Glenn Greenwald, 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 um 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've got
nothing to hide, you've got nothing to
fear. As long as you're, you know, soul
is right with the party, you're you're
okay. Don't worry about the panopticon.
So, this is obviously disgusting. It's
anti-American. and 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 the Snowden
reporting that really was the first
meaningful broad-based reporting that
showed that the goal of the US
government was to create an absolutely
ubiquitous surveillance state that
monitored, collected, stored highly
invasive and revealing information not
about terror suspects or potential
pedophiles, but about every single one
of us. A 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 it
its basis was in the NSA which is a uh
key part of the defense department of
the military planning unit, the US
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
PI private and public sector. But the
companies and the the sector that is
most financially interested in this
surveillance state are the people in
Silicon Valley. people who, for example,
are are running Palanteer and have
gotten unimaginably wealthy, multi
multi-billionaire wealth from helping
not only to create a surveillance state,
but then merging it with the US
military. And this is what the Israelis
of course set up in in Gaza. It's one of
the reasons why a lot of people, one of
the wildest 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
to exist in all of human history. And a
lot of the reporting we did was about
the partnership between the NSA and uh
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
Palanteer and Alex Karp, Andre Horowitz
that has invested in a lot of these uh
these AI surveillance uh companies also
invested in Palanteer, also a major
investor in 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 neocon in nature, very uh
wararmongering 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 no, most people would not make that
case. They would say this is a tyranny.
They're killing their own people.
They're throwing gays off the roof.
They're shooting protesters. And becau,
and same with 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 that argument
are now endorsing tyranny and
totalitarianism at home. So it's like
what could possibly be the justification
for their foreign policy?
You know, as somebody who has really had
to immerse myself in US war propaganda
and just war propaganda generally, as
somebody who has opposed pretty much
every war that the United States has
fought over the last, say, 25 years,
there are a lot of 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 it's a very precise
science. It's it's not surprising that
it works. But sometimes there are things
that are so brazen about it that even my
respect for the the efficacy of
propaganda makes me shocked that it does
work. And one of the the things that I
find most shocking is this idea that the
United States goes to war against the
tyrannical and dictate the dictatorial
governments of 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 in Iran and countless other
places. Right now our closest allies
that Trump loves most are the most
brutal regimes in Saudi Arabia, the
Amiradis, the the Egyptians all over the
world. That has always been our goal.
And anyone who believes, there's
actually an article last week in the New
York Times about how these idiotic
Iranian exiles who, you know, have lived
for decades in London and Toronto and
and and Chicago and LA somehow got held
up as the voice of the Iranian people
who were saying, "Please, please come
and bomb our country. We want you to
free us." Now are 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 interest, and
they're willing to kill as many of us as
possible. in order to advance that goal.
It's like, oh, that just occurred to you
that that So, yes, there if you were to
believe that neocons and the like and
their war propaganda about how they want
to free the press people of 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 and
democracy have nothing to do with why we
fight wars. In fact, if anything, we're
more interested in undercutting freedom
and 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 what we
were told was this very liberatory
emancipatory 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 of the ability to spy,
people from the Stazzi, like who are
actually in the Stazzi in East 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 a 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 to see Barry
Weiss and the free press justifying it,
cheering it, making it seem all benign
is exactly what you would expect of
people who have that as their goal. And
not just benign, not just, you know,
harmless and non-threatening, but they
they've actually taken it, I think, a
step beyond that and they're scolding
anyone who wants privacy. And and by the
way, these are all pro-choice people who
believe Griswall 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, or 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 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 the
CEO of Google, uh the for for many
years, that's that's actually one time
what what exactly what he said when
people were raising questions about the
invasiveness of Google and how it's
creating this this drag net of 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 in 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 the only reason to hide things is if
you're a pedophile or otherwise engaged
in dangerous conduct that you shouldn't
be engaged in. Ultimately, I think
you're right, that is the most
pernicious and sinister 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. And I just I think
sometimes we forget like how unamerican
that is. you know what when I went to
law school and like you know you study
the federalist papers and the
constitution and the the layout of it. I
remember being
a kind of amazed like it really struck
me how the founders had 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 more 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 quarter 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. And the idea that you should
give up your privacy, that only bad
people care about privacy could not be
any more anti-American in its ethos.
