(00:00:09)

Judge Andrew Napolitano:
Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Wednesday, January 31, 2024. Aaron Maté joins us now. Aaron, it’s a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you for joining us.

I’d like to start by discussing Israel and recent events there, including reported assassinations inside a West Bank hospital. But before we do, I want to pick your brain about Ukraine. I’ve recently learned about your research and expertise in that field. Is Ukraine on its last legs? If so, why doesn’t the mainstream media in the United States reflect that reality?

(00:01:06)
Aaron Maté:
By all appearances, Ukraine is indeed struggling. Even President Zelensky has admitted that without another $60 billion from Congress to prolong this proxy war, Ukraine will lose. Compare that to statements from the Biden Administration, where officials like Antony Blinken claimed Russia has already lost.

Blinken once quipped that Russia wasn’t even the second strongest army in Ukraine, downplaying its strength. But those rosy claims were always meant to cover the fact that Ukraine never had a real chance in this war. The goal was never about defending Ukraine; as Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin candidly admitted early on, it was about weakening Russia. Now we’re seeing the results: millions of Ukrainians fleeing abroad and Zelensky desperate for lifelines from Washington.

The U.S. media doesn’t share this perspective because it parrots the government’s narrative.

(00:02:02)
Judge Andrew Napolitano:
My understanding is that around 10 million Ukrainians have fled the country in the last two years. About 500,000 young men are either dead or too injured to return to the military. President Zelensky and General Zaluzhny reportedly recognize that $60 billion won’t suffice; they need 500,000 more soldiers. Is that a fair assessment?

Aaron Maté:
I can’t confirm the exact number who fled, but it’s certainly in the millions, especially since the U.S.-backed coup in 2014 triggered the current crisis. Ukraine has been devastated by war, and the U.S. has blocked all attempts at peaceful resolution.

As for General Zaluzhny, he fell out of favor with Zelensky after admitting the war was at a stalemate—though even that was generous, as Russia is actually winning. Zaluzhny also criticized the quality and quantity of equipment supplied by the U.S. At one point, when Lloyd Austin saw Zaluzhny’s wish list, he reportedly said it was impossible to meet those demands. Ukraine was put in an unwinnable situation, forced to fight a far stronger adversary.

(00:04:08)
Judge Andrew Napolitano:
What’s the status of General Zaluzhny now?

Aaron Maté:
Reports suggest Zelensky asked Zaluzhny to step down. He was offered another position in government, but he refused, saying he would either lead the military or leave entirely. This conflict stems from Zelensky’s refusal to acknowledge that the war is unwinnable.

A recent Time magazine article highlighted this dynamic. Zelensky’s own aides described him as delusional, messianic, and out of touch, unwilling to listen to advisors who told him the battle was hopeless. Zaluzhny echoed those sentiments, advocating for more equipment and mass conscription to bolster manpower after significant losses on the battlefield.

(00:06:14)
Aaron Maté (continued):
This entire tragedy could have been avoided. The Minsk II Accords in 2015, for instance, offered a peaceful solution: Ukraine would respect the rights of Russian-aligned regions in the Donbas, grant them autonomy, and avoid NATO membership. In return, Russia would stop supporting separatists, allowing Ukraine to live in peace. However, Ukraine’s far-right factions rejected these terms.

Fast forward to December 2021, when Russia proposed treaties calling for U.S. respect for Minsk II and a rollback of NATO’s military infrastructure near Russia. The U.S. refused. Even after the war began in 2022, a peace deal was nearly reached in April, but Boris Johnson, likely acting on behalf of Washington, intervened to block it.

(00:07:13)
Judge Andrew Napolitano:
Let’s take a look at statements from U.S. leaders claiming that Russia has lost.

[Montage plays of leaders, including President Biden and Secretary Blinken, repeatedly saying, “Putin has already lost.”]

Judge Andrew Napolitano:
Aaron, this is worse than propaganda—it’s madness. These lies are leading to tens of thousands of dead Ukrainians and Russians.

Aaron Maté:
Absolutely. The Biden Administration’s goal of weakening Russia has come at a massive human cost. They must lie to the public to justify over $100 billion in funding, with another $60 billion now requested. Meanwhile, Zelensky is left begging for more money to stave off total defeat. It’s a shameful cycle.

(00:11:10)
Judge Andrew Napolitano:
What happens if Congress approves the $60 billion? Is there even enough manpower in Ukraine to utilize it effectively?

Aaron Maté:
It’s a racket. Most of the money will go toward replenishing U.S. stockpiles, benefiting the military-industrial complex. Ukraine gets leftover, outdated equipment that barely functions, exacerbating its struggles on the battlefield.

As for manpower, Ukraine has resorted to conscripting men off the streets. There are even reports of efforts to force Ukrainian refugees in Europe to return and fight. This includes men in their 50s and 60s, who should be spending time with their families, not on the battlefield.

(00:13:10)
Judge Andrew Napolitano:
What’s the status of journalism in Ukraine? Are Western journalists free to report what they see?

Aaron Maté:
It depends. Ukraine restricts access to frontline areas, likely to avoid exposing the grim reality. Western media often relies on government narratives rather than independent reporting.

As for me, I’m on a Ukrainian government hit list. According to the Twitter Files, Ukrainian intelligence asked the FBI to have my account banned. The FBI passed this request to Twitter, but thankfully they refused. Still, I doubt I’ll be visiting Ukraine anytime soon.

(00:14:39)
Judge Andrew Napolitano:
Let’s shift to journalism in Gaza and Israel. How severe are Israeli restrictions on journalists? Could you or Max Blumenthal freely report there?

Aaron Maté:
As Jewish journalists from Western countries, Max and I might technically be allowed into Israel, but given our critiques of the Israeli government, we could easily be turned away. Israel has previously barred entry to figures like Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein.

The real danger lies with Palestinian journalists in Gaza. Many have been killed while reporting, sometimes deliberately targeted. For example, a cameraman was once shot, and when an ambulance tried to reach him, it was blocked, leading to his death from blood loss. Dozens of Palestinian journalists have been murdered under similar circumstances.

(00:15:39)
Judge Andrew Napolitano:
What about the stability of the Netanyahu government? How secure is his leadership at this point?

Aaron Maté:
The Netanyahu government is quite unstable. The longer the current war continues, the more he’s exposed as prioritizing his political survival over the well-being of Israelis. Netanyahu doesn’t care about the hostages held in Gaza or defeating Hamas—his focus is on ethnically cleansing Gaza to make it unlivable for Palestinians.

He’s facing significant backlash from the families of hostages who believe his actions are putting their loved ones at greater risk. Netanyahu is also under scrutiny for the intelligence failures of October 7th and for corruption charges that could lead to prison time. He knows that ending the war could mark the end of his political career, so he has every incentive to keep it going.

(00:16:22)
[Clip plays of right-wing Israeli leaders Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir addressing a rally, calling for aggressive settlement expansion and tighter control over occupied territories.]

Judge Andrew Napolitano:
The rhetoric is clear: they’re pushing for a greater Israel, controlling all land from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. What do you make of this, Aaron?

Aaron Maté:
Their goals are unambiguous: the annexation of all Palestinian territories and the removal of Palestinians. Netanyahu’s government platform openly claims that all land belongs to the Jewish people, extending to the West Bank and Gaza.

This hardline stance eliminates any possibility of a two-state solution. Even Hamas has shown a willingness to accept a two-state compromise, but Israel’s refusal to recognize its borders or Palestinian sovereignty makes peace impossible. The recent violence in Gaza is just the latest phase of a long-term ethnic cleansing campaign.

(00:18:36)
[Clip plays of Netanyahu stating Israel must control all land “from the river to the sea.”]

Judge Andrew Napolitano:
Netanyahu’s rhetoric mirrors that of extremists. Yet, the U.S. government remains silent. How do you interpret Washington’s stance?

Aaron Maté:
The U.S. has consistently enabled Israel’s expansionist policies by refusing to hold it accountable. Netanyahu’s government openly rejects the two-state solution, and his long-term goal is a “Greater Israel” encompassing all Palestinian territories.

While some in Washington claim to support a two-state solution, their actions—continued funding and unconditional political support—tell a different story. The U.S. plays a crucial role in legitimizing and sustaining Israel’s occupation and expansion.

(00:20:50)
Judge Andrew Napolitano:
How do you assess the broader implications of Netanyahu’s instability and the ongoing conflict in Gaza?

Aaron Maté:
Netanyahu’s government faces mounting pressure domestically and internationally. The continued war exposes his inability to manage crises effectively, especially after the intelligence failures of October 7th. Domestically, he’s losing support from key constituencies, including families of hostages and segments of the military establishment.

Internationally, his actions are isolating Israel, even among its traditional allies. The longer this genocide continues, the more untenable his position becomes. Netanyahu knows this, which is why he’s prolonging the conflict—it’s a desperate attempt to cling to power.

(00:02)

[Music] As always, I worry about the state of the world order as it hangs between the past and an uncertain future. My next guest has been examining this issue extensively. Trita Parsi is the director of the Better Order Project, which has just released a major report. I'll let him summarize it, but it addresses the transitional state we find ourselves in. Trita Parsi, welcome back to the program.

Trita Parsi: Thank you so much for having me.

Host: Let’s start with a brief overview of the Better Order Project.

(00:46)
About a year and a half ago, the Quincy Institute launched the Better Order Project. We brought together 130 scholars, former officials, and UN representatives from 40 countries to explore necessary reforms for the global governing system. These changes are critical as the world transitions away from unipolarity.

Much of the current framework reflects either the post-Cold War or post-World War II era. However, we no longer live in a unipolar world, yet the global governance structure hasn’t adapted. This creates risks, as some countries push for their own coalitions and order systems.

For example, the rules-based international order led by the Biden administration is often portrayed as defending the post-World War II system. In reality, it acts as an instrument of revisionism, often hollowing out or conflicting with international law. It emphasizes rules over laws, which is a crucial distinction.

Our fear is that this trajectory could lead not just to a multipolar world but to a "multi-order" world, with competing systems that lack a shared legal foundation. This would be far more chaotic and dangerous than the Cold War era, where even opposing sides adhered to a super-order defined by international law and the UN system.

(02:36)
During the Cold War, disputes often revolved around the interpretation of shared laws, not entirely separate legal frameworks. If we fail to act, we risk a future where different systems of law clash, creating a highly unstable global environment.

Host: That’s a sobering analysis. It seems dialogue played a critical role during the US-USSR rivalry. From party platforms in the '50s and '60s to substantial negotiations on nuclear weapons and now on issues like climate change, dialogue was a priority. Today, it feels less emphasized. Is restoring international diplomacy a key goal of your project?

(03:52)
Trita Parsi: Absolutely. Reviving the centrality of dialogue and the principle of equal engagement among states is essential. Part of the issue is the rise of coalitions that only include like-minded nations. This minimizes interaction and honest exchanges with those who disagree with us, undermining the role of dialogue as a tool for conflict resolution.

At the Better Order Project, we engaged with Russian and Chinese officials because meaningful dialogue with adversaries is crucial for a peaceful world. Stability cannot be achieved if we only engage with allies.

Another alarming trend is the erosion of state equality. For instance, arguments are made that Israel is exempt from certain international laws because it is a democracy. This creates a dangerous hierarchy of states, applying stricter rules to some and more lenient standards to others. Such double standards foster resentment and conflict.

(06:16)
If some nations are effectively given a free pass while others are harshly judged, it only escalates tensions. This selective approach undermines the rule of law and destabilizes global governance.

Host: That brings me to a broader issue. Doesn’t this challenge the very idea of the rule of law? Either the law applies universally, or it doesn’t. For example, if I get a speeding ticket, I might disagree, but ultimately, I have to abide by the judge’s decision. If powerful nations dismiss international law outright or claim immunity, it erodes the legitimacy of the system itself.

Trita Parsi: You’re absolutely right. Violating laws is problematic, but dismissing them altogether is far worse. We've seen a systematic effort to hollow out international norms, with states increasingly taking military action under dubious justifications.

(09:02)
For instance, Iran has launched strikes in Iraq, citing counterterrorism. Israel frequently bombards Lebanon and Syria without significant international pushback. Turkey acts similarly in Syria. If middle powers adopt these norms, we risk a proliferation of force and a far more dangerous world.

This goes back to your point: are we going to have norms and laws that bind all nations, or are we heading toward a lawless international arena? Most conflicts aren’t about existential threats, and adherence to international norms in routine matters helps reduce transaction costs and maintain predictability. Without this framework, chaos is inevitable.

Host: Some might argue that it’s naive to think superpowers like the US would agree to such rules, especially given their recent foreign policies. Is the Better Order Project prepared to address this skepticism?

(12:04)
Trita Parsi: It’s a valid concern. Historically, superpowers have often sought exemptions from the rules. However, as we move toward a multipolar world, these same powers may find it in their interest to support regulations. For example, the US currently uses extraterritorial financial sanctions extensively. Treasury officials have warned that overuse risks undermining the dollar’s dominance.

If China starts employing similar sanctions, the US will likely see the value in creating frameworks to regulate their use. This shift in incentives is central to our project.

(14:31)
We envisioned ourselves in 2040, in a clearly multipolar world, and examined how perceptions of national interests might change. By anticipating these shifts, we developed proposals that, while not feasible today, could become viable as the global balance of power evolves.

Host: That’s a fascinating perspective. Your example of extraterritorial sanctions highlights how even powerful nations might see value in international regulations.

Trita Parsi: Exactly. The key is recognizing that the unipolar moment is ending. By preparing now, we can create frameworks that benefit all nations, including current superpowers, in the future.

(00:02)

Hello, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome back to Syriana Analysis. I’m your host, Kevork Almassian. Thank you for tuning in to today’s live stream. I appreciate you all, whether you’re watching on YouTube or Rumble.

This channel, established in 2017 to cover the Syrian war, was inactive for some time. Now, many are returning to this channel to understand what’s happening in Syria after six years of relative quiet. I anticipated this attack on Syrian Army positions two months ago and have been warning about it.

By connecting the dots between events in Gaza, Lebanon, and the pressures regional and international powers are placing on Damascus, it became clear to me that these pressures would escalate into military action. Damascus rejected certain terms, leading to the offensive by HTS, the rebranded Al-Nusra Front led by Abu Muhammad al-Jolani, a key Al-Qaeda figure in Syria.

(01:26)

HTS and its allied groups have taken control of vast areas, including Aleppo, Idlib, Hama, and Damascus suburbs. Last week, I received countless invitations to podcasts, so I decided to share my thoughts here. I’ll resume my regular schedule soon and continue covering developments in Syria, West Asia, and other geopolitical conflicts.

My family is safe. I evacuated them from Aleppo at the last moment. For people like me, Aleppo is no longer a viable place to live. That’s why I didn’t stream on Friday—I was busy ensuring their safety.

(02:52)

Some think I’m depressed, and I do have mixed feelings about what has happened in Syria. Since 2011, I’ve been deeply engaged in this conflict, investing my reputation to expose manipulative mainstream narratives. The claim that the war was about bringing democracy to Syria was a farce. From the beginning, I explained that the groups opposing the government were hardcore Islamists intent on establishing an Islamic state.

Because of this, I’ve faced character assassination from outlets like Al Jazeera and German media, being labeled a propagandist or an “Assadist.” In reality, I defended Syria’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, and secularism.

(05:02)

Secularism in Syria means multiculturalism and coexistence among different religions and ethnicities, guaranteed by a strong state. When the so-called revolution began, many feared it would replace this lifestyle with an Islamist regime. This fear was realized with the rise of ISIS and HTS, which established Islamic emirates in various regions.

In the past two weeks, I’ve hardly slept. Following the money trail, it’s clear that HTS, FSA, and other rebel groups are funded by foreign intelligence agencies, including the CIA, Turkish intelligence, Qatar, and Israel. These foreign backers have no interest in the well-being of the Syrian people but instead seek to divide and weaken the region.

(07:45)

The so-called “Axis of Resistance” is effectively over. Following regime change in Syria, I anticipate further actions against Hezbollah in Lebanon. By cutting supply chains, Israel has gained the upper hand, destroying over 100 strategic military sites in Syria, including airbases, air defenses, and research centers.

Israel is advancing inside Syria, occupying new areas in the Golan Heights and Al-Quneitra, aiming to seal the borders and block supply routes to Hezbollah. This effort is part of a broader strategy to disband the Axis of Resistance, which included Iran, Iraq’s militias, Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas.

(10:25)

Hamas’s stance on regime change in Syria didn’t surprise me. I’ve been a harsh critic of Hamas and their Muslim Brotherhood ideology. This ideology, rooted in imperialist divide-and-rule tactics, rejects national borders in favor of the Ummah. While I support Palestinians’ rights, I oppose Hamas’s ideology, which aligns with imperialist agendas.

(13:06)

Islamist groups like HTS aim to transform Syria, erasing its multicultural heritage. Their belief in a borderless Islamic Ummah attracts foreign fighters. The rebranding of Al-Nusra to HTS, portraying them as moderate rebels, is a media ploy to make them more palatable to Western audiences.

Documents from WikiLeaks and other sources prove that this regime-change war was initiated by the U.S., particularly under the Obama administration. Now, the narrative is being reshaped to present HTS as a legitimate force.

(17:35)

Currently, HTS is trying to assure minorities and the public that they won’t face persecution, likely to facilitate a smoother transition of power. However, I believe their long-term goal is to transform Syria into an Islamist state, marginalizing minorities.

(19:37)

Syria will likely be divided into spheres of influence among regional powers. Turkey, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the U.S. will each control different regions, effectively erasing Syria’s independence and unity. This division benefits Israel, which aims to weaken Hezbollah by cutting supply routes and isolating it as a local, rather than regional, force.

(33:00)

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu celebrated the fall of Assad, seeing it as a victory for Israel’s national interests. The backing of HTS and other insurgents by Turkish and Qatari intelligence aligns with Israel’s goals. These alliances have allowed Israel to extend its influence and maintain control over the region.

(36:12)

The regime change in Syria is a disaster for the Palestinian cause. Without the Axis of Resistance, Palestinians will be forced to accept deals dictated by Israel. The fall of Syria has made the region more vulnerable to imperialist control.

(47:55)

Assad’s retreat from Aleppo and subsequent flight to Moscow signaled the end of his rule. Whether it was his decision or a mutiny within the military, the Syrian Army’s surrender was a strategic retreat rather than a military defeat. However, Assad’s failure to address the public during this critical moment was unforgivable.

(55:03)

Millions of Syrian refugees are now scattered across the region and Europe. With a new government in Damascus, some may be forced to return under promises of amnesty. However, the scars of war and displacement will linger.

(59:59)

I will continue to analyze Syria’s developments critically. While I oppose the incoming government’s policies if they harm the Syrian people, I will always advocate for the lifting of sanctions and relief for ordinary Syrians.

Thank you for your support. Please subscribe, like, and consider supporting my work through Patreon. Peace be upon you and your families. Salam.

(00:01)

Tell us about your experience in Beirut—how you got there, obtained media credentials, and what you’ve observed so far. How does it differ from the Western media’s portrayal of the war?

Amb. Craig Murray: The reality here is very different from what Western media presents. In fact, there’s hardly any coverage of what’s happening in Lebanon in Western media. I came here after doing what I could to help initiate the case at the ICJ and lobby at the UN. I wondered what more I could do to counteract this genocide.

Since entering Gaza wasn’t possible, and Israel denied me access to the West Bank, I decided to come to Beirut to counter Western propaganda from here. Over the last two weeks, I’ve been arrested by nearly every party involved in this conflict. Eventually, I managed to secure media credentials, though the Lebanese government only accepts credentials from mainstream outlets like the BBC or Wall Street Journal. This requirement inherently biases the coverage coming out of Lebanon.

(01:45)

Mainstream outlets like the Wall Street Journal were here briefly, and the BBC and CNN show little interest in reporting on Lebanon. Instead, they remain in Tel Aviv, reporting Israel’s perspective.

On the ground, there’s immense destruction. Around 70,000 homes in southern Lebanon have been destroyed, displacing 1.2 million people. Of those, 450,000 have fled to Syria, a few hundred to the West, and about 600,000 are refugees in Beirut and northern Lebanon. Israel is engaging in carpet bombing, primarily targeting Shia districts and refugees.

Two days ago, I visited a site where a refugee aid center was deliberately targeted. Five people were killed, 19 seriously injured, and a large quantity of aid was destroyed. Over 60 ambulances have been deliberately bombed, killing more than 220 medics and paramedics. This is a replay of the Gaza playbook, targeting hospitals, aid centers, and medical workers.

(03:52)

So far, the death toll stands at 3,500, a horrific number. Israel justifies these attacks by labeling them Hezbollah targets, though they also sustain the Shia population, which is among the poorest in Lebanon.

Amos Hochstein, an Israeli citizen and veteran of the Israeli military, has been acting as a U.S. envoy to negotiate a ceasefire. His presence here, particularly in wealthier Sunni areas of Beirut like Mar Mikhael, is met with celebrity treatment by pro-U.S. elites. These areas are home to some anti-Hezbollah factions, but this group is not representative of the majority of Lebanese people.

(05:49)

When I was arrested for conducting journalism without a permit, authorities searched my phone. A Palestinian contact with a +972 code caused complications since that’s also Israel’s country code. Meanwhile, Hochstein, a former IDF member, is welcomed. This highlights the hypocrisy at play.

Israel’s bombardment is leveling entire villages and cities like Naqoura. Their goal is to render these areas uninhabitable, paving the way for annexation of southern Lebanon. The so-called peace deal would require Hezbollah to disarm and retreat north of the Litani River. It also allows Israel to invade southern Lebanon at will, with the U.S. serving as the arbiter of what constitutes an “imminent threat.”

(07:47)

It’s hard to imagine Lebanon agreeing to such terms. The U.S. is heavily invested here, building its second-largest embassy globally. This serves as a hub for intelligence, NSA operations, special forces, and regional control. Hezbollah, the largest political party in Lebanon, is the main obstacle to U.S. and Israeli plans.

This morning, massive bombs shook Beirut. The incessant sound of drones overhead is a constant reminder of the terror being inflicted. The U.S.’s goal is clear: dismantle Hezbollah. However, I believe this is part of a broader plan for Greater Israel, encompassing the annexation of Gaza, the West Bank, and southern Lebanon.

(09:00)

The Biden administration’s rhetoric about restraining Israel in Gaza rings hollow. The more severe the genocide, the more weapons and financial aid the U.S. provides to Israel. Here in Lebanon, the bombs killing children are American-made and supplied free of charge. This strategy seeks to terrorize the population into submission, perhaps even reigniting a civil war to turn other factions against Hezbollah.

Yet, I see this backfiring. The U.S. actions are forging a stronger Lebanese national identity, particularly among younger people.

(10:32)

We’ve seen the U.S. ambassador to Lebanon meet with figures like Samir Geagea of the Lebanese Forces, encouraging them to take action against Hezbollah. This sounds like incitement to civil war. However, the indiscriminate attacks are uniting people across sectarian lines.

For example, in 2006, Hezbollah gained widespread support outside its traditional Shia base. I see this happening again. Even individuals from prominent political families who are not Shia express their support for Hezbollah, viewing it as the only force defending Lebanon against Israeli aggression. Many are frustrated that the Lebanese army has remained inactive.

(13:23)

This crisis is strengthening unity across Lebanon’s sectarian divides. Hezbollah is seen as defending the country when no one else will. The indiscriminate nature of Israel’s attacks has galvanized broader support for resistance, even among communities traditionally less aligned with Hezbollah.

(00:00)

There’s a significant development in Syria. It seems to have fallen into their lap—brilliant, just brilliant. But what if it isn’t? What if it’s a trap? What if it’s the bone they choke on? That makes sense because that’s how the Soviet Union fell in Afghanistan. The Americans cleverly drew them in, and they took the bait. They entered, got bogged down, poured in more military resources, and suffered heavy casualties until they had to withdraw. This feels like the same gambit being set for the Western Empire.

(00:39)

Welcome to Capital KM. My name is Danny, and today’s guest is Alex Krainer. Alex, it’s great to have you on the show.

Alex: Thank you, Danny. It’s good to be here.

Danny: Let’s dive right in. Alex, what’s the top story on your mind right now?

Alex: Obviously, it’s Syria. Today is December 9th as we record this. Yesterday, I woke up to the news that Syria had fallen, and I couldn’t believe it. I was dumbfounded. It made no sense. HTS launched an attack, and in just over ten days, Damascus fell, and Bashar al-Assad was gone. How does that happen? They swept through the country with no resistance, as if on a tour bus.

(01:58)

The news media and social networks are filled with the usual explanations: corruption, low morale, disarray, and surprise. But none of that adds up. This is the same Syria, under the same Bashar al-Assad, that resisted a concerted attack from U.S. and U.K. proxies, Al-Qaeda, Jabhat al-Nusra, ISIS, and others, with the full backing of the Arab League. They held out for four years until Russia intervened in 2015.

How could the same Syria, with eight years to rebuild and reinforce, crumble in just ten days? They had survived worse. It’s inconceivable they didn’t anticipate this attack, especially given the clear threats from HTS and their leader, who has been on the U.S. State Department’s terrorist list since 2013.

(04:34)

The regional dynamics have shifted since 2016. Russia and Iran, once cool toward each other, are now close allies, both fully supporting Syria. Saudi Arabia and Iran have reconciled, and the Arab League, with the exception of Qatar, supports Assad’s regime. Yet, Syria fell in ten days. After digesting the news for 24 hours, I began to suspect this might be a trap—not for Syria, but for the Western powers.

This fight was inevitable. HTS has been attacking Syrian positions non-stop since 2022. The idea that this was a surprise is inconceivable. Russia and Syria’s military likely allowed this to happen by design.

(07:13)

The Syrian army’s collapse wasn’t limited to one area—it was systematic, with orders coming from the top. Their best units didn’t engage in urban warfare, which would have prolonged resistance. Instead, they demobilized and let the enemy in. This raises the question: why?

I believe this conflict is tied to Ukraine. Two days after the attack began, Putin stated unequivocally that Russia seeks a final resolution in Ukraine, not a ceasefire or frozen conflict. I think this signals a broader strategy to redraw Eurasia’s security architecture.

(11:03)

The current security framework isolates Russia with crises from the Mediterranean to Korea, weakening it through constant conflict. Russia, Iran, China, and others in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization aim to end this. Syria plays a critical role. By drawing in Turkish and U.S.-backed proxies, Syria becomes a quagmire for Western interests, much like Afghanistan was for the Soviets.

(12:43)

The proxies fighting in Syria—HTS, the Syrian National Army, and others—are mutually hostile and already splintering. Turkey appears to have turned against HTS, freezing their assets. Battles are erupting within HTS itself. The region resembles Libya 2.0. Yet, Syria’s defenses crumbled to a ragtag group using pickup trucks and improvised vehicles. It’s clear they were let in deliberately.

(14:43)

The West’s triumph seems too easy. Historically, Russia has used strategic retreats to defeat invaders through attrition, as with Napoleon and Hitler. I suspect Syria and its allies are employing the same strategy, avoiding bloodshed and setting a trap to grind down their adversaries.

(17:39)

Turkey’s actions also don’t align with its interests. Erdogan has significant economic ties with Russia and China and stands to lose much by alienating them. It’s hard to believe he’s acting irrationally. Instead, he may be complicit in the trap.

(20:45)

Russia’s strategic priority isn’t territory but preserving its forces. They may have ceded ground in Syria temporarily to attrit their enemies over time. Time will reveal whether this is a calculated strategy or a misstep.

(23:58)

The Western powers now face a dilemma. Syria is crucial for securing Israel, countering Iran, and controlling energy routes to Europe. This prize might lure them into committing more resources, turning Syria into a costly quagmire.

(30:40)

If this conflict drags on, we’re likely to see higher energy prices and further instability. Western currencies may weaken, with Europe, Japan, and Britain hit hardest. Precious metals and commodities could see significant gains as the markets react to these disruptions.

(39:45)

Britain has avoided an outright economic collapse through backdoor monetary interventions, but this risks accelerating inflation. The broader economic outlook remains grim, with the potential for hyperinflation down the line.

(47:14)

If we see a major false-flag event blamed on Russia, it will likely be orchestrated by Western deep-state actors to justify escalation. Such actions would serve as a distraction from domestic challenges and destabilize the global situation further.

(00:03)

Matt Kennard, a former investigative journalist for The Financial Times, examines the tools the United States employs to manipulate global power for its quest for hegemony in his book The Racket. His reporting spans four years across over a dozen countries, including Bolivia, Mexico, Haiti, Palestine, Tunisia, and Egypt. Kennard's work dismantles the myth that the U.S. is committed to democracy and human rights. Instead, he demonstrates how U.S. military and economic power enforce exploitation for global corporations.

For instance, the U.S. has orchestrated coups, exploited natural disasters like the 2010 Haiti earthquake, suppressed labor unions, and removed leaders such as Jeremy Corbyn who challenge its interests. In Haiti, U.S. interventions privatized the education system, diverting $700 million of tax revenue to corporations while over half the country's children lost access to schooling. Kennard also highlights the inhumane working conditions in sweatshops, such as those in Honduras, where female employees were forced to take birth control and restricted in their use of toilets.

Kennard underscores how U.S. interventions impoverish workers, install puppet governments, and suppress national sovereignty. Meanwhile, domestic media perpetuates a false narrative of the U.S. as a beacon of democracy. However, complicity in atrocities like the genocide in Gaza has turned the U.S. into a global pariah.

(02:28)
Joining me is Matt Kennard, co-founder of Declassified UK and head of its investigations team. The strength of The Racket lies in its comprehensive exploration of the patterns and methods used by the U.S. to exert control—not just in the Global South but even in places like the UK. Let’s begin with Bolivia, a case that exemplifies these dynamics.

(03:12)
Bolivia is a remarkable example, often overlooked by progressive movements globally. Evo Morales, elected in 2005 and taking office in 2006, became Bolivia’s first indigenous president. He represented a significant shift in power away from the white elite that had dominated since colonial times. Morales enacted a transformative agenda, including nationalizing industries and investing in education and healthcare. His leadership demonstrated that a democratic socialist model could succeed, contrary to the claims of institutions like the World Bank.

However, U.S. interference began immediately. In 2008, Eastern provinces threatened secession, and U.S. Embassy officials were reportedly involved in efforts to undermine Morales. Hugo Chávez in Venezuela even threatened military action to protect Bolivia's democracy. This period revealed how U.S. institutions like USAID, the DEA, and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) operate under the guise of promoting democracy and development while actively working against leaders like Morales.

(07:32)
Through documents from Freedom of Information requests and the WikiLeaks cables, I uncovered a coordinated effort to destabilize Morales' government. These agencies worked with opposition groups to discredit and undermine his administration. Despite a U.S.-backed coup in 2019, Morales’ party regained power in 2020, a rare reversal in such cases.

(09:10)
This case illustrates how the U.S. suppresses movements that prioritize national resources for local populations instead of multinational corporations. It also exposes the false narratives perpetuated in media and politics, portraying the U.S. as a promoter of freedom and democracy.

(10:35)
During my time at The Financial Times, I experienced firsthand the limits of mainstream journalism. Reporting on U.S. interference in Bolivia met resistance, while stories critical of China or Russia were readily supported. This censorship underscores how Western media upholds the ideology of U.S. benevolence.

(15:23)
The WikiLeaks cables, released thanks to Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange, provided invaluable insights into the inner workings of U.S. foreign policy. These documents exposed U.S. complicity in atrocities and labor suppression, such as efforts to block minimum wage increases in Haiti to protect corporate profits.

(18:25)
When I visited Haiti after the 2010 earthquake, I saw the stark contrast between the narratives presented to corporate journalists and the reality. U.S.-funded projects, such as special economic zones, displaced peasants and exploited workers. The WikiLeaks cables confirmed that unions were dismantled and replaced with company-controlled “yellow unions.”

(21:53)
Although WikiLeaks briefly disrupted the dominant narratives, the system quickly rebounded, sidelining revelations and imprisoning Assange. Alternative media now plays a crucial role in challenging these propaganda structures, especially as mainstream outlets fail to address systemic injustices.

(28:38)
In the UK, U.S. influence extends deeply into intelligence, military, and political systems. For example, the British-American Project and organizations like NED have worked to maintain Atlanticist loyalty. Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party posed a threat to this alignment, prompting efforts to undermine him.

(35:48)
Corbyn faced attacks not only from neoliberal factions but also from the pro-Israel lobby, which weaponized accusations of anti-Semitism. This campaign mirrored similar efforts to discredit progressive movements worldwide.

(45:13)
Today, Zionism as a settler-colonial ideology is increasingly scrutinized, especially in the context of atrocities in Gaza. Public awareness and activism against Israeli policies are growing, even as governments crack down on dissent.

(50:26)
The U.S. also perpetuates sweatshop labor globally, with NAFTA facilitating the outsourcing of jobs to exploit cheap labor in places like Mexico, Honduras, and Bangladesh. Special economic zones allow corporations to evade taxes and regulations, benefiting neither workers nor host states.

(57:01)
As Smedley Butler famously said, “War is a racket.” The U.S. Empire prioritizes corporate interests, enforcing them through military and economic interventions. Leaders who challenge this system, like Morales, face subversion or military action.

(00:00)

Minister Lavrov, thank you for doing this. Do you believe the United States and Russia are at war with each other right now?
I wouldn't say so. This is not what we want. We would like to have normal relations with all our neighbors and countries, including the United States.

(00:22)
President Putin has repeatedly expressed respect for the American people, their history, and achievements. We see no reason why Russia and the United States cannot cooperate for the greater good. However, the United States is funding a conflict we're involved in and allowing attacks on Russia itself.

(00:56)
Doesn't that constitute war?
Officially, we're not at war. What’s happening in Ukraine is often called a hybrid war. The Ukrainians couldn’t operate with modern long-range weapons without direct American support.

(01:32)
This is dangerous. We do not want to escalate the situation, but attacks on mainland Russia using long-range weapons have occurred. We’ve sent signals, including the introduction of the new weapon system called "Resnik," hoping it would be taken seriously.

(02:00)
Some Pentagon and NATO officials have claimed that preemptive strikes can be justified, saying "attack is the best defense." Such statements, along with talk of limited nuclear exchanges, are deeply concerning. Moving Russia's red lines repeatedly is a grave mistake.

(03:12)
We didn’t start this conflict. Our operation aimed to end the war Kyiv was waging against its own people in Donbas. President Putin has made it clear that while we are prepared for all eventualities, we prefer peaceful solutions based on mutual security interests and respect for human rights in Ukraine.

(04:00)
Since 2017, Ukrainian legislation has systematically targeted Russian language, media, and culture. Recent laws even ban the canonical Orthodox Church. These actions undermine the rights of Russian-speaking citizens, creating tension that long predates our military operation.

(05:03)
Western leaders often cite the UN Charter, calling for respect for Ukraine’s territorial integrity. But the UN Charter also upholds the right to self-determination. Resolutions condemning Russia ignore prior agreements emphasizing this principle.

(06:35)
Ukraine’s 2014 coup undermined the will of Crimeans and eastern Ukrainians, who rejected the new government. Crimeans held a referendum and rejoined Russia. Donbas was declared a terrorist region and shelled, sparking a war that was only halted temporarily by the Minsk Agreements, which Kyiv later sabotaged.

(08:11)
We were committed to the Minsk Agreements, which called for dialogue and economic integration. Kyiv refused direct talks with Donbas, disregarding UN Security Council endorsements and inflaming tensions further.

(09:13)
Had the 2014 coup been avoided and prior agreements implemented, Ukraine would have achieved peace. Instead, the coup led to aggressive policies, worsening the situation.

(10:26)
The right to self-determination underpins decolonization and applies here. People in eastern and southern Ukraine reject a government that suppresses their language, culture, and religion.

(11:38)
The UN Charter emphasizes human rights, regardless of race, gender, language, or religion. Western nations highlight human rights abuses elsewhere but remain silent on Ukraine’s systematic violations against Russian-speaking citizens.

(12:44)
Respect for territorial integrity applies only to legitimate governments that respect their people’s rights. Our unveiling of the hypersonic weapons system sent a clear message: we will defend our security interests against attempts to strategically defeat Russia.

(13:43)
The U.S. and its allies pursue global hegemony, while we defend our people and legitimate security interests. They openly state ambitions to exploit Ukraine’s resources, while we fight for those who built and lived on these lands for centuries.

(15:36)
A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. This principle was reaffirmed by the UN Security Council in 2022. Our doctrine prioritizes avoiding such conflicts, even as our security concerns have been repeatedly dismissed.

(17:26)
While channels of communication with the U.S. exist, most messages echo public ultimatums. Proposals like Zelensky’s peace formula are unrealistic, designed to force conditions on Russia without genuine negotiations.

(19:37)
Some discussions suggest dividing Ukraine, with NATO guarantees covering only areas under Kyiv’s control. This ignores the rights of Russian-speaking citizens and their rejection of Kyiv’s government.

(20:33)
Regarding nuclear exchanges, we have protocols to prevent misunderstandings, such as notifying the U.S. in advance of missile tests. However, the lack of dialogue increases risks, as some policymakers seem to underestimate the catastrophic consequences.

(23:09)
We do not aim to exterminate Ukrainians—they are our kin. However, Kyiv’s regime has promoted extremist rhetoric, with officials openly calling for violence against Russians.

(28:02)
Ten years ago, we sought to implement agreements ensuring Ukraine’s neutrality and regional stability. Those agreements were rejected or sabotaged, leading to the current conflict.

(33:13)
When Ukraine proposed terms in Istanbul, we agreed. However, external interference, reportedly from Boris Johnson, derailed the process. Misinformation, such as the Bucha incident, further obstructed peace efforts.

(37:10)
Allegations about poisoning and incidents like Navalny and Skripal remain unproven, with critical evidence withheld. These cases are used to vilify Russia without transparency.

(42:50)
We remain open to negotiations but demand they respect the realities on the ground, including the constitutional changes integrating certain Ukrainian regions into Russia.

(46:58)
The West’s sanctions have strengthened Russia’s self-reliance and shifted our focus eastward. Efforts to bring Russia into a Western bloc have failed due to unequal treatment and a lack of genuine partnership.

(51:17)
Western policies often force countries into binary choices, fostering instability. A collaborative approach, respecting sovereignty and mutual interests, is needed but rarely practiced.

(56:45)
Russia’s alignment with China reflects geography and shared interests. Attempts to isolate us only push us closer to other nations that value balanced relations.

(58:15)
Negotiating with Zelensky is futile until he demonstrates a genuine willingness to engage in balanced discussions. His decree banning talks with Russia contradicts claims of seeking peace.

(1:02:19)
Our position aligns with the UN Charter, advocating for rights and security that NATO’s actions have undermined. We will not accept terms that disregard our interests or the rights of Russian-speaking Ukrainians.

(1:07:16)
The West selectively applies international law, supporting self-determination in Kosovo while denying it to Crimea. This inconsistency undermines credibility.

(1:09:22)
In Syria, we work with Turkey and Iran to stabilize the region and prevent separatism. However, external actors like the U.S. complicate these efforts by supporting groups that disrupt agreements.

(1:13:31)
Donald Trump was a strong and results-oriented leader, though not pro-Russian. Despite sanctions during his term, we respected his approach to diplomacy.

(1:15:21)
We do not seek war with the U.S. or anyone else. However, reckless steps by policymakers who underestimate nuclear risks could lead to disaster, which we strive to prevent.

(00:05)

Hi, everyone. Today is Thursday, December 5th, and our friend Dmitry Orlov is with us. Welcome, Dmitry.
Dmitry: Good to be here.

Let’s get started. Dmitry, what’s happening in West Asia, particularly in Syria? After the ceasefire between Lebanon and Israel, something significant emerged in Syria. In 2020, Iran, Russia, and Turkey reached an agreement, but now groups supported by Turkey are attacking the Syrian government. What’s your take?

(00:51)
Dmitry: This was inevitable. Frozen conflicts eventually thaw and reignite into hot wars. Freezing conflicts—an approach the U.S. popularized in Korea—doesn’t work. They attempted it in Syria and are now trying it again in Ukraine. These conflicts always resume.

In Syria, the group HTS—previously Al-Nusra, Al-Qaeda, or ISIS—has reemerged. These are U.S.-trained, U.S.-supported terrorists. They’ve received backing from Turkey, which saw an opportunity in the region. Additionally, they’re getting support from Ukrainian operatives. These Ukrainians, aware their country’s days are numbered, are bringing their experience in terrorist operations to Syria.

(02:18)
These groups now use modern warfare tools like drones and internet communication systems. Despite some initial success, the Russians and Iranians are decisively eliminating them. The rules of modern war dictate that if the enemy knows your location, you’re as good as dead.

Russian and Syrian forces have been flying sorties and conducting bombing runs, effectively decimating these militants in Idlib. To succeed further, the Syrian army must adapt to modern warfare, incorporating anti-drone technology, radio warfare equipment, and other advancements learned from Ukraine.

(03:45)
The problem is that Turkey claims Idlib as its sphere of influence. This could escalate into a broader conflict. However, neither Russia nor Iran wants a war with Turkey; they prefer a controlled simmer. If this onslaught is defeated, Idlib may return to being a frozen conflict. The hope is that enough Ukrainian militants are neutralized and the U.S. becomes too internally weakened to intervene further.

(05:16)
Israel is also involved, providing support to HTS and similar groups. Ukrainian operatives are training militants, providing drones, and using Turkish technology. Meanwhile, Turkey publicly claims to oppose Israel over Lebanon but cooperates with them in Syria. For Iran and Russia, the critical challenge is how to handle Turkey.

(06:43)
Turkey plays several important roles for Russia. It’s now a crucial gas transit point after Ukraine’s pipelines are out of the picture. Russia is also building a nuclear power plant in Turkey, which will ensure long-term cooperation. Additionally, Turkey facilitates trade, including helping Russia bypass Western sanctions. These relationships make Turkey valuable to Russia.

(08:07)
For Russia, Iran, and Syria, this situation is a messy, complex problem. Russia won’t abandon its long-term ally, Syria, but resolving this will require balancing competing interests.

(09:29)
Turkey’s actions, such as supporting HTS, are partly driven by fears of Kurdish groups forming autonomous regions near its border. These fears complicate Russia’s efforts to manage the situation, especially since many Kurds have historical ties to Russia. Leaders must compartmentalize and address achievable objectives without making the situation worse.

(11:32)
The U.S. remains a wildcard, deploying Ukrainian militants as proxies. These militants see Syria and Africa as better options than Ukraine, where survival rates are low. This adds instability, making peace harder to achieve.

(12:50)
Israel’s involvement is largely performative. They regularly bomb Syria, claiming strategic gains that are unclear. Israel has lost several conflicts in Lebanon, suffered military demoralization, and faces ongoing challenges in Gaza. Bombing Syria seems more about maintaining appearances than achieving real objectives.

(14:51)
The recent ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon was more about optics than resolution. The U.S. forced it through, allowing Israel to secure additional weapons for operations in Gaza and Lebanon. However, the ceasefire didn’t hold, as predicted.

(16:58)
Regarding Ukraine, Russia seeks outright victory. Proposals to freeze the conflict, such as those from figures like Keith Kellogg, are dismissed as laughable. Russia sees such ideas as ignorant of the situation’s realities.

Here’s the continuation of the transcript, formatted and optimized:

(17:44)
Dmitry: Russia is winning in Ukraine and will continue until it achieves victory. Recent proposals, like those from Keith Kellogg, suggest freezing the conflict, but they are detached from reality. For example, Kellogg suggests delaying Ukraine’s NATO membership or offering partial sanction relief to Russia. These aren’t incentives—Russia started its operation because of NATO threats.

Russia doesn’t see sanctions as punishment; they’ve spurred industrial independence and economic growth. The notion of sanction relief as an incentive shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Russia’s position.

(20:23)
Kellogg’s ideas to pressure Russia, like military support for Ukraine, are counterproductive. Russia welcomes more Western arms for Ukraine because they’re easily destroyed, depleting NATO’s stockpiles. The West’s long-term security guarantees for Ukraine are meaningless, given Russia’s advanced military capabilities.

(22:24)
Ukraine’s lack of sovereignty makes these proposals irrelevant. Its government operates entirely on U.S. financial support. Loans to Ukraine are effectively handouts, as repayment is impossible. Attempts to pressure Russia by targeting energy exports, like Mazut 100—a critical substance the U.S. imports for diesel production—would hurt the U.S. more than Russia.

(25:33)
These policies reflect a lack of understanding in Washington. Meanwhile, the Biden administration continues sending weapons and funds to Ukraine, even as the situation there deteriorates. The real aim seems to be enriching the U.S. military-industrial complex rather than achieving results on the battlefield.

(27:00)
Syria, too, plays into this dynamic. The U.S. uses Syria to pressure Russia and distract from Ukraine. However, Arab nations like Saudi Arabia and the UAE are distancing themselves from such plans, recognizing their futility. The regional landscape has shifted, leaving the U.S. with fewer allies.

(28:24)
In Ukraine, the situation worsens. Most weapons sent there are destroyed before reaching the front. Ukrainian troop recruitment is collapsing, with only 10% of recruits making it to the front. Many soldiers desert, some even joining Russian forces. The Ukrainian military is rapidly hollowing out.

(30:19)
Russia is also strategically targeting Ukraine’s power grid, aiming to shut down nuclear plants without bombing them. By dismantling infrastructure, Ukraine is forced into cold shutdowns. This will leave the country without electricity in winter, exacerbating the population's dissatisfaction with its government.

(31:33)
This collapse signals the end of the Ukrainian experiment. The West will likely follow its Afghanistan playbook—withdraw and pretend the problem doesn’t exist. In a year, Ukraine will probably disappear from U.S. headlines.

(32:19)
Will Trump bring sanity to U.S. foreign policy? Likely not. His administration would face immense internal opposition, and his pronouncements would likely create more chaos. Washington’s establishment, including the Deep State, would obstruct his efforts at every turn.

(34:20)
Trump’s focus on sanctions and tariffs reflects a misunderstanding of global trade. For instance, he opposes BRICS creating a new currency, but BRICS countries bypass the U.S. dollar using bilateral agreements and virtual accounting methods. These changes are beyond Trump’s understanding or control.

(36:53)
Countries like China and Russia already trade without the U.S. dollar. Trump’s proposed sanctions or tariffs would only harm U.S. consumers, driving inflation and shortages. Militarily, the U.S. lacks proxies to deploy against China, making direct confrontation unlikely.

(39:29)
In Europe, countries like France and Germany lack the sovereignty to make independent foreign policy decisions. They follow Washington’s lead while their economies decline. The war in Ukraine provides a convenient distraction from their internal economic issues.

(42:28)
In South Korea, the U.S.’s colonial influence remains strong. The country’s government serves primarily for corruption and self-enrichment. With one of the lowest birth rates globally, South Korea is on a path to demographic collapse.

(44:41)
Regarding China, Trump’s tariffs and economic strategies are ineffective. China can relocate production to other countries, circumventing tariffs. The U.S. would end up imposing sanctions on its allies, damaging its own economy further.

(47:41)
While tensions over Taiwan may escalate, direct conflict is unlikely. The U.S. military is in no condition to engage a peer adversary like China, especially after its proxy struggles in Ukraine. Shadowboxing with China for domestic political gain is more plausible than actual war.

(50:28)
The continuation of the Ukraine conflict under Trump seems inevitable. Even if Trump wanted to end it, the U.S. establishment thrives on perpetual wars. Reducing the draft age to 18 underscores this desperation, but it’s unsustainable given Ukraine’s dwindling manpower.

(52:36)
Ukraine’s military collapse is accelerating. Russian advances are steadily dismantling resistance. At some point, Ukraine’s forces will disintegrate entirely, leaving no option but retreat or surrender.

(53:53)
European countries may publicly support the conflict but lack the ability to resist U.S. pressure. For many Western politicians, the war is a useful distraction from their collapsing economies, which are shadows of their former selves.

(56:33)
In the UK, domestic issues like energy crises and economic decline are ignored in favor of supporting U.S. policies. Their leadership prioritizes relevance to Washington over addressing national emergencies.

(57:50)
Finally, Zelensky’s future is grim. His regime is crumbling, and his options are dwindling. Whether he stays or flees, his role as a figurehead in this conflict is nearing its end.

(01:29)

Over the past two generations, inflation-adjusted earnings have declined. Meanwhile, the cost of education and housing has skyrocketed. Prosperity is inversely correlated with age.

(01:49)
In simple terms, younger generations face fewer opportunities and diminished prosperity. For the first time in U.S. history, a 30-year-old earns less than their parents did at the same age. This violates the social contract and fuels rage and shame.

(02:08)
People over 55 feel optimistic about America. In contrast, fewer than one in five people under 34 share that sentiment. This creates tension. Younger generations feel justifiable envy and anger, lacking the opportunities and prosperity older generations enjoyed.

(02:34)
A clear indicator of how we value youth labor is the minimum wage. If it had kept pace with productivity, it would be $23 per hour. Instead, it remains deliberately low. Median home prices have soared, while wages have not.

(02:53)
Pre-pandemic, the average mortgage payment was $1,100. Now, it’s $2,300, driven by rising interest rates and home prices. Housing has become prohibitively expensive due to policies that benefit incumbent homeowners by restricting new housing development. This transfers wealth to older generations.

(03:28)
This wealth transfer has been dramatic. People over 70 now control 26% of household wealth, while those under 40 control just 6%. This isn’t accidental—it’s deliberate.

(03:48)
In 1987, I attended UCLA with a 2.23 GPA. The admission rate then was 76%; today, it’s 9%. Higher education was once accessible, providing opportunities for unremarkable kids to become remarkable. Now, it’s prohibitively expensive and exclusive.

(04:27)
Higher education is plagued by administrators focused on increasing compensation while reducing accountability. Universities adopt luxury-brand strategies, constraining supply to raise tuition.

(05:15)
This mirrors housing, where wealthy homeowners block new construction to protect their property values. Universities with large endowments that fail to expand enrollment should lose their tax-free status. They’ve become hedge funds offering classes.

(06:20)
To address this, the government could allocate funds to public institutions under conditions: reduce tuition by 2% annually, expand enrollment by 6%, and increase vocational training by 20%. Within a decade, this could double freshman seats and halve costs.

(06:57)
For 40 years, capital has outperformed labor. Wages have barely risen compared to corporate profits. It’s never been easier to become a billionaire but harder to become a millionaire. Higher education should empower the bottom 90%, not just the top 10%.

(08:01)
Meanwhile, programs like Social Security prioritize age over need, perpetuating wealth transfers from young to old. Expanding the child tax credit would cost $11 billion, yet Congress easily approves $135 billion in additional Social Security spending annually.

(09:13)
Washington is dominated by older representatives, creating policies that favor their demographic. We need leaders who understand the challenges younger generations face.

(10:33)
The pandemic accelerated wealth transfers to the affluent. Stimulus efforts benefited asset holders, leaving younger generations burdened with unprecedented debt. Markets need disruption to recalibrate opportunity, but bailouts have stifled this.

(11:57)
Beyond economic harm, young people face emotional and mental challenges exacerbated by technology. Platforms like social media exploit human vulnerabilities, leading to alarming increases in self-harm, depression, and disengagement.

(13:21)
Gun violence, obesity, and overdose deaths are rising. Fewer young people are having children. Those over 60 report higher happiness levels than those under 30, highlighting generational disparities.

(14:33)
Solutions exist. We can invest in child care, housing, and education. Raising the minimum wage would stimulate the economy. Tax reforms should prioritize fairness, eliminating loopholes that favor capital over labor.

(15:51)
Social media should be age-gated, and national service programs can foster civic engagement. Income-based affirmative action can address economic inequality. Expanding college enrollment and vocational programs would increase opportunity.

(16:55)
We have the resources to address these challenges. The question is whether we have the will. If we claim to love our children, we must act to ensure their prosperity and well-being.

(00:00)

The fall of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, ending a 53-year dynasty started by his father, dramatically alters the Middle East's geopolitical landscape. The rebel group Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), led by Abu Muhammad al-Jolani, is armed and backed by Turkey and was once aligned with Al-Qaeda. Despite being sanctioned as a terrorist organization, Turkey’s primary goal is to prevent an independent Kurdish state in northern Syria, where Kurds have established an autonomous enclave.

However, it might not only be Turkey supporting Assad's overthrow; Israel may also be involved. Israel has long sought to topple the Syrian regime, a key transit route for weapons and aid from Iran to Hezbollah. Backed by Russia and Iran, the Syrian regime relied on Russian airstrikes and troops stationed in the region. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu celebrated Assad’s ouster, calling it a historic day and attributing it to Israeli actions against Hezbollah and Iran.

Despite this, Israel may soon face an Islamic state on its border. Syria, a country of 23 million, links Iraq's oil to the Mediterranean, connects the Shia regions of Iraq and Iran to Lebanon, and provides a bridge between Turkey and Jordan. Assad’s brutal crackdown on a pro-democracy movement in 2011 sparked a civil war lasting over a decade, killing 500,000 people and displacing more than 14 million.

(01:59)
What will Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham's next moves be? Will they restore relations with Iran or impose an Islamic state? How will Syria’s many minority groups—Alawites, Druze, Armenians, Assyrian Christians, and Turkmen—fare under the new regime, especially the Alawites, a heterodox Shiite sect comprising 10% of the population and formerly tied to the ruling elite? What does this mean for the U.S.-backed Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, who control Syria’s oil-rich territories in the north and east?

Why are the U.S. and Israel still bombing targets in Syria following Assad's ouster? Can the new regime persuade the U.S. and Europe to lift sanctions and return occupied oil fields? What are the implications for Lebanon and the Israeli-occupied territories?

(02:36)
Joining me to explore the overthrow of Assad and its broader ramifications is Alastair Crooke, a former British diplomat with over 30 years of experience in the Middle East. Crooke served as a security advisor to the EU Special Envoy to the Middle East and helped lead negotiations and truces between Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other Palestinian resistance groups. He also authored Resistance: The Essence of the Islamist Revolution, which examines the rise of Islamic movements in the region.

Let’s start by revisiting the Arab Spring. During this period, widespread demonstrations erupted across Syria, as they did throughout the Arab world. The Assad regime crushed these protests brutally, triggering the civil war.

(03:49)
Crooke: To understand the roots of this, we must go back to a pivotal 2006 meeting involving U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney and Prince Bandar bin Sultan, then head of Saudi intelligence. Cheney lamented that the Iraq invasion had failed to weaken Iran, with Hezbollah emerging stronger from the Lebanon war. Prince Bandar proposed targeting Syria as the weak link in the region.

Saudi Arabia's broader goal was to shift the Middle East’s balance of power, isolating Iran and elevating Sunni dominance. This plan resembled a second act of the U.S.-Saudi collaboration in Afghanistan decades earlier, where Islamist movements were used to destabilize the Soviet-backed government.

(07:17)
In 2011, President Obama signed a directive ordering the CIA to undermine Assad. This led to the proliferation of U.S., Israeli, and Turkish-backed militias in Syria, including a mix of extremist groups. Over time, this approach faltered.

By 2012, I noticed a shift in how the Middle East was viewed. Previously, issues like Palestine were analyzed through a secular lens, emphasizing institution-building and two-state solutions. However, the focus began shifting toward religious symbols, such as Al-Aqsa Mosque versus the Temple Mount.

(10:20)
Sanctions like the Caesar Act further crippled Syria’s economy. The U.S.-backed Kurdish forces in northeastern Syria controlled oil fields, diverting revenues away from Damascus. Meanwhile, Turkey occupied parts of western Syria, including Aleppo, stripping the country of its industrial and agricultural resources.

Syria’s financial collapse is evident in its military. Soldiers earn as little as $7 a month, while rebel militias like HTS receive up to $2,000 monthly. Even offers of military aid from Russia and Iran, contingent on Syrian cooperation, were declined by Assad, leading to missed opportunities to rebuild his forces.

(13:25)
Assad’s hesitance to align more closely with Iran and Russia may have stemmed from his hopes of gaining support from Gulf states. This strategy, however, left his regime vulnerable to external pressures from Turkey, Israel, and the U.S. In a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Assad likely faced the reality that his position was untenable.

(16:47)
Turkey's role in training and funding rebel militias, often in collaboration with the U.S. and Israel, has been pivotal. However, Turkey's ambition to control these groups has proven challenging, particularly with HTS leader al-Jolani establishing a harsh regime in Idlib.

(27:42)
Israel initially benefits from Assad’s fall, as it disrupts Hezbollah’s supply lines. However, an Islamic state on its border poses long-term risks. Meanwhile, Israel’s internal divisions and reliance on authoritarian governance under Netanyahu leave it deeply unstable, facing widespread dissent among its military and population.

(37:05)
Turkey’s obsession with suppressing Kurdish forces in northern Syria remains a priority. The U.S. backs the Kurds, while Turkey views them as terrorists, creating further fractures among allies in the region.

(41:21)
Syria’s destroyed infrastructure, coupled with sanctions and the loss of oil fields, leaves its economy in ruins. Without significant rebuilding efforts, Syria remains vulnerable to further fragmentation and chaos.

(52:25)
Lebanon, Iraq, and Jordan are all at risk of destabilization. The broader region remains deeply polarized, with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Iran vying for influence. As the Middle East faces ongoing upheaval, the absence of coherent international strategies only exacerbates the crisis.

The fall of Assad in Syria has led to a scramble for resources by Western powers seeking to alienate Russia and Iran.

The sudden overthrow of Assad's regime may be linked to US sanctions against Syria and a desire to control the country's fossil fuel resources.

Turkey, Israel, and the US are involved in the conflict, which is seen as a move to isolate Iran and Russia.

The US is seeking to maintain its influence in the region and prevent the rise of BRICS coalition. The situation in Syria reflects a larger struggle for control of fossil fuel resources in a changing geopolitical landscape.

(00:00:00)

Host:
You’ve been consistent from day one in supporting Julian Assange. You host a show called Assange Countdown to Freedom and have been in touch with him. You even interviewed him twice before he was locked up, correct?

Guest:
Yes, in 2016 and 2017. The second interview happened shortly before he was detained. That’s how Assange Countdown to Freedom began. On April 10, 2017, Julian appeared on Democracy Now! He was ambushed by Amy Goodman, Juan Gonzalez, and Alan Nairn.

Host:
Alan Nairn is a great journalist, but yes, that interview was an ambush. They owe Julian a public apology. Let’s look at some highlights from the interview.

(00:01:08)
[Clip plays of Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez from Democracy Now! introducing a segment about WikiLeaks, followed by remarks from Naomi Klein criticizing WikiLeaks’ release of John Podesta’s emails.]

Naomi Klein (clip):
WikiLeaks didn’t just curate the emails—they timed their release to maximize damage.

Amy Goodman (clip):
Julian Assange, your response?

Julian Assange (clip):
It’s ironic for Naomi Klein, a wealthy woman in Canada, to criticize me—a political prisoner detained for seven years without charge and in violation of two U.N. rulings.

(00:02:50)
Guest:
Julian was clearly unsettled by that interview. He spoke to me that night and asked me to host him and John Pilger the next day, which is how my show started. He was supposed to discuss Vault 7, but the Democracy Now! team derailed the conversation.

Soon after, Mike Pompeo labeled WikiLeaks a “hostile intelligence service,” and the attacks escalated. It was a terrible misstep by Democracy Now! I urge Amy Goodman, Juan Gonzalez, and Alan Nairn to publicly apologize.

Host:
Didn’t they also suggest Julian was colluding with Russia?

Guest:
Yes. Around that time, Adam Schiff was spreading baseless rumors about WikiLeaks and Assange collaborating with Trump’s campaign. Remarkably, Democracy Now! parroted these claims, pressing Julian as if they were credible. At one point, Julian told Amy Goodman, “I’m sorry to see you buying into this nonsense.”

(00:06:11)
Guest:
Amy and Democracy Now! failed on several fronts. For example, in 2019, they invited Marcy Wheeler, a conspiracy theorist, to push the discredited claim that Roger Stone had advance knowledge of WikiLeaks’ releases. It was an embarrassing moment for a show that once prided itself on critical journalism.

Now, with Julian being persecuted, they’re covering his case more, and Amy is even moderating the Belmarsh Tribunal. But back when it mattered, when Julian needed solidarity the most, they failed him.

Host:
They’ve also been disappointing on Syria and Ukraine. They consistently focus on alleged Russian atrocities while ignoring Ukrainian ones.

Guest:
Exactly. I used to work at Democracy Now! We covered the 2014 Maidan coup, U.S. weapon systems in Poland and Romania, NATO expansion, and other provocations. Today, Democracy Now! doesn’t cover these topics with the same depth.

Stephen F. Cohen, a respected scholar, was banned from the show. John Pilger told me he was also banned after one of their funders—the Lannan Foundation—objected to his work. The show’s shift coincided with its transformation into a well-funded operation, resembling MSNBC in its production quality.

(00:10:07)
Guest:
Something dramatic changed at Democracy Now! It went from being a grassroots platform to a tool of the establishment. Amy Goodman now pushes narratives like the Syria dirty war, the White Helmets psy-op, Russiagate, and the Uyghur genocide narrative—stories that align with the ruling class’s interests.

She hosted Kurt Eichenwald, one of the most fraudulent figures of Russiagate, multiple times. She undermined Julian Assange, supported the Ukraine proxy war narrative, and fueled Cold War rhetoric with China. This isn’t the exception—it’s the rule now.

Host:
That’s a significant departure from its origins.

Guest:
Yes, Democracy Now! has become an accessory to the ruling class. It needs to be challenged because it no longer serves the anti-war movement or progressive journalism.

(00:00:02)

I'm Aaron Mate, sitting in for Jimmy. Joining me is Seymour Hersh, one of the most accomplished and impactful journalists of all time. He has won every major award in the field, including the Pulitzer Prize. aubstack where he recently published a piece titled Trading with the Enemy: Amid Rampant Corruption in Kyiv.

The piece discusses U.S. troops gathering at the Ukrainian border and questions whether the Biden Administration has an endgame for the conflict. Let’s bring in Seymour Hersh now.

Seymour, thanks for joining us.

Seymour Hersh:
Happy to be here.

Aaron Mate:
You've reported extensively, including claims that Zelensky and his entourage are skimming tens of millions of dollars from U.S. funding. Can you elaborate on this?

(00:00:48)
Seymour Hersh:
Sure. The amount they're skimming could be far more than tens of millions—it might be trivial in the grand scheme, considering over $130 billion of American aid has gone into Ukraine. What I reported was about a meeting in January, involving CIA Director Bill Burns. The meeting addressed concerns among Ukrainian officials, particularly the military, about how much Zelensky was allegedly taking for himself.

Burns essentially warned Zelensky that his own generals and senior officials were growing angry over the disproportionate share he was taking. It felt like a mafia-style meeting: “Boss, back off the skim, or there might be consequences.”

One of the key issues is that Ukraine has been purchasing diesel fuel—essential for their war effort—from Russia, the country they're at war with. This isn't unprecedented in conflict; there are historical parallels, like the Chechens buying fuel from Russia during their own conflicts.

(00:02:41)
Seymour Hersh (continued):
Over the past year or so, estimates suggest around $400 million may have been involved in these transactions. The CIA reportedly gave Zelensky a list of 35 corrupt officials involved in skimming operations. While he dismissed 10 of them, they were primarily the most flamboyant offenders. The rest remained untouched.

Kyiv has become a hub of luxury, with high-end stores, restaurants, and even liquor stores selling bottles for $600. It's a sharp contrast to the dire situation faced by many Ukrainians. Meanwhile, the U.S. is footing bills for things like Social Security in Ukraine while cutting back on essential programs at home. It's a terrifying reflection of our current priorities.

(00:04:52)
Mary Mate:
The media's reporting on these issues has been underwhelming, to say the least.

Seymour Hersh:
Yes, it's appalling. The recent Pentagon leaks, for example, were overplayed. Much of the information wasn't particularly sensitive, and the headlines didn't reflect the limited impact of the revelations. Similarly, the idea that the Russian military needs to launch an offensive to achieve its goals in Ukraine is misleading—they are already achieving what they want without additional destruction.

There’s no meaningful dialogue between Biden and Zelensky about ending the war. The Biden Administration seems more focused on managing public perception than addressing the reality on the ground.

(00:07:04)
Aaron Mate:
There are indications the Biden Administration might be preparing to shift its stance on the Ukraine war, especially if Ukraine's counteroffensive falters. Leaks suggest that U.S. officials privately doubt Ukraine's chances of success and foresee a prolonged stalemate.

Seymour Hersh:
The situation won’t go well for Ukraine. While there are hints in the press about a potential pivot, we haven't heard anything definitive from the president.

The Biden Administration’s decision-making process seems increasingly isolated. For instance, during the Nord Stream pipeline operation, the team executing the mission in Norway was completely cut off from the White House. Similarly, there’s a lack of comprehensive intelligence assessments, which makes it feel like the U.S. is flying blind.

(00:10:13)
Aaron Mate:
You've also reported on weapons from Ukraine being diverted to the black market. This was highlighted in a CBS News documentary that was later pulled after pressure from the Ukrainian government.

Seymour Hersh:
Yes, the scale of corruption in Ukraine is staggering. For years, Ukraine has ranked among the most corrupt nations globally. Any business dealings there start with bribery. Reports of corruption within the Ukrainian government are not surprising. Yet, U.S. media largely avoids addressing this.

In Afghanistan, at least, there were agencies documenting corruption and misuse of funds. In Ukraine, there’s no external oversight, likely because the findings would be too damning.

(00:14:14)
Aaron Mate:
The U.S. seems to be pushing toward confrontation with China over Taiwan, despite the shared dependency on Taiwan's semiconductor industry.

Seymour Hersh:
Exactly. Taiwan produces chips essential to both the U.S. and China, making a conflict unlikely. Still, Congress engages in war games, further escalating tensions. Unfortunately, political fecklessness persists across party lines.

(00:16:22)
Aaron Mate:
What are the chances of accountability for issues like the Nord Stream pipeline sabotage or excessive aid spending in Ukraine?

Seymour Hersh:
Close to zero. Congress won’t initiate investigations, and the administration lacks the will to address these matters transparently. Domestically, Biden has achieved some legislative wins, but budget cuts are disproportionately affecting vulnerable groups while massive funds are sent abroad.

It’s deeply disheartening to see the priorities of our foreign and domestic policies so misaligned.

(00:01)

Welcome to another edition of Global Capitalism, brought to you by the Left Forum and Democracy at Work. Today’s presentation focuses on the recent U.S. presidential election, won by Donald Trump. We will discuss how the election unfolded, why the results were as they were, what the new government might pursue, and the persistent problems of the United States—problems largely ignored during the campaign.

(00:45)
To understand this election, we must begin with the economic system of the United States. For further context, my book Understanding Capitalism elaborates on these ideas. Let’s start with the limited political choice in U.S. elections, where the system effectively reduces competition to two major parties: Democrats and Republicans. This limits the freedom of choice often celebrated in America.

For decades, these two parties have worked together to uphold the status quo. They solicit donations primarily from corporations and the wealthy, ensuring they never question capitalism or propose alternatives. Both parties are cheerleaders for the system and focus on rallying segments of the working class to secure victory.

(03:33)
This election followed the same pattern. The Republican Party, led by Donald Trump, refrained from criticizing capitalism. Instead, they focused on attracting their traditional constituencies:

• Religious conservatives: Evangelicals and Pentecostals, drawn by opposition to abortion and cultural alignment.
• Rural Americans: A longstanding Republican stronghold, often linked with support for gun ownership.
• Military-affiliated communities: Including those employed in military industries or living near military bases.

The Republicans also blamed economic problems—such as inflation and rising housing costs—on the Democrats, a tactic both parties frequently employ.

(05:16)
The new factor in Trump’s victory was his ability to portray himself as an outsider—a dramatic departure from the political norm. He highlighted real issues like inflation and stagnant wages, positioning himself as a defender of the working class. Trump’s two signature promises—building a wall to stop immigration and opposing Chinese goods with tariffs—resonated with voters frustrated by decades of economic decline. These promises, however simplistic, served as powerful symbols of action.

(08:34)
In contrast, Kamala Harris, the Democratic candidate, followed a more conventional approach. She relied on historical support from groups such as labor unions, social movements, educated urban voters, and suburbanites. Harris also gained support from women motivated by the abortion issue. However, her campaign lacked the dramatic narrative that Trump offered, leaving her unable to inspire enough voters to secure a win.

(10:20)
Trump’s economic program centers on tariffs, which he implemented during his first term and plans to expand. Tariffs are taxes on imports, intended to protect domestic industries. However, they are inflationary, as they increase the cost of goods for American consumers. This contradiction—using tariffs while claiming to fight inflation—highlights the incoherence of Trump’s economic policies.

(12:13)
Similarly, Trump’s rhetoric on immigration focuses on scapegoating undocumented immigrants, portraying them as the cause of America’s economic woes. This claim is unsupported. The U.S. economy, with 330 million people, is not significantly impacted by the presence of 10–12 million undocumented immigrants. Blaming them for economic difficulties ignores the real issue: decisions made by American corporations to prioritize profits over workers.

(15:38)
The deportation of millions of undocumented workers would harm key industries, such as agriculture and construction, which rely on their labor. Employers would face higher costs, leading to increased prices and inflation. Like tariffs, Trump’s immigration policies are economically counterproductive and based on false narratives.

(18:26)
Another challenge facing the new government is the strain on U.S.-European alliances. Trump’s proposal to withdraw U.S. support for Ukraine would force European nations to bear the financial burden of the war, creating friction within NATO. This shift could weaken transatlantic alliances and lead to further political instability.

(20:10)
The broader issue remains the declining global influence of the U.S. Empire. The rise of China and its alliances, including BRICS, marks a historic shift in the global economy. The United States, which once dominated, is now being outpaced. Neither Trump nor Harris addressed this decline or proposed solutions, highlighting a deep denial within the American political system.

(23:40)
Denial also extends to domestic issues. The U.S. faces extreme inequality, with the top 1% controlling most economic gains while real wages for workers have stagnated for decades. Additionally, the economy remains unstable, oscillating between inflation and recession. Despite these systemic problems, neither candidate questioned the capitalist system or offered meaningful solutions.

(30:00)
The failure to address these challenges reflects the inadequacy of the two-party system. Both parties focus on maintaining power rather than addressing the root causes of America’s problems. The U.S. needs new political options—parties willing to confront economic inequality, instability, and the realities of a declining Empire.

(35:00)
The decline of the American Empire demands honest acknowledgment. Historical examples, such as the British Empire’s retreat from North America, show the importance of managing decline responsibly. The alternative—denial and escalation—risks catastrophic outcomes, including the possibility of nuclear conflict.

(40:00)
In conclusion, this election failed to address America’s real problems. Both parties perpetuated denial, avoiding the systemic issues of inequality, instability, and imperial decline. Without new political options and a willingness to confront these realities, the United States risks further economic and social deterioration.

(45:00)
Thank you for your attention. I look forward to resuming live presentations in January. Stay informed, and let’s continue to discuss these critical issues in the months ahead.

(00:00)

The United States is in a unique historical situation, and its current approach to China largely reflects its internal problems. There are conflicting interests within the U.S. regarding its relationship with China. On one hand, many in American big business want strong economic ties with China—to trade, invest, and move capital freely. This is especially true for companies already operating in China or planning to enter its market. For example, Apple CEO Tim Cook’s recent visit to China highlights this interest.

American businesses are especially concerned about the possibility of losing access to the Chinese market, one of the fastest-growing in the world. They fear that if the U.S. is shut out, other players like Japan or Europe will step in, leaving the U.S. isolated and less competitive. For this reason, many in the business community advocate for good relations with China.

(01:47)
At the same time, there are forces within the U.S. pushing for conflict with China. These groups advocate for confrontation, seeing China as the biggest challenge to the American Empire’s dominance in global finance, trade, and geopolitics. This challenge is not just from China but also from BRICS—a coalition that includes Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—along with the many nations now aligning with them.

From 1980 to the present, American capitalism has undergone two major challenges. First, the wealth gap between rich and poor has grown dramatically. A shrinking number of people, such as Tim Cook and Elon Musk, have become extraordinarily wealthy, while 70–80% of Americans face poor job prospects, stagnant incomes, and limited opportunities for their children. College has become increasingly necessary but unaffordable, forcing many into significant debt for degrees that often lack value.

(03:34)
Second, capitalism has become more unstable. Recent years have brought significant inflation and the economic fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic, including massive unemployment. This economic volatility compounds the long-term trend of growing inequality, leaving many Americans wondering why these problems persist and seeking answers from political leaders in both major parties.

The most common explanations provided are waves of poor immigrants from Mexico and Latin America and competition from China. However, these explanations are misleading. China didn’t cause American businesses to leave the U.S.—those decisions were made by U.S. corporations seeking higher profits abroad. Capitalism has always moved production to where it is most profitable, and the political system, heavily influenced by big business, avoids holding capitalism itself accountable. Instead, China is made a scapegoat.

(05:16)
This scapegoating has fueled political tensions, leading to actions like stationing the U.S. Navy in the South China Sea and increased rhetoric around Taiwan. However, these are largely symbolic acts. In reality, economic ties with China remain strong, as demonstrated by Tim Cook’s visit and Apple’s continued reliance on China for production. This reveals the contradiction between a political structure driven to criticize and confront China and an economic elite that seeks collaboration.

(06:54)
This ongoing struggle between political and economic interests remains unresolved. Ironically, a potential alliance is emerging between the business community and peace advocates in the U.S., united by fears that escalating conflict with China could lead to war—even nuclear war. This shift could transform U.S. politics in unexpected ways.

(07:46)
Change is undoubtedly happening in the United States. As someone who has lived here all my life, I’ve never seen such rapid and profound shifts—economically, politically, and ideologically. This is an extraordinary moment in U.S. history, and I expect we’ll have many opportunities to discuss these developments in the months and years to come.

(00:00)

There is perhaps no more misleading work than what neoclassical economists have done on climate change. They claim that the impact of 7°C of warming will be trivial—too small to measure. Meanwhile, climate scientists warn that anything above 5°C could lead to absolute catastrophe and potential extinction.

It’s no mystery who politicians have been listening to: neoclassical economists. However, for humanity’s survival, economic policy on climate change must be guided by science, not flawed economic models.

(00:29)
Steve Keen, a prominent contrarian economist and research fellow at University College London, has long criticized modern economics. His work is crucial for anyone who cares about the future, whether or not you agree with him.

(00:43)
Keen argues that the work of many economists assumes that climate change won’t actually change the climate. This approach puts society in peril. For example, if the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) collapses—a real risk as temperatures rise—the UK could experience freezing winters with temperature drops of 5–8°C, destroying agriculture. Across Europe, similar disruptions would lead to 3–5°C temperature drops, less rainfall, and catastrophic impacts on food production.

(01:28)
Neoclassical economists approach climate as if it were merely a variation in weather. This mindset equates spatial variations (differences in climate between regions) with temporal changes (how the climate changes over time). They assume what happens across space can predict what will happen across time—a dangerous and fundamentally flawed assumption.

(02:01)
This misguided perspective is deeply embedded in economic policy and even influential reports like those from the IPCC. The 2014 report, for example, claimed that for most economic sectors, the impacts of climate change would be small relative to other factors like population changes, income growth, and technological development. These assumptions frame climate change as a second or third-order issue rather than an existential crisis.

(03:07)
There are thousands of papers on the economics of climate change, most of which calculate metrics like the “social cost of carbon.” Yet fewer than 50 papers use meaningful, peer-reviewed data to assess the real impact of rising temperatures.

One infamous example comes from economist William Nordhaus, who estimated the economic damage of climate change in the early 1990s. He claimed that 87% of the economy, including sectors like manufacturing, utilities, and finance, would remain unaffected because they are not directly exposed to weather. His flawed assumption? Only industries directly tied to weather, like agriculture, would face serious impacts.

(05:21)
This narrow perspective led to absurd conclusions, such as underground mining being exempt from climate risks because it’s not exposed to weather. Over time, Nordhaus adjusted his estimates slightly but maintained that most of the economy wouldn’t be significantly affected. This work, often described as scientifically illiterate, has nonetheless shaped major climate policies.

(06:22)
Economists also use econometric models that assume spatial variations in economic activity (such as between warm and cool regions) can predict temporal changes caused by climate shifts. These models extrapolate historical data in a linear fashion, ignoring the structural changes and tipping points inherent in climate systems.

For instance, economists have used data from 1960 to 2014 to project the impact of a 3.2°C rise in global temperatures. This ignores the fact that climate change fundamentally alters ecosystems and economies in nonlinear and unpredictable ways.

(07:59)
In another flawed approach, economists conduct surveys to elicit expert opinions—but they mostly ask other economists. One survey asked economists to predict the economic impact of 7°C of warming by 2220. Their median estimate suggested a mere 10–20% reduction in GDP compared to a scenario with no warming—an outcome they consider negligible.

Yet climate scientists view 5°C or more of warming as an extinction-level event. The contrast highlights how out of touch economists are with the scientific consensus.

(09:43)
Economists compare two hypothetical numbers: GDP with and without climate change. By using simple logarithmic formulas, they reduce the impact of 7°C of warming to an annual GDP growth reduction of 0.1%. This trivializes the catastrophic consequences predicted by climate science, such as mass extinctions, ecosystem collapses, and uninhabitable regions.

(10:46)
The root problem lies in academia’s lack of interdisciplinary collaboration. Economists, who lack expertise in climate science, referee their own work. Climate scientists are rarely involved, allowing flawed assumptions to persist. If scientists had reviewed these papers, they would have rejected them outright.

Keen proposes raising funds to have climate scientists retroactively review these economic papers to expose their flaws.

(12:12)
Despite their talk of “comparative advantage,” economists have largely ignored climate science, relying instead on their own simplistic models. These models often exclude critical factors like precipitation and other climate variables, focusing solely on temperature. After 30 years, most economic models still fail to incorporate basic climate science.

(12:44)
Politicians often turn to economists for guidance because few have expertise in chemistry, physics, or environmental science. This reliance has led to complacency about climate risks, as economists downplay the urgency and scale of the crisis.

(14:54)
One of the most glaring examples of economic ignorance is the treatment of the AMOC, a critical ocean current system. Scientists warn that its collapse would devastate agriculture and water systems in Europe, leading to temperature drops and massive food shortages.

Economists, however, claim that a partial slowdown of the AMOC could result in a 0.3% GDP gain, while a total collapse might yield a 1% GDP gain. Such conclusions are not just wrong—they are dangerously detached from reality.

(16:25)
Keen concludes that neoclassical economists must be excluded from climate policy discussions. Their models and assumptions are not only flawed but also pose an existential threat to humanity by misinforming decision-makers about the true risks of climate change.

(17:24)
The survival of humanity depends on replacing these economic frameworks with science-based approaches. It’s time to stop leaving climate policy to economists and instead listen to those who truly understand the stakes: climate scientists.

(17:59)
For those interested in learning more, Keen invites people to attend his lectures and discussions to explore real economics and challenge these dangerous misconceptions.

**(00:34)**  

**Host:** We appreciate both of your tireless pursuits of a better, more enlightened world. I'd like to jump right into a couple of questions. Dr. West, when I announced a reparations panel with Dr. Darity and yourself, one of my members asked, "Does Dr. West support reparations?" They said, "Every time I talk about supporting Dr. West, someone says he doesn't support reparations." So, my question is twofold: how do you respond to that? And why have you included reparations in your presidential campaign?

**(01:07)**  

**Dr. West:** Well, brother, I've always tried to stay true to the quest for truth and justice. As James Baldwin said, "The condition of truth is to allow suffering to speak." You can't tell the truth about America without listening to the suffering of its people—Indigenous peoples initially, and then my ancestors, dignified Africans who were enslaved. I was blessed to sit at the feet of Queen Mother Moore, a major figure in the reparations movement. She was my mayor when I lived in Harlem, and she played a crucial role in advocating for reparations. I've been part of the reparations movement since my early 20s.  

I was also close to Randall Robinson, who wrote *The Debt*—a classic in this field—and founded TransAfrica. I’ve been involved in this movement for decades. So, when people question whether Dr. West supports reparations, that's like saying I don't love Curtis Mayfield! Reparations are a part of who I am.

**(02:15)**  

I've spent time with key figures like Queen Mother Moore, Randall Robinson, and Charles Ogletree, who was my lawyer and worked on reparations in Tulsa. This movement is central to me, and Dr. Darity’s scholarly work is foundational to any serious discussion of reparations today. We’re talking about more than just slavery; it’s about the legacies of neo-slavery, Jim Crow, and current-day discrimination. Reparations are not just about the past—they’re about the present, about truth and justice. If you're committed to those values, reparations make sense. That’s why it's fundamental to my campaign.

**(03:50)**  

I’ve supported Bernie Sanders in the past, and while we had disagreements—on Palestine, on BDS—he’s still my brother. We disagreed on reparations, but my support for them has never wavered. It’s always been central to what I stand for. Reparations are tied to racial justice, but they also connect to other issues like ending mass incarceration, ensuring quality education, and providing free healthcare. I don’t know why people would question my stance on reparations.

**(05:18)**  

**Host:** Absolutely. I even put out a short clip of you discussing your support for reparations because I wanted people to hear it directly from you. I appreciate your clarity. There's so much misinformation out there, and it can be used against us when we stand for something difficult or controversial.

**(05:53)**  

**Dr. Darity:** Yes, there are always attempts to undermine movements for justice. I think it’s important to acknowledge two of the foremothers of the reparations movement: Queen Mother Audley Moore, whom Dr. West mentioned, and her predecessor, Callie House, who was an extraordinary leader in the late 19th century. Queen Mother Moore focused on reparations for Black Americans whose ancestors were enslaved in the U.S., and she linked slavery to the atrocities that followed—like Jim Crow and discrimination. Callie House’s work is chronicled in Mary Frances Berry's book, *My Face Is Black Is True*, which highlights her remarkable role in advocating for reparations.

**(08:10)**  

**Dr. West:** Absolutely. Queen Mother Moore had style, intellect, and a deep love for the people. She was a towering figure. I appreciate that you mentioned Callie House, Brother Sandy—she's often overlooked, but she played a crucial role in the early reparations movement.

**(08:51)**  

**Host:** Dr. Darity, I have a question for you as well. Could you explain the racial wealth gap, how reparations can address it, and why it's so essential?

**(09:28)**  

**Dr. Darity:** The racial wealth gap is persistent and stark. Black Americans make up about 13 to 14% of the U.S. population but possess less than 3% of the nation’s wealth. On average, Black households have $1.15 million less in net worth than White households. That gap totals around $16 trillion, if you calculate it across all Black Americans whose ancestors were enslaved here.  

Some people argue that the gap is due to behavioral differences, but the reality is that it stems from systemic injustices, starting with the broken promise of 40 acres and a mule after the Civil War. Instead, the federal government distributed 160-acre land grants to over 1.5 million White families under the Homestead Act, creating a foundation for generational wealth. That legacy was compounded by discriminatory policies like redlining and the unequal application of the GI Bill, which denied Black veterans the same opportunities for homeownership that were afforded to White veterans.  

Public policies created this gap, and reparations are the best mechanism to close it.

**(12:06)**  

Dr. West:** That’s powerful. And for those who want to understand the roots of these inequalities, you can turn to Chapter 3 of *From Here to Equality*. It lays out the scholarly foundation for understanding how America built its wealth on the backs of enslaved Africans and continues to perpetuate racial inequality.

**(15:30)**  

The key here is truth and justice. If you’re committed to those principles, reparations are a necessary part of addressing the damage that’s been done to Black Americans. It’s not just about slavery—it’s about everything that followed, from Jim Crow to present-day disparities. We need to correct these injustices, and reparations are a big part of that correction.

**(16:40)**  

Dr. West:** There are also movements within states, like the one in New York, where I've been in dialogue with local leaders. But we must ensure these movements don’t get diluted. Justice delayed is justice denied, and we need to keep pushing for full reparations without compromising the core principles.

**(17:12)**  

**Dr. West:** What’s important is that we maintain a sense of urgency. Too often, movements get watered down, commissions are formed, and we’re left waiting for incremental change. We can't afford to wait. People are suffering right now. When we talk about reparations, we're talking about repairing the damage caused by centuries of exploitation and oppression. This isn't just about a conversation—it’s about action.

**(17:47)**  

**Host:** Dr. Darity, I want to ask you a two-part question. We've talked about the racial wealth gap before, but for those who are unfamiliar, could you explain what it is and how reparations specifically address it? Why is reparations the key to closing that gap?

**(18:10)**  

**Dr. Darity:** The racial wealth gap has persisted for generations. As I mentioned earlier, Black Americans, who are about 13-14% of the population, hold less than 3% of the nation’s wealth. The average Black household has significantly less wealth than the average White household. In dollar terms, we’re talking about a gap of around $400,000 per person between Black and White Americans. If you total that across the 40 million Black Americans who are descendants of enslaved people in the U.S., the total gap amounts to $16 trillion.  

This gap is not the result of individual behavior or choices—it’s the direct consequence of systemic policies that have denied Black Americans access to wealth-building opportunities. Reparations are necessary to address that wealth gap. It's a debt owed, not charity or welfare. It’s a matter of justice, not poverty alleviation.

**(19:29)**  

**Host:** Exactly. What we often hear is that the state can’t fully compensate for slavery, Jim Crow, redlining, or mass incarceration. States aren’t equipped for that kind of compensation. Dr. Darity, when we talk about reparations on a national level, why is it essential that we address this issue through federal policy rather than state-level initiatives?

**(20:00)**  

**Dr. Darity:** That’s a key point. Reparations are a national issue, not something that can be handled by states alone. The federal government created the conditions that led to the wealth gap through policies like the Homestead Act, redlining, and unequal application of the GI Bill. The federal government is responsible for rectifying these injustices.  

While state-level initiatives can bring attention to the issue and make some progress, they cannot fully compensate for the harms done. The federal government has the resources and the responsibility to implement a comprehensive reparations program.

**(20:56)**  

**Dr. West:** Absolutely. And we can’t allow these state-level discussions to dilute the demands for true reparations. We’re talking about a massive injustice that requires a large-scale response. I see this in my campaign—people want to stay on the moral high ground, but as Brother Sandy says, the numbers don’t lie. This is a financial debt, and we know exactly how much is owed. We can’t settle for symbolic gestures or watered-down solutions.

**(21:57)**  

**Host:** That’s the key—reparations aren’t just about symbolic recognition. We’re talking about real numbers, real compensation. The wealth built off the labor of enslaved Africans is still circulating in the economy today. It hasn’t disappeared. Dr. Darity, I was looking at *From Here to Equality* and saw that you calculated the wealth gap per household. Am I correct that the average shortfall per Black household is around $240,000?

**(22:35)**  

**Dr. Darity:** Yes, that’s right, though that figure has likely increased since the book was published in 2020. As you said earlier, the longer we delay reparations, the larger that debt becomes. Reparations need to address this economic disparity head-on, and the figure we calculated reflects the accumulated impact of slavery, Jim Crow, and discriminatory policies that continue to this day.

**(23:21)**  

**Host:** Dr. West, what do you say to people who argue that America can’t afford reparations? The question of how to pay for it always comes up.

**(23:35)**  

**Dr. West:** Oh, we can definitely afford it. We spend trillions on war and the military-industrial complex. If we can fund wars overseas and maintain 800 military bases around the world, we can certainly invest in justice for Black Americans. Sixty-two cents of every federal dollar goes to the military. If we redirect even a fraction of that toward reparations and social programs, we can start to repair the damage done by centuries of racial injustice.  

This is about priorities. America has the resources, but it chooses to invest in war and corporate interests instead of investing in its own people—especially those who have been systematically oppressed.

**(24:35)**  

**Host:** That’s powerful. It’s always about priorities, isn’t it? Dr. Darity, let’s talk about HR 40, the reparations bill in Congress. Some people feel that HR 40 is counterproductive because it's just a study, not actual reparations. What are your thoughts?

**(25:00)**  

**Dr. Darity:** HR 40, as it currently stands, is meant to create a commission to study the impact of slavery and propose reparations solutions. I understand the frustration—many feel we don’t need more studies. We already have plenty of research on the harms done to Black Americans. In fact, *From Here to Equality* is an attempt to make the case for reparations with the data we have.  

However, it’s common for Congress to create a commission before enacting a policy of this magnitude. Before Japanese Americans received reparations for their internment during World War II, Congress created a commission to provide a report. So, I don’t object to a commission in principle, but I do think HR 40, in its current form, is inadequate. It doesn’t guarantee that the commission will produce a plan that leads to true reparations. The process and who’s appointed to the commission are crucial.

**(26:10)**  

**Host:** Dr. West, as a presidential candidate, how do you feel about HR 40? Do you have any ideas on how we can make it more robust?

**(26:20)**  

**Dr. West:** As I get older, I have less patience with commissions and studies, especially when they seem like ways to delay action. We already know Black people have been catching hell for centuries. We don't need six years of research to confirm what’s blatantly obvious. Look at the 1960s civil rights movement—people hit the ground running, and we got a Civil Rights Act and a Voting Rights Act.  

Commissions can sometimes be used to defuse the urgency of a situation, to sanitize it, and to neutralize the pressure. But we are in a state of emergency. We need to act now, not wait around for more studies. Yes, there’s a place for commissions, but we need movements and social pressure that push for real change.

**(27:12)**  

**Dr. Darity:** I agree. A presidential commission could be a step forward, but only if it's guided by a clear framework. A commission without direction will just produce vague recommendations. We need to ensure that any commission is instructed to focus on specific elements: one, that reparations should target descendants of enslaved Black Americans; two, that the amount must be sufficient to eliminate the racial wealth gap; three, that the federal government is responsible for paying reparations; and four, that the payments should go directly to eligible recipients for them to use as they see fit.  

Without these pillars, a commission will not deliver meaningful reparations.

**(28:10)**  

**Dr. West:** Exactly. And under a West administration, Brother Darity would lead that commission. We already have the framework in place with *From Here to Equality*. We wouldn’t need to reinvent the wheel—just update it to reflect the current reality and correct a few typos! But seriously, we have the research. We just need the courage to act on it.

**(28:50)**  

**Host:** Dr. West, you’ve often spoken about integrity and staying true to the people, whether you're speaking at Carnegie Hall or the Apollo Theater. How do you maintain that consistency while navigating the political system?

**(29:10)**  

**Dr. West:** It's about integrity. You have to say the same things to different audiences. Whether I'm speaking in Harlem or on Wall Street, the message doesn't change. If you start saying one thing to Black folks and another thing to the wealthy, you’ve lost your integrity. I believe in improvisation, but not opportunism. We need to be flexible in how we approach things, but we can never compromise on the truth. That’s what integrity looks like.  

People can see through dishonesty. If you’re selling out or diluting the message, it shows. Our ancestors, like Frederick Douglass and Harriet Tubman, never compromised on the truth. We have to keep that spirit alive.

**(30:00)**  

**Host:** That’s so true, Dr. West. People can tell when someone’s compromising their principles. You mentioned earlier that reparations are not just about justice, but about restoring integrity. Dr. Darity, can you expand on how reparations are more than just an anti-poverty measure?

**(30:30)**  

**Dr. Darity:** Absolutely. One important distinction is that reparations are not an anti-poverty program. Reparations are about a debt that is owed. The racial wealth gap exists because of historical wrongs that have not been addressed, and reparations are the only way to close that gap.  

Anti-poverty programs, which I support, are designed to improve the lives of all Americans, but reparations specifically address the harm done to Black Americans whose ancestors were enslaved. It’s a remedy for a specific set of harms, and that’s why it needs to be distinct from universal anti-poverty programs. The two can coexist, but reparations are not just about poverty—they're about justice.

**(31:26)**  

**Dr. West:** I completely agree. We have to be clear that there are two rails here. On one rail, we talk about universal rights as citizens—healthcare, quality education, jobs with living wages. Everyone deserves those things. But on the other rail, we have a group of people who were treated as non-citizens, as sub-citizens—enslaved, segregated, lynched. Reparations speak to those specific historical injustices.  

The mistake is when people try to collapse those two rails, making reparations about general anti-poverty measures. No, reparations are about repairing the harm done to descendants of enslaved Africans. It's important to maintain that distinction.

**(32:05)**  

**Host:** That’s such an important point. We can't conflate the two issues. Reparations are specific to the harm done to Black Americans, and anti-poverty programs address broader societal issues. Dr. Darity, are there other misconceptions about reparations that you think we need to address?

**(32:30)**  

**Dr. Darity:** Yes, I think there’s a misconception that reparations are simply about giving money to individuals. While direct payments are a critical component, reparations are also about recognition and redress for the systemic discrimination that has been inflicted on Black Americans over generations. Some people argue that reparations should take the form of investments in education, health, or housing. But, as we’ve said before, the harm caused by systemic racism manifests most clearly in the racial wealth gap, and direct financial payments are the most effective way to address that.  

Reparations must be targeted to those whose ancestors were enslaved in the United States, and the federal government must take responsibility for making those payments. It's not just about poverty alleviation—it's about justice for a specific historical wrong.

**(33:20)**  

**Host:** Dr. West, you mentioned earlier that even if people are scared, they need to acknowledge that. Why do you think fear plays such a big role in the opposition to reparations?

**(33:35)**  

**Dr. West:** Fear is a powerful force. When people are faced with the truth about the horrors of slavery and Jim Crow, it can be overwhelming. Some people fear losing their privilege. Others fear the implications of what reparations represent—a confrontation with the deep moral and historical failures of this country. Fear often leads to denial or evasion.  

But fear can also be an opportunity for growth if we face it honestly. We have to acknowledge that people are scared of the consequences of reparations because it forces them to confront the realities of structural racism and inequality. But once you get past the fear, you can engage in the kind of serious moral reckoning that leads to justice.

**(34:23)**  

**Host:** Dr. Darity, can you speak to the importance of having clear criteria for who should receive reparations? How do we define the eligible community?

**(34:40)**  

**Dr. Darity:** This is a crucial point. Reparations must be directed specifically to Black Americans whose ancestors were enslaved in the United States. This group has faced a unique set of harms that no other group in America has experienced. There have been other injustices, but the legacy of slavery and its aftermath—Jim Crow, redlining, mass incarceration—are specific to this community.  

So, eligibility should be based on two criteria: First, individuals must prove that they are descendants of people enslaved in the United States. Second, they must have identified as Black, African American, or Negro for at least 12 years before the establishment of the reparations program. This ensures that the people who receive reparations are the descendants of those who were directly harmed by slavery and its ongoing legacy.

**(35:38)**  

**Host:** That’s very clear. It’s important to make sure that the right group is receiving reparations because the harm was so specific and targeted. Now, let’s talk about how we move forward. Dr. Darity, what are the next steps we should take to make reparations a reality?

**(36:00)**  

**Dr. Darity:** One important step is building a movement that puts pressure on the federal government to enact a real reparations program. As we mentioned earlier, Congress can establish a commission, but that commission must be directed to develop a concrete reparations plan, centered on eliminating the racial wealth gap.  

In addition, it’s essential to keep educating the public about the need for reparations. Polls show that support for reparations among White Americans has increased from 4% to 30% over the past 20 years. That’s progress, but we need to build on that momentum. We need more people to understand that this is not a handout—it’s a debt owed for centuries of exploitation.

**(36:58)**  

**Dr. West:** Absolutely, and we need to keep the pressure on, both inside and outside the political system. Movements are essential. Look at how movements in the 1960s forced the government to act on civil rights. We need the same kind of movement for reparations today. It’s about mobilizing people and making sure we stay on the path of truth and justice.  

I believe reparations should be treated with the same level of urgency and moral clarity as issues like ending apartheid or supporting Palestinian rights. It’s a litmus test for where we stand on truth and justice.

**(37:52)**  

**Host:** That’s a powerful comparison. Just as people were mobilized globally against apartheid and other forms of injustice, we need that same level of commitment to reparations. Dr. Darity, any final thoughts on how we can maintain that momentum?

**(38:10)**  

**Dr. Darity:** We need to be persistent. Change won’t happen overnight, but we’ve already seen a significant shift in public opinion. Now, it’s about continuing to build awareness and support for reparations, keeping the conversation alive, and ensuring that policymakers are held accountable. It’s going to take time and effort, but as long as we remain focused on the ultimate goal—justice for Black Americans whose ancestors were enslaved—we can get there.

**(38:40)**  

**Dr. West:** And remember, this is a moral issue. It’s not just about politics or economics. It’s about righting a wrong. People who care about justice need to get involved and stay involved. Movements are built one step at a time, but they start with truth. And we have the truth on our side.

(00:00) so we're here basically to support the voice of the people which was not being heard here at the RNC nor at the DNC this is a political system that uh represents the um you know the oligarchs and the war machine so the green party you know it faces a tough time with ballot access right and the major party system always seems to synchronize in terms of making ballot access difficult making rank Choice voting difficult Etc can you talk about some of the challenges that those are faced some of the what some of the challenges so the

(00:31) DNC announced way back in March that they were hiring an army of lawyers to throw their competitors off the ballot this is the Democratic party that claims to be defending democracy you know they're destroying democracy supposedly in order to defend it we haven't seen them defend it yet um they've also advertised for infiltrators and spies uh to mess up our our ballot drives and our organizations you know we are specifically in court now in several States uh fighting them there intention is to drain our resources and to stop us

(01:03) from making further progress we're currently on the ballot for a majority of Voters and a majority of the Electoral College we are truly contesting for power and they are doing their best uh to try to disrupt that and then um most recently they're now tying up our the Public Funding that we qu qualified for $270,000 that we very much need uh to keep going and you know so we're encouraging people to own this fight you know to U crowdfund this fight because we are the one anti-genocide anti-war pro-worker climate emergency uh choice

(01:41) that is already on the ballot for a majority of Voters so we're here to really fight this fight and without us on the ballot we don't really have a um you know a dog in this fight do you think that the other independent candidates are going to have things like debates like could you end up like doing a debate with Libertarians or anything like that we did just a Monday night in fact so we've done several yeah it's on the it's on the web at free and equal.

(02:05) org um RFK unfortunately uh does not want to debate you know uh he's been uh very anxious to be included in the debates of others but he will not participate in an alternative debate and Corell West has likewise been missing an action in all in all the debates so far we've we've held uh two with the Libertarians and uh with PSL so some of us are willing to actually stand up and defend our positions and some are are apparently not capable of doing that okay so as we go into November what are where would you say

(02:38) the other uh where can people look to find out about what's happening in the world of outside of the two main parties where where can people learn more about what's happening in that political space yeah so I really encourage people to go to our website at gilstein a symbolic campaign or do we actually want to take power right now uh in the midst of you know this utter meltdown of our society our economy our foreign policy you know the American people are not happy we need a voice uh in this fight and if you have three Pro genocide

(03:18) campaigns proar and pro genocide campaigns um on the ballot and only one anti-war anti-genocide campaign so it's a four-way race and you got three candidates splitting the proar vote and only one campaign unifying the anti-war pro-worker climate emergency vote you can divide the vote in such a way that uh it's only requires 26% 26% could potentially win this race so rule it out and I wouldn't allow the powers that be to talk you into uh hopelessness okay and forgive me for not being up on this but are you the green

(03:56) party nominee currently I'm the presumptive nominee so I have one uh basically 95% of the delegates to our convention well thank you so much for that I really appreciate your time Jill thank you thank you

“When the Israelis and their supporters are called on to justify the ferocity of their response, which has killed far, far more people than the Hamas incursion… again and again and again, they will talk about babies and they will talk about rapes.”

Award-winning journalist and film director Richard Sanders, sits down with Middle East Eye columnist Peter Oborne to discuss his latest film with Al Jazeera’s Investigation Unit (I-Unit) October 7.

The film provides a forensic analysis of the Hamas-led attack on Israel that day, revealing human rights abuses committed by Hamas fighters.

The months’ long investigation also found that many claims repeated by politicians and western media, including mass rape and killings of babies, were false.

Sanders explains that the failure of western media outlets in reporting these claims has been used by Israel to justify its war on Gaza. 

[00:09] Documentary 'October 7' took around 4 months to make.

- Started in October with development, full team in November, finished by February.

- Extensive research on footage, including videos from dead Hamas Fighters, dash cams, and CCTV has informed the conclusions in this documentary.

[02:19] Importance of verifying accounts of baby casualties in conflicts

- The director highlights specific cases of baby casualties to emphasize the need for accurate reporting. He says that according to their reports 2 babies died. 

- Media struggled with initial trust in Israeli government officials, leading to misinformation spreading by the IDF and the Israeli government.

[06:32] New York Times' reported stories unraveled

- Reported stories of two sisters being raped were entirely untrue

- Revelation of one of the authors working for Israeli intelligence raised suspicions

[08:42] Criticism of BBC's portrayal of Israeli Minister Me Goan

- Me Goan is heavily criticized for her controversial statements and views, including being labeled a proud racist and expressing pride in the ruins of Gaza.

- The discussion raises concerns about the lack of contextualization and scrutiny in mainstream media reporting, specifically questioning the BBC's objectivity and credibility.

[13:11] Lack of sufficient evidence for the allegations of rape at the outdoor festival.

- One witness is anonymous, questioning the lack of more witnesses to the alleged rapes.

- Director Richard Sanders appreciates the courage of Meline Ree to speak out against the Israeli government's bullying.

[15:20] Clarification on false narratives of atrocities on October 7

- The director highlights that while human rights abuses did occur on October 7, the reported wholesale slaughter of babies and systematic rape was not true.

- False narratives of atrocities are used to dehumanize a group, making it easier to justify mass repression and slaughter.

[19:20] More women reported dead than men in Gaza hospital

- Death toll in Gaza is a massive underestimate due to bodies under rubble

- Health Ministry's figures are reliable despite media skepticism

[21:04] Verification of conflict figures and Hamas civilian usage

- External organizations like the World Health Organization have verified conflict figures as reliable

- Reports from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International do not show a widespread pattern of Hamas using human shields, but suggest Israelis may use Palestinian civilians as shields

[24:54] Israeli media's coverage of the events on October 7

- Israeli media has been selective in its coverage, focusing on certain stories while largely ignoring others.

- According to the film, the total number of casualties on October 7 was a little under 12,200, with a significant portion being civilians and children.

[26:42] Concerns about the handling and documentation of bodies

- The bodies were collected and recorded with amateurism, affecting the accuracy of information gathered.

- There are suspicions that individuals were killed by helicopters and ground troops, as well as in cars running into roadblocks.

[30:23] Israeli military officials providing false information about the events of October 7th

- Possibility of intentional manipulation of facts by Israeli military for propaganda purposes

- Zaka organization facing credibility issues and fundraising after the incident

[32:09] The intelligence failure and misinterpretation of evidence on October 7th.

- The film highlights the epic scale of the intelligence failure, and the warnings from Egypt and the online training videos.

- The misinterpretation of evidence led to a lack of general alert despite the detected unusual activity.

[35:48] The struggle of media to cover Israel and the significance of media silence.

- The film discusses the struggle of media to cover Israel and the silence surrounding significant discoveries.

- It also highlights the inadequacy of traditional media in covering the Corbyn years and the anti-Semitism crisis.

[37:48] Media aversion to difficult truths

- Discussing how media organizations, like the BBC and mainstream newspapers, tend to ignore or discredit difficult truths

- Historical redefinition of anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism leading to biased media coverage

Sami Al-Arian, director of the Centre for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA) at Istanbul Zaim University, speaks with Middle East Eye about his view of the world after 7 October, its consequences for Israel and Palestine, and how it will reshape the future of the region.

(00:00) The world, particularly in Gaza and the surrounding areas, was different before October 7th. After October 7th, everything has changed. Over the past 10 months, and especially on the day of the attacks, many of the strategic points that Israel relied on have been undermined. We're talking about Israel's deterrence, its military strength, its role as a regional power, and its ability to dictate political and strategic discourse—these have all been shattered by October 7th. Israel has been shaken to its core, and many of its strategic points have been compromised.

(00:38) For example, Israel's military doctrine has been undermined. This doctrine depends on six imperatives. The first is preemptive strikes, but for the first time, Israel was hit—and hit hard—on October 7th. The second is early warning systems, which failed miserably on that day. Since then, attacks have come from the north, from Hezbollah, from the south, and even from Iran, despite being announced. Ballistic missiles have managed to get through, proving the early warning systems ineffective.

(01:14) The third imperative is effective deterrence, which has also failed. Whenever Israel strikes, it is hit back. Hezbollah, for instance, has declared a low-intensity war since October 8th and has managed to blind most of the radars in the north. Tens of thousands of people have had to leave the north and haven't been able to return. Meanwhile, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other factions have been fighting for 10 months without surrendering, engaging Israel in a war of attrition.

(01:46) The fourth principle is strong defense, which has also been compromised. Israel has not been able to end this war, and many experts suggest that Israel cannot declare victory, despite having a balance of power in its favor, along with planes, armaments, missiles, tanks, and support from the U.S. and Europe. Their reserve army has been exhausted, and the economy has suffered. Most reservists cannot return to service, and hundreds of thousands—mostly Ashkenazi with dual citizenship—have left the state, undermining the entire Zionist enterprise.

(02:51) The fifth principle is quick resolution. Israel is used to ending wars in its favor within a few hours or days, as seen in the Six-Day War of 1967, which actually ended in six hours. However, Israel has been unable to end this conflict after almost 320 days of continuous fighting. This principle, too, has been undermined.

(03:24) The final principle is escalation dominance, which Israel has attempted through assassination policies. They've targeted military leaders in Hezbollah and political and military leaders in Hamas, but even with this escalation, they cannot declare victory. The entire military doctrine of Israel has been weakened, if not totally undermined, due to October 7th.

(03:59) Israel's military doctrine also relies on building security barriers, like the one with Gaza, but they can no longer maintain them. The entire south and north of Israel have been evacuated, and 70% of Israeli citizens are now living in a small area around Tel Aviv and Haifa. This presents a strategic problem because the depth they have always sought is no longer there. Israel's genocidal policies have made it impossible to convince anyone in the region, or globally, that they seek peace after killing tens of thousands of people—70% of whom are women and children—without remorse or any effort to avoid catastrophic consequences.

(04:35) When we talk about the future, many once hoped for a two-state solution, but that possibility has vanished. Now, only two options remain. One is Israeli hegemony, where Israel dictates the future of the region by imposing its will. This is exactly what Netanyahu, his allies, and others have been advocating: a greater Israel, where the entire region must submit or face the same fate as Gaza—elimination.

(05:49) The other option is that we are living under a colonialist, racist, and aggressive regime that seeks to replace Palestinians with others by force. The region will either have to accept this or fight it, meaning this kind of warfare will persist until the world understands that this situation is unsustainable. Israel, as an apartheid state or a state seeking ethnic cleansing, will not be accepted. Therefore, the only solution, given the failure of the two-state solution, is to dismantle this racist, supremacist regime. Only then can the region live in peace and stability.

(06:28) We have other examples where this has happened, with the best being South Africa. Other examples include France, Vietnam, and elsewhere, where people seeking independence, liberation, and freedom eventually succeeded because they did not give up. The aggressor had to withdraw. In this case, it’s more complicated because we have a settler colonialist regime, but total dismantlement of this regime is necessary for a peaceful resolution.

Three months into Israel's bombardment of Gaza, the atrocities the IDF has committed against Palestinians are too numerous to name.

Israel is staging a prolonged assault on the Palestinian people's very means of existence—destroying homes, hospitals, sanitation infrastructure, food and water sources, schools, and more.

To understand the genocidal campaign unfolding before our eyes, we must examine the roots of Israeli society. Israel is a settler colonial state whose existence depends on the elimination of Palestinians.

Accordingly, Israel is a deeply militarized society whose citizens are raised in an environment of historical revisionism and indoctrination that whitewashes Israel's crimes while cultivating a deep-seated racism against Palestinians.

Miko Peled, former IDF Special Forces and author of The General's Son: Journey of an Israeli in Palestine, joins The Chris Hedges Report for a frank conversation on the distortions of history and reality at the foundations of Israeli identity. 

(124) How Israel indoctrinates its people w/Miko Peled | The Chris Hedges Report - YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU0Uc-PKe9Y

Transcript:

(00:34) The Israeli army, known as the Israel Defense  Force or IDF, is integral to understanding Israeli   society. Nearly all Israelis do three years of  military service, most continue to serve in the   reserves until middle age. Its generals often  retire to occupy senior positions in government   and industry.

(00:59) The dominance of the military  in Israeli society helps explain why war,   militaristic nationalism, and violence are  so deeply embedded in Zionist ideology.  Israel is the outgrowth of a militarized settler  colonial movement that seeks its legitimacy in   biblical myth. It has always sought to solve  nearly every conflict; The ethnic cleansing and   massacres against Palestinians known as the Nakba  or catastrophe in the years between 1947 and 1949,   the Suez War of 1956, the 1967 and 1973 wars with  Arab neighbors, the two invasions of Lebanon, the   Palestinian intifadas, and the series of military  strikes on Gaza, including the most recent, with  

(01:44) violence. The long campaign to occupy Palestinian  land and ethnically cleanse Palestinians is rooted   in the Zionist paramilitaries that formed the  Israeli state and continues within the IDF.  The overriding goal of settler colonialism  is the total conquest of Palestinian land.   The few Israeli leaders who have sought to  reign in the military, such as Israeli Prime   Minister Levi Eshkol, have been pushed aside by  the generals.

(02:15) The military setbacks suffered by   Israel in the 1973 war with Egypt and Syria, and  during Israel's invasions of Lebanon only fuel   the extreme nationalists who have abandoned all  pretense of a liberal democracy. They speak in   the open language of apartheid and genocide.

(02:36) These  extremists were behind the 1995 assassination of   Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Israel's  failure to live up to the Oslo Accords.  This extremism has now been exacerbated  by the attack of October 7, which killed   about 1,200 Israelis. The few Israelis  who oppose this militaristic nationalism,   especially after October 7, have been silenced  and persecuted in Israel.

(03:00) Genocidal violence   is almost exclusively the language Israeli  leaders, and now Israeli citizens, use to   speak to the Palestinians and the Arab world. Joining me to discuss the role of the military   in Israeli society is Miko Peled. Miko's father  was a general in the Israeli army. Miko was a   member of Israel's special forces, although  disillusioned with the military, moved from   his role as a combatant to that of a medic.

(03:29) After  the 1982 war in Lebanon, he buried his service   pin. He is the author of, The General's Son:  Journey of an Israeli in Palestine and Injustice:   The Story of the Holy Land Foundation Five. You grew up, you were a child when your father   was a general in the IDF. This inculcation of  that military ethos has begun very young and   begun in the schools. Can you talk about that? Sure, thanks for having me, Chris.

(03:59) It's good to   be with you again and talk to you. So it  begins before the military. It begins in   preschool. It begins as soon as kids are able to  talk and walk. I always say I knew the order of   the ranks in the military before I knew my  alphabet and this is true for many Israeli   kids.

(04:25) The Israeli education system is such that  it leads young Israelis to become soldiers and to   serve the apartheid state and to serve in this  genocidal state, which is the state of Israel.   It's an enormous part of that. And with me, it  came with mega-doses of that because when your   father's a general, and particularly of that  generation of the 1967 generals, they were like   gods of the Olympus. Everybody knew their names.

(04:52) On Independence Day, I remember in the schools   you would have little flags, not just flags of  Israel, but flags of the IDF with pictures of IDF   generals, with pictures of military, all kinds of  military symbols and so on. It's everywhere. When   I was a kid they still had a military parade.  It's everywhere and it's inescapable.

(05:14) And it's   like you said, you hear it when you walk  down the street, you hear it in the news,   you hear it in conversations, you hear it  in schools, you read it in the textbooks,   and there's no place to develop dissent. There's  no place to develop a sense that dissent is okay,   that dissent is possible.

(05:34) And the few cases where  people do become dissenters, it's either because   their families have a tradition of being communist  or more progressive and somehow it's part of their   tradition but this is a minority of a minority.  By and large, Israel stands with the army,   and Israel is the army. You can't separate  Israel from its army, from its military.  Let's juxtapose the myth that you were taught  in school about the IDF with the reality. 

(06:08) The myth that I was... Again, this was given to  me in larger doses at home because my father and   his comrades were all part of the 1948 mythology.  We were small and we were resourceful, and we were   clever, and therefore, in 1948, we were able to  defeat these Arab armies and these Arab killers   who came to try to kill us and so on and destroy  our fledgling little Jewish state.

(06:38) And because of   our heroism -- And you talked about the biblical  connection -- Because we are the descendants of   King David, and we are the descendants of the  Maccabees, and we have this resourcefulness and   strength in our genes, we were able to create  a state and then every time they attacked, we   were there. We were able to defend ourselves and  prevail and so on. It's everywhere.

(07:04) Then again,   in my case, it's every time the larger, more  extended family got together or my parents   got together with their friends. And in many  cases, the fathers were also comrades in arms.  The stories of the battles, the stories of  the conquests; Every city in Israel has an   IDF plaza.

(07:32) Street names after different units  of different generals are all over the country,   street names of battles, so it's everywhere.  It wasn't until I was probably 40 or a little   less than 40, that it was the first time  that I encountered the other narrative,   the Palestinian story, and it was unbelievable.  Somebody was telling me the day is night and   night is day, or the world is flat, or  whatever the comparison you want to make,   it was incredible.

(08:02) They are telling me that what  I know to be true 'cause I heard it in school and   I read it in books, and I heard it from my  father and from my mother and from friends,   that all of this is not true. And what you find  out if you go along the path that I chose to take,   this journey of an Israeli to Palestine, is that  it was one horrifying crime against humanity.  That's what this so-called heroism really was,  it was no heroism at all.

(08:27) It was a well-trained,   highly motivated, well-indoctrinated, well-armed  militia which then became the IDF. But when it   started, it was still a militia or today they  would be called a terrorist organization,   that went up against the people who had never  had a military force, who never had a tank,   who never had a warplane, who never prepared,  even remotely, for battle or for an assault.  

(08:55) Then you have to make a choice: How do you  bridge this? The differences are not nuanced,   the differences are enormous. The choice  that I made is to investigate for myself   and find out who's telling the truth and who  isn't. And my side was not telling the truth.  How did they explain incidents such as the Nakba,  the massacres that took place in '48 and '56,   the massive ethnic cleansing that took place  in '67? How was that explained to you within   that mythic narrative? Then I wonder if you  could, because many of the activities as you  

(09:41) mentioned that the IDF has had to carry out  are quite brutal, quite savage, the killing,   indiscriminate killing of civilians, we can  talk about Gaza in a minute. What did that do   to the society, the people who carried out those  killings, and, of course, eventually huge prisons   and torture and everything else.

(10:07) But let's begin  with how the myth coped with those incidents and   then talk about the trauma that is carried within  Israeli society for carrying out those war crimes.  My generation, we knew that there were several  instances of bad apples that committed terrible   crimes.

(10:27) And we admitted, so there was Deir Yassin,  which was a village on the outskirts of Jerusalem,   a peaceful village where a horrible massacre took  place. Then we knew that Ariel Sharon was a bit   of a lunatic and he took the commandos that  he commanded in the '50s and went to the West   Bank and went into Gaza and committed acts  of terrible massacres. He was still a hero,   h

(10:53) eld in high regard by everyone, but we knew  that there were certain instances... And every   military, every nation makes its mistakes  and then these things happen But there was   never any sense that this somehow discounted  or hurt the image of us being a moral army.  There are lots of stories of how soldiers went  and they decided to, out of the kindness of their   heart, they didn't harm civilians.

(11:22) And those  same civilians went and then warned the enemy   that they were coming. And these same good Israeli  soldiers would then pay the price and were killed.   So it's presented as limited cases. Nakba was not  something that was ever discussed. I'm sure it's   not discussed today, certainly not in schools.

(11:41)   In Israeli schools today, you're not allowed   to mention the Nakba. There's a directive by the  Ministry of Education that even Palestinians are   not allowed to mention the Nakba. But nobody  ever talked about that. And the Arabs left,   what are you going to do? There was a war and  all these people left and this is the way it is.  So none of that ever hurt, in any way, the  image of us being this glorious heroic army,   descendants of King David, and other great  traditions of Jewish heroism, none of that ever,   ever hurt itself. So there's no trauma because  we did nothing wrong. If somebody did something  

(12:16) wrong, well, it was a case of bad apples,  it was limited to a particular circumstance,   a particular person, a particular unit, and you  get crazy people everywhere. What are you going to   do? It's never been presented as systemic. Today,  we have a history so we can look back and if we do   pay attention, and if we do read the literature,  and we do listen to Palestinians -- And today   there's this great NGO called Zochrot, which its  mission is to maintain the memory of the towns and  

(12:52) cities that were destroyed in 1948 and to revive  the stories of what took place in 1948 -- They   are uncovering new massacres all the time. Because  as that generation is dying off, both the Israelis   who committed the crimes and the Palestinians  who were still alive at the time and survived,   are opening up and telling more and more stories.

(13:17) So we know of churches that were filled with   civilians and were burned down. We know of a  mosque in Lydd that was filled with people and   a young man went and shot a Fiat missile into  it. All of these horrific stories are still   coming out but Israelis are not paying attention,  Israelis are not listening. Whenever there's an   attack on Gaza -- And as you know very well, these  attacks began in the fifties with Ariel Sharon,   by the way -- There was always a reason.

(13:46) Because  at first they were infiltrators, and then they   were terrorists, and now they're called Hamas, and  whatever the devil's name may be there's always a   very good reason to go in there because these are  people who are raised to hate and kill and so on.   So it's a tightly-knit and tightly-orchestrated  narrative that is being perpetuated and Israelis   don't seem to have a problem with that. And yet carrying out acts of brutality.

(14:16) The   occupation -- Huge numbers, a million Israelis  are in the states. Large numbers of Israelis   have left the country. I'm wondering how many  of those are people who have a conscience and   are repulsed by what they have seen in the West  Bank and Gaza. Perhaps I'm incorrect about that.  I don't know.

(14:40) The few encounters that I've had  with Israelis in the US over the years, the vast   majority support Israel, support Israel's actions.  It's interesting that you mentioned that because I   an email from someone who is representing  a group of alumni of Jewish Day Schools.   These are Zionist schools all over countries  where they indoctrinate the worst Zionism:   secular Zionism. And they are now appalled by  the indoctrination to serve in the IDF.

(15:12) And a   very high percentage of these students grew up,  went to Israel, joined the IDF, and took part in   APEC events and so on. And now they're looking  back and they're reflecting and they're feeling   a sense of anger that they were put through this  and lied through their entire lives about this. 

(15:31) So that's an interesting development. And if that  grows, then that might be a game changer because   these are the most loyal American Jews. The most  loyal to Israel. But by and large, Israelis that   I meet, with few exceptions, support Israel  and they're here for whatever reasons people   come to America: They're not unique, they're  not necessarily here because they were fed up   or they were angry, or they were dissenters in  any way, shape, or form.

(16:04) Around DC and Maryland,   there are many Israelis. Sometimes you'll sit  in a coffee shop or go somewhere, you hear the   conversations, and there's no lack of support for  Israel among these Israelis as far as I can see.  Let's talk about the armies. You were in the  Special Forces elite unit. Talk about that   indoctrination.

(16:29) I remember visiting Auschwitz  a few years ago, and there were Israeli groups   and people were flying Israeli flags. But speak  about that form of indoctrination and it's link,   in particular, to the Holocaust. The myth is that Israel is a response   to the Holocaust. And that the IDF is a response  to the Holocaust; We must be strong, we must be   willing to fight, we must always have a gun in  one hand or a weapon in one hand so that this will   never happen again.

(17:02) And what's interesting is,  when you talk to Holocaust survivors who are not   indoctrinated, who did not get pulled into Zionism  -- Which there are very, very many -- They'll say   the notion that a militarized state is somehow  the answer to the Holocaust is absurd because   the answer to the Holocaust is tolerance  and education and humanity, not violence and   racism. But nobody wants to ruin a good myth  with the actual facts. So that's the story. 

(17:30) The story is because of Auschwitz, we represent  all those that were killed, perished by the   Nazis and so on, and therefore we need to be  strong. And the Israeli flag represents them,   and the Israeli military represents them. It's  absurd, it's absolute madness. I went to serve   in the army willingly, as most young Israelis do.

(17:59)   In my environment, refusing or not going was not   heard of, although there were some voices in the  wilderness that were refusing and questioning the   morality. But I never did. Nobody around me  ever did until I began the training and you   began patrolling. I remember -- You and I  may have talked about this once -- We were   an infantry unit, a commando infantry unit.

(18:27) And  suddenly we were given batons and these plastic   handcuffs and were told to patrol in Ramallah. And I'm going, what the hell's going on? What   are we doing here? And then we're  told if anybody looks at you funny,   you break every bone in their body. And I thought,  everybody's going to look at us, we're commandos   while marching through a city. Who's not going to  look at us? I was behind.

(18:47) I didn't realize that   everybody already understood that this is how it  is, this is how it's supposed to be. I thought,   wait, this is wrong. Why are we doing this?  We're supposed to be the good guys here.  And then there was the Lebanon invasion of  '82 and so on. So that broke that in my mind,   that was a serious crack in the wall of belief  and the wall of patriotism that was in me.

(19:11) But   this whole notion that somehow being violent and  militaristic and racist and being conquerors is   somehow a response to the horrors of the Holocaust  is absolute madness. But when you're in it nobody   around you is asking questions.

(19:32) You don't ask  questions either, unless you're willing to   stand out and be smacked on the head. Within the military, within the IDF,   how did they speak about Palestinians and Arabs? The discourse, the hatred, the racism,   is horrifying. First of all, they're the  animals. They're nothing. It's a joke,   you see, it's horrifying.

(20:02) They think it's funny  to stop people and ask them for their ID and to   chase them and to chase kids and to shoot.  It all seems like entertainment, you know? I   never heard that discourse until I was in it. Then  afterwards, when I would meet Israelis who served,   even here in the US, the way they joked  around about what they did in the West Bank,   the way they joked around about killing or  stopping people or making them take their   clothes off and dance naked, it's entertainment. They think it's funny.

(20:31) They don't see that there's   a problem here because the racism is so ingrained  from such a young age that it's almost organic.   And I don't think it's surprising, I think when  you have a racist society, and you have a racist   education system that is so methodical, that's  what you get.

(20:53) And the racism doesn't stop with   Palestinians or with Arabs; It goes on to the  Black people, it goes on to people of color,   it goes to Jews or Israelis who come from other  countries who are dark skinned, for some reason.   The racism crosses all these boundaries  and it's completely part of the culture.  You have very little criticism of the IDF, almost  none within the Israeli press, although there is   quite a bit of criticism right now, of Netanyahu  and his mismanagement and his corruption.

(21:27) Talk a   little bit about the deification of the IDF within  the public discourse and mainstream media and what   that means for what's happening in Gaza. Well, the military is above the law. It's   above reproach, except from time to time. So  after the '73 war, there was an investigation.   And now there has been, just earlier this  week, there was, in the cabinet meeting,   the cabinet meets every Sunday.

(22:07) And the army chief  of staff was there and he was, apparently, this   was leaked from the meeting, a cabinet meeting.  It was leaked that some of the more right-wing   partners, it's funny to say right-wing partners  because they're all this right-wing lunacy in the   Israeli cabinet.

(22:26) But the more right-wing settlers  that are in the cabinet were attacking the army,   were attacking the chief of staff because I guess  he decided to start an inquiry because there   was a, it was catastrophic when the Palestinian  fighters came in from Gaza, there was nobody home.   They took over half of their country back. They  took twenty-two Israeli settlements and cities.  They took over the army base of the Gaza brigade,  which is supposed to defend the country from   exactly this happening. And there was nobody  in the, they took over the base.

(22:53) So he began,   I guess, or he initiated an internal inquiry  within the army, and they're criticizing him.   And what you see in the Israeli press is two very  interesting things. One is, yes, there was this,   something went horribly wