common interests is to make sure that you only have the Democratic and Republican Party, and that it's virtually impossible for anyone to compete in a meaningful way with it. And so every all that gets passed, every time there's election laws rewritten, every time it's in the direction of making it

increasingly more difficult for any kind of independent party or movement, a third party that

“wants to remain independent of all parties to have any meaningful success. I have to say, you know,”

there are countries that can Europe in South American, including in Brazil, to have a multi-party system. Brazil has been like 26 parties, for example, represented in the Congress. But even in the Democratic world, things were starting to get polarized as well between whether it's the populist and the populist right or the populist right and the establishment left because people are just living on this politics of fear. Like you don't have to like who you support as long as they're

less scary than the alternative. So that's kind of a cultural norm that has been developed and imposed that further strengthened this difficulty. At the same time, like everything we've been talking about throughout this entire discussion is about the fact that Americans are, you know, and this is for me what led to not just selection of Trump by the way, but actually Obama as well, more than anything else is these were figures so unlikely in the past and became possible only

because people wanted unlikely figures. They wanted the figures that didn't look like they came from the establishment that they've come more and more to hate with good reason every year. And that is creating an instability which as you said before can be scary because instability can lead to things that are even worse than what you're rebelling into the first place. But instability also entails a lot of opportunity. And I can't tell you exactly how or when, but we are getting to the

“point, I think, where people are who never before would have considered it are going to be much more”

open to identifying with movements or even kind of campaigns or parties that are not connected to or identifying as Republican or Democrat. We've seen ones in the past that have worked, like Ross Perot, of course he was a billionaire which is maybe what you need. But he had a very successful third party candidacy based on the support by both Clinton and Bush 41 for a free trade that as he very pressurately warned with the industrialized the countries suck out all jobs. And you know,

you've seen that before, but I think we've never been more right for it because

both parties are hated. And the system itself is hated. And I think people are craving a credible alternative. It's just hard to create a credible alternative, given all the barriers that have been deliberately erected. But something is coming. You feel that. For sure. I mean, note that, how can it not? I mean, this is, you know, the biggest myth, the biggest lie of our politicalism is that the two political parties can't agree on anything.

They're always at each other's throats. It's always so polarized. So reality is that that the two political parties agree on 90% at least of major policy issues. The only time the media covers it is in those very few cases when they disagree. And it casts the appearance that

they're always disagreeing. Obama himself, when, you know, they used to use this very vitralic

language against him like John Bainer and the House Republicans, he would always say, in private, we all know it's theater. We're all playing within the 40 art line. The, you know, the 240 art lines.

vast fundamental differences between the parties is crucial to giving you the sense that you have

“this wild freedom that everything is just so free, spirited and, and, and, and nothing is controlled”

or limited when reality, there's lockdown on most policy debates because ball parties are fully in board because they save the same, same donor classes, they serve the same interests. And that is,

“I think more and more people are realizing that. And I mean, the fact that we elected Donald Trump”

twice, for me, pretty much proves that anything is possible. You have this amazing ability to

crystallize and explain things I've suspected or believed, but better than I ever could, is really

the smartest. Glenn Greenwell, thank you very much for that. Always great talking, Dr. Thanks.