Lots 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 Bloss makes it very simple. You
start with an easy online health
assessment. Then if necessary, your
licensed clinician will order
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
guesswork. There's not a
one-sizefits-all plan. It's totally
customized. Prescriptions are filled by
Americanbasedies using ingredients
sourced from FDA registered facilities.
Tons of quality testing. No stone
unturned. You're getting the best. You
don't have to guess 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
joy andblok.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 joyblo.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 the normal
reaction to complaint if if someone you
love says, you know, I I don't I don't
like what you're doing. Part of you is
like, okay, well, I love this person.
I'm 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 who are
pushing the war in Iran, the neocons,
that suggest deep contempt for the
American population. And you you saw it
in the last 10 days in uh the debate
over food inflation. Rather than just
make the argument that no, you know, the
numbers aren't real. Your lived
experience is imaginary. It doesn't
actually cost more to eat than it did 5
years ago. You're making it up in your
mind. You're crazy. They they've been
scolding people like yelling at them
like, you know, how dare you complain
about a $20 burrito. You're not doing it
right. What is that?
You know, this is I mean, this is one of
the things that I think we've gotten
away from so severely. And maybe it was
too gradual and it kind of like the the
the frog and the the 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 has to pay for the war.
They didn't know that we were just going
to create this fiat system of money and
borrow, you know, trillions from China.
But anyway, that was their assumption.
But it would also affect, you know, the
country in every single other way. Your
sons and your sons would be endangered
because they were the ones who would
have to go fight. And so, it needed
buyin from the American people. And the
way to do that was to ensure that
the only way the the president could
start a war is if the American people
through their Congress approved. We just
completely got rid of that. 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 buy in
of the American people before starting a
war. That was what the whole 18-month
campaign of what turned out to be lies.
But still, it was an 18-month PR
campaign by George Bush and Dick Cheney
and the rest to convince Americans why
we needed to go and invade Iraq and and
take out Saddam Hussein. They they
thought it was important that Americans
got on board. And they did. Twothirds or
or more of Americans favored 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
thought when trying to sell this war in
Iran that basically came out of nowhere.
polls showed that Americans
overwhelmingly were opposed to it and
they've only gotten more opposed. And
the the the 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
at the supermarket when they're already
facing economic difficulties? Too bad
for them. They need to shut up and and
accept it and take it because our goals
are more important. It's a it's such a
overtly contemptuous 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 elite institutions that
they're willing to vote for anybody
left, right, socialist, you know, far
right, whatever you call them, that they
see are radically opposing the
establishment and 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 and
articulate a lot, are now much more
mainstream. So that that suggests that
like the system is changing really fast
in a way that is good in some ways, but
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 buyin of the public,
right? Because it could hurt you. But
these people didn't even flinch and on a
bipartisan level. I mean, it's Trump did
it, but you know, it was there were
Democrat 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 wrote a book
on this once actually I was about to
write a book on it when I met someone
named Edward Snowden and it kind of
derailed me for a few years. Um, I
remember I 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 highle mathematician at one
of the most lucrative hedge funds making
enormous sums of money. And I remember
after the 2008 financial crisis, you
know, I was doing a lot of reading about
like oligarchs in the past and how
frightened they were of the public. The
greatest fear that 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 if we don't
make these people's lives better in some
way you know you can say goodbye to the
whole capitalist system and they used to
have yachts where they had safes full of
their jewels because they thought any
moment they were going to you know have
a kind of bullsh bullshik revolution and
that's why like John Rockefeller and
Henry Ford used to ride down the street
handing money out that's where
philanthropy came from to convince
Americans know they were good people
because they were scared. And I remember
at the financial crisis, I said, you
know, it really seems like the elite
class has completely lost its fear. Like
the 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 things he says is 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 comes from. Like you if you have
this massive wealth inequality,
there are two ways to to I think uh
maintain it. One is to plate 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 a enough of a decent life of just
above the sub assistance level. But if
you're not going to do that, the
alternative is just paramililitarize the
society. Build huge walls behind which
all the rich live. uh give extreme
authorities uh of 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 in 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
Republican, not pro or anti-abortion or
pro anti-trans or whatever, but based on
what is being done with the distribution
of power and wealth, I don't think that
even the greatest amount of 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 if people are are are
supportive of it or angry about it
because they just believe, you know,
Peter Teal believes he can build his own
private island and and have Palunteer
surveil 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 in this. It is not simply
surveilling and threatening people into
obedience, but it's also changing the
nature of people through benzoazipines
and SSRIs and just the whole cornucopia
of sort of suppressive drugs that just
handed out. You can get them online
without ever seeing a doctor and that
seems like a an instrument of social
policy to me of social control.
>> Yeah. And 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
to decriminalize it. Um, 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
>> that are basically designed to just
>> almost create a zombie state. Like
sometimes anxiety is good, anger is
good. These are the things that, you
know, are are are drivers of of us
wanting better lives. And if you
sandpaper all the edges off of humanity
and just turn them into kind of like
doped up narcoticized
you know people who are willing to
accept any 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 a large extent if you know people in
your life, which you probably do, who
are taking large amount of
anti-depressants or Xanax or any of
these medications, marijuana too, to put
themselves constantly in a state of
tranquility and acceptance and 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 opium is the opium of the
masses, right? Drugs are the We are
strongly pro dog on this show. We make
no secret of 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
have bought up veterary 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. Licensed
veterinarians easy remote appointments
start with the 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 owned vet.
50% of Dutch customers say they had not
seen a vet in 3 years because they
couldn't afford it. Dutch fixes that.
10-minute calls, no waiting room, no
clinic markup, free shipping on
products, coverage for up to 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, used it before
recommending it. dutch.com/tucker.
So, but can you expand? I I snorted in
agreement, but I would if you wouldn't
mind just explaining a a little more
precisely your point that anxiety can be
good because I I do think Americans are
trained to see pain in general, but
specifically anxiety as 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 produce human beings that
are capable of feeling all these things
and who 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 you're 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'm really glad that I have the
ability to feel fear if something
actually dangerous is 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 eliminated my
sense of fear, I might feel better
dayto-day, but it would 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 there's
something wrong. You know, anxiety tells
us there's things that are going on that
are not as they should be. This is one
of the most This is what drives
intellectual achievement. It's what
drives social and political change and
revolutions.
>> If you are willing to just take
medication every day in order to drown
that out or suffocate it or kill 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 stagnate. 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 kind of that ignorance is 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 ought not to accept, not
ought not to feel good about, ought not
to be happy about. It also reframes
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 and
all of which you know there's truth in
all of that. By the way, I don't 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
benzo, 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 what I'm 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 those human instincts can
become excessive or offkilter. You know,
fear is good but paranoia isn't. Of
course,
>> um anxiety is good, but you know, like
crippling anxiety is 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 10 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 uh you know this has
become you know such a common uh
anecdote now when when when Trump won in
2016 which is very shocking to most
people but to especially liberals to to
liberals you know in every city and
every every part of the country
therapists 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
were forced to live were so completely
divergent 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.
In our culture, we've been told that if
we're dissatisfied with something, if
we're angry about something, if we feel
anxious about something, you go and 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 kind of
dystopian books about what to them was
the future but to us is our present
based on the idea that we were
essentially going to be uh just kept in
this constant state of chemical or
entertainment distraction
uh tranquility in a way that would allow
those in power 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 you
mentioned it's so interesting you
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 and 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 it value
is is it it takes you away from your
reality and puts you into a different
reality. So, I don't think if if if
managed and limited, it's it's
necessarily a bad thing, but distraction
has is is very addictive. I mean, we
have companies that build products that
are designed to do nothing but to addict
you to the distraction that they
provide. I mean, I still think one of
the most amazing articles was a the New
York Times interviewed a bunch of
parents uh who work for Silicon Valley
companies, and they were al always
saying, "I would never ever allow my
kids to use 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 neverending need for just
constant stimulation that has nothing to
do with the real world." This 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 will pay attention. And you
just feed them enough propaganda, you
feed them enough justification, and 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 the certain
precipitous decline of the United States
began. It's obviously there's kind of no
way out without a readjustment downward
in our living of st 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, anti-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 that it'll change balance of power
globally, and there are no protests.
Like, what 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 sickened 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 uh
communities and people who they went to
school with or who worked with all had
kids who were going over to the jungles
of Vietnam and coming back dead. Um 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 with the 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. There was no way to avoid
it. And then even wars that have sparked
anti-war protests more recently that
didn't involve American troops coming
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 having their limbs blown
apart, entire families being incinerated
intense even though they were completely
defenseless. 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 and militarily harnessed
to 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. Um the number
of American deaths have been relatively
limited by virtue of the fact that Trump
has not ordered ground troops in into
Iran. Um, at the same time, we've gotten
very little
visual
uh idea of how many people who are
civilians have been killed in Iran. The
very first day, we know that we killed
165 school girls, the very people we
claimed we were going to war to liberate
by just dropping a gigantic missile on
their school. uh and then a second
missile when people showed up to to help
them. The the notorious double strike
missiles that the Israelis use
constantly in Gaza. So, it's not like
this war has been free of atrocities and
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 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 a 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 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 me made very 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 state punishments of all kind.
And when you create a climate where
people know if they protest the
government's war policies there's a good
chance they're going to suffer
personally I think you raise the bar by
design even higher for when people are
willing to go out into the streets. Home
ownership has always been at the center
of the American dream. It is an actual
asset, a place people work their entire
lives to build, a place of stability and
security and real value. Right now
though, too many homeowners are stuck
swiping 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 doesn't make any sense to borrow
money at that rate. If you want out,
call 800685-55696.
800685-55696
or visit americananfinancing.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 really there's no
coverage of the war in Iran or for that
matter coverage of the war against
Russia from Russia's perspective. So
when the first Gulf War broke out in the
winter of 90 90 and 91, CNN famously was
there in Baghdad as the United States
began its barrage of Baghdad and you
could you could watch it live on
television. That's been true for every
war. It was even true in Afghanistan to
some extent and Iraq. But this war are
there. How many American network
correspondents are in Tran right now?
How many are in Moscow covering that
side? I it it does seem intentional like
the propaganda is founded on lack of
information that I think
I mean I think this is so crucial that
the easiest way to prevent public
outrage about public policy or public
behavior that deserves outrage is simply
to hide it. You know, I I did a lot of
reporting on the atrocities inside
factory farms, the way factory food is
is produced through the torture and uh
slaughter of billions of animals and not
not just their slaughter, but the actual
horrific torture, but the also the
grotesque public health conditions in
which this food is these animals are
kept that contaminate the food pile, the
risk of epidemics from antibiotics,
etc., etc. And so, one of the ways this
industry purposely ensures that nobody
gets outraged by it is to cover it up.
They actually got used their control of
state legislatores in all of the farming
states to pass what are called a gag
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 they
criminalized it. Eventually courts
overturned it as the obvious uh
prohibition violation of the first
amendment that it was. that that was
their goal was to say, "Okay, we're
going to use bar barbarism and savagery,
but as long as we prevent the public
from knowing about it, there's they
can't care because they they will never
see it." That has been very much the
case with war. I I I remember one time,
I don't remember this, but in 2015,
there was this kind of like lone gunman
attack on the parliament, uh, the
Canadian Parliament in Ottawa. And
turned out the guy, even though he was
Muslim, was mostly just psych psych
psychiatrically ill, had a long history
of psych psychiatric illness. And he
killed uh 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.
They interviewed all his family members.
And so there was a 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 on terror all always
now all these bombs that dropped 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
killed 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
populations 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 were
uploading and had allies who could
upload the actual carnage and the actual
inhumity that was taking place every day
and and people couldn't avoid it. But
they made a lot of efforts to try and
prevent that from being seen as well.
That was what the ban of Tik Tok was
ultimately about was it was not a fear
of China because that had been around
forever. The idea that we have to ban
Tik Tok because the Chinese have too
much power and that went nowhere. The
only time the Tik Tok ban picked up
enough steam and got votes in both
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 and 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 Tik Tok to
become this uncontrolled realm of free
speech because it in it contaminates 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 dans and
basically put it in the hands of Mark
Andre and and 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 their own 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 co the
US government had no problem whatsoever
cracking down on any debates about the
origins of COVID about the efficacies 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
those big tech tech platforms need the
US government for all their defense
contracts, all the other contracts they
get with the CIA and the Pentagon.
They're never going to be adversarial to
the US government. Bite dance didn't
really have that vested interest in the
United States government and didn't need
to obey the US government censorship
orders. And so, as you say, ironically,
it was one of the only vestages of a
large platform that American that the
American government couldn't censor. 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 will, 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. Ho ho. wrong on
all counts. Brooklyn Bedding is an
American company with a seriously
impressive 650,000
square foot manufacturing facility in
Arizona. The company is started by 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 120
night sleep trial, 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 awarded the best mattress by CNET
and the best hybrid mattress by Wire
Cutter. People love it. Check for
yourself. Brooklynbetting.com. Use the
promo code Tucker at checkout for 30%
off sitewide. Everything on the site,
30% off.
That's brooklynding.com.
Promo code Tucker, 30% off sitewide all
summer.
My my concern about the censorship uh
that just covers all the main facts of
these two wars in progress in Russia and
Iran is that obviously it hardens us to
the effects of our what our policies uh
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 at
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 no one seems to know that.
And they seem so it seems like a
feedback loop like we're winning or
Ukraine is winning amazingly and Russia
is going to surrender at any moment now
and give back to the DMBOS 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 what 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 con everywhere I go, I
just try and bring it up and and just
remind people, hey, remember when that
happened? Hoping that one day people
will understand like how not just
alarming it is on its own, but how
reflective it is of how severely our
discourse is controlled. One of them was
when young people on Tik Tok discovered
the Bin Laden letter and started passing
it around and they bullied the Guardian
into taking that document off of its
site. So the links no longer worked and
they got Tik Tok to ban any discussion
of the Bin Laden letter because a bunch
of young people were like, "Wait a
minute, I never knew before that this is
why people said there was so much hatred
toward the United States in the Middle
East because we sanctioned Iraq and
killed 100,000 hundreds of thousands of
children. put, you know, our military on
their most sacred soil in Saudi Arabia,
but also have been funding Israel in the
middle of their region to 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 this
history that they had never been told
and immediately the attempt was take it
off the Guardian website so that there's
nowhere they can read that that letter
and then uh make Tik Tok shut down the
hashtag. But and I that's one of the
examples that that I always bring up.
But the other one is right after the
uh Russian invasion of Ukraine in uh
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 uh decided to do this or what's
actually happening, you can't because
it's a crime now to platform Russian
state media. European 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 allow on your site
and you need to take those down because
EU law doesn't permit the dissemination
of those media outlets in our 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 Kruev would come to the United
States and give a speech and they would
print the full text of 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 on on
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 gone to Russia
and have 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 any journalists who publish it
or talk about it are somehow traitors to
the country or or accused of being on
the payroll of propagandists simply for
reporting what their perspective is, not
just what our government officials want
you to know. And it is, you know,
nothing is e nothing makes propaganding
propagandizing a population easier than
if you get to just banish the population
from hearing any alternative views. What
what do you think the purpose of this
is? Like what's the goal in the war
against Russia? Like what what's the
what's the endgame? I mean from I'll
just say in one sentence from 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 I have to confess I this is
I I've never had a clear answer. I've
never gotten a clear answer. I I I've
never settled on a clear explanation for
why the US uh 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 Rush
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 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 and subverting Russia. She
was openly funding in the name of, of
course, democracy. Uh, anti-Putin
opposition groups. A lot of the protests
that appeared on the streets of Moscow
and St. Petersburg and other places uh
were funded by the National Endowment
for Democracy under Hillary Clinton's
orders. All kinds of covert operations.
When Hill 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 unquote confront
Russia, both in Syria and in Ukraine.
And there has been this, you know, at
neocons. I mean, Jeffrey Goldberg did
this interview with Obama when he was on
his way out about the so-called Obama
doctrine. And Jeffrey Goldberg, as much
as he reverb, was indignant in asking
him, why didn't you why did you let let
Russia annex Crimea and why didn't 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 interests in
Ukraine. We never have and we never
will. And Russia will always have look
at Ukraine right on its border, one of
the most vulnerable parts of it 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 stand up and say we should
go to war with Russia, risk war with
Russia over who governs various
provinces in the Donbass, then let them
actually say it. But to me, that's kind
of insane. And 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 I'll just tell you this quick
story, Tucker, that I find that always
sticks with me. It's so interesting. Uh
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 cuz Russia
hadn't let him in and he couldn't and he
couldn't uh leave. They were offering
the Russians everything that the
Russians wanted. We have all these
Russian fugitives. We'll hand them over
to you. And the Russians refused. I
thought for sure Snodon was going to be
handed over to to the to the US given
what a high priority it was for the US.
And when I went to Russia, I asked like
there was such an obvious deal there to
be made. Why why wasn't the deal made?
And what I was told was go 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 refuge in
in Russia is kind of fundamental to
Russia. And so if 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 provoke
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 there's
like this DNA generationally cultivated
hatred within the military and
intelligence establishments of both
countries that still believe the other
is this existential enemy long after 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 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. uh you know 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
comp composite part of 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 to to Israel. They they
often were aligned with the Arabs in the
Middle East. And I think a lot of it is
that residual kind of cultural
uh allegiance that these people continue
to harbor even once they come and become
American and 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 yuan or other
currencies. So, the dollar's share of
global reserves has dropped to its
lowest level in a quarter century.
Central banks around the world now have
more gold than they've had in decades.
China is buying so much gold, it'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, having it shipped to your
home or stored for you. That's why we
started Battalion Metals to give
Americans an honest, fairpriced way to
buy precious metals. It's not a scam.
You know exactly what we're making. It's
like three points over spot.
Battalion.com/tucker
is the address. Battalion.com/tucker
to learn more.
But a lot of these people, well, I mean,
Jeffrey Goldberg at the Atlantic, for
example, Torian Nulan, uh, formerly at
Dick Cheneyy's office and then the State
Department. I mean, these are
Americanborn people.
They're not from
>> They're American Soviet Malddova or
wherever.
>> Yeah.
>> No, but their families are from there.
You know, it's I mean, Marco Rubio is an
American-born American, but his parents
come come from Cuba. And if you grow up
in an immigrant home, I didn't, but I
know plenty of people who did. My
grandparents were two of 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
Marco Rubio is so eager to rule Cuba,
which he absolutely is and is on the
verge of doing, is because that was the
lifelong dream of his parents and and
his his 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 Marco Rubio
is going to do. And the fact that he
sees the world through this Cuban
immigrant experience obviously has a
major role in that. I think that's true
for a lot of different groups including
people who were Soviet Jews who or whose
families uh became uh refugees from from
Soviet Russia.
Why the fixation on
>> I don't know. You tell me what you think
is I
>> Well, I think there's something I don't
know. 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 my entire life.
I never had strong feelings about it
ever. Um, but I've listened carefully to
people describe it in Washington at the
policym level and you always get this
sense that they feel and sometimes they
even just say it that they have a right
to control what happens in Russia. And
I've always been confused by that. Where
does that right come from? It's like
it's almost like an ownership like it it
was ours and this guy called Putin
showed up and like took it over and he's
illegitimate. And from my persp 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 have always noticed 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 I I still think Russia gate of
all the moral panics that we had, you
know, like AOC yesterday called wokeism
quote unquote crazy. Um, even they're
being forced now to acknowledge that was
some insane moral panic. I was just
trying to laugh it off like it was just
some fun, zany, trivial thing that went
a little as opposed to this deeply
repressive McCarthy, you know,
bloodthirsty campaign to destroy
people's lives for the slightest
deviation or thought crimes. But in any
event, that was one co was one. We've
had a lot of these and I still think
Russia Gate was probably among the most
deranged and especially the one that got
the most buy in. Um, and when people
started saying with a straight face, oh,
this is the Russians trying to interfere
in our secret democracy as though that
was something that only the Russians do,
that this is 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 advisers and a big
picture of Boris Yelson. And I forget
exactly what the headline is, but it's
something like how Americans helped
Boris Yeltson win. And it was basically
an armada of Americans, political
consultants and strategists and 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 is one of the absolute worst
moments for Russians in all of their
history. and they've had a lot of
terrible moments, but that post
Gorbachev, postc cold war privatization,
yelson era, Russia was absolutely
sickening and atrocious in terms of the
suffering that it brought 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 Boris 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 has 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't abide, the things that causes us
to want to overthrow countries and
governments and do coups and the like,
is when we can't control a particular
leader. Um, we had the war in in in in
Libya once Gaddafi wanted to use
revenues from oil reserves to fund his
own people instead of sending all that
foreign capital out while his country
lived in in poverty and misery. That's
typically what happened. And Putin very
much represented this kind of
nationalistic figure who wasn't hostile
at all to the West, 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 on the spectrum
of Russian politics is firmly on the
moderate side. I mean I Yes. Right. And
pro- European and his early career was
in Europe in East 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. There's 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?
It seems crazy to me.
I mean, this is what the US 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 the Democratic party and not
just you know say like the Chuck Schumer
wing of the Democratic party but AOC
Omar the whole squad like every as far
left as you can go to the far center
right as you can go were unanimous 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 Raian and Boeing and
Palanteer in order to fuel the NATO war
that does not save Ukraine. It
sacrifices Ukraine for the geostic goal
of weakening Russia. Not a single
Democrat
dissented. I think now there was
recently some exchange where Ilan Omar
and Summer Lee said something accused
some neoon uh member of 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 to send
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 is when you can
create a kind of demonized singleheaded
figure and it's always based on this lie
that uh he's a absolute autocrat.
There's 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
remember but back in 2008 2010 we were
constantly told that Makmoud Amaginad is
the new Hitler. You know there's been so
many new Hitler since and and and before
you know he served two constitutional
terms, walked out of office peacefully.
No one has ever heard of him again until
recently when apparently the Israelis
were trying to like reinstall him as the
new leader um 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 the, if 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 and 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 work closely with Putin
in all sorts of ways. And then suddenly
when it was time to fuel a war and to
redemonize Russia, suddenly became Putin
is this madman unlike anything we've
seen since Hitler. You know, overnight
the the the narrative changes and so
many people
succumb to it. And that is one of the
main prongs of of war propaganda is just
to demonize these other political
leaders. So if uh 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 that's just
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 someone like
me who's not a lifelong 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 Marjorie
Taylor Green. Marjorie Taylor Green,
even before, you know, what kind of
became her 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 to put a kind
of happier face for younger people to
commandeer and steer them into the
Democratic 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 remotely that suggests any
kind of anti-establishment
or uh radical impulses of any kind. You
know, she got lucky. She ran against uh
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. Yeah. Uh with lobbyists
writing laws, which is Joe Cwley, who is
going to be the successor to Nancy
Pelosi, he's the kind of guy that never
goes on any 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 except he like
nominally represents it. So because she
took out a a member of of of the
Democratic establishment and was
nominally part of DSA, her branding was
that 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 to
at one time be considered, you know, far
too chewed to the left from San
Francisco. And then all she did was she
actually became extremely hawkish. Nancy
Pelosi made this very provocative visit
to Taiwan to treat the Taiwanese. It was
almost like a state visit. It was very
provocative to the Chinese against what
the the B administration was willing to
do. She was an absolute hawk on Israel
and Iran and pretty much everything
else. She was few people serve corporate
power and corporate interest more than
policy. AOC is well on her way to to to
being that. And we've seen it. So I mean
I can't give you a thousand examples but
suffice suffice to say that that's who
she really is.
What the DSA is descendant obviously and
DSA candidates are starting to win in
primaries famously New York 3-1. Um are
there DSAled protests against the war
with Russia? Cuz 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
Rathon and Boeing and 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
first started really kind of connecting
to and immersing myself in critiques of
foreign policy and and and US oligarchy
and the like,
you know, the the models that I used
were kind of what you might now call the
old left, like the ACLU civil
libertarian,
>> you know, even Nam Chosky who was like
just, you know, who thought that the
intelligence agencies and and the
military-industrial complex were the
greatest evil. When 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 or the the NSA?
>> No, they endorse Abigail Spanberger as
the CIA literally takes over the
Commonwealth of Virginia. Exactly. at
least
>> and of the Democratic Party. And 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 with those uh with those
people. Just to give you a very quick
little uh anecdote into that, when Matt
Taibbe went to testify uh about the
Twitter files that showed this constant
endless coercive pressure from the B
administration on big tech, including
Twitter, to censor co dissident
dissident. They had this guy Colin Alred
who was a who's a Democratic uh
congressman from Texas who said, "You
know, you should take off your tin foil
hat and realize that maybe the good
folks of the CIA and the FBI are
censoring not for any nefarious
purposes, but because they want to keep
you safe." I was like, that's 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 that's what Democratic Party
has become. And that's why there was
basically no opposition to the they were
told Russia was what put Trump in office
that that Russia was the absolute
aggressor and this was these were war
crimes similar to the worst wars. You
can imagine they all got just overnight
convinced to to want to pour hundreds of
billions of dollars into the uh arms
industry. One of the candidates who won
in New York, Darisa Shabalier, who was
actually uh who was actually one of the
least likely to win. She ran against
that 8-year incumbent who was the head
of the House Progressive uh Hispanic
Caucus and she won. She was actually
somebody who has a history of saying,
"We're not going to support this NATO
war. Why are we spending all this money
to keep the to fund, you know, the NATO
war against against Russia that's
sacrificing Ukrainians?" I was so happy
to finally find someone on the left who
reconnected that old and, you know, she
kind of quickly has downplayed it
because Ukraine remains a religion on
the left. So there is some of that more
positive radicalism among some of these
DSA candidates. The problem though,
Tucker, you see this with Trump and the
MAGA movement, and you've definitely
seen it with a lot of these supposedly
radical candidates who who uh became
adjacent to the Democratic party, is you
can think that you're taking over these
parties in order to like come and dear
them and their power to change their
dogma to yours, but infinitely more
likely for so many reasons is that it
will commandeer you and it will suck you
in and it will severely limit even if
you have radical ideas or impulses are
outside of the norm or
anti-establishment thoughts will
severely limit your ability to advocate
them and to impose them.
>> That is uh the most bracing fact and I'm
glad you said that but I'm also sort of
sorry you said that because it's so
depressing. Do you see I mean is there
anywhere and I almost hate to use the
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 rad 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 MAGA and the
corruption of everyone else?
I mean, the problem is is that
our system of government has been
constantly fortified each decade to make
it harder and harder to exist outside of
the duopoly. 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 law 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 both parties to
have any meaningful success. I have to
say, you know, there are countries like
in Europe, in South America, including
in Brazil that have a multi-party
system. Um, Brazil has something like 26
parties, for example, represented in in
the Congress. But even in the democratic
world, things are 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 uh norm
that has been developed and and imposed
that further strengthens this 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 election 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 against in 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
Perau uh 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 free trade that as he very
preiently warned would de-industrialize
the country 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, no doubt. How can it
not? How I mean, this is, you know, the
biggest myth, the biggest lie of our
political system 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
the reality is is 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 vitraic
language against him like John Boehner
and the House Republicans. He would
always say in private we all know it's
theater. We're all playing within the 40
yard line the you know the two 40 yard
lines. That's the reality of the two
political parties in the United States.
This myth that there's these vast
fundamental differences between the two
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 in reality there's lockdown
on most policy debates because both
parties are fully on board because they
save serve the same donor classes. they
serve the same uh interests and that is
I think more and more people are
realizing that and and I mean if the
fact that we elected Donald Trump twice
for me pretty much proves that anything
is possible
you you have this amazing ability to
crystallize and explain things I've
suspected or believed but better than I
ever could. Just really the smartest.
Glenn Greenwald, thank you very much for
that.
>> Always great talking to you, Dunker.
Thanks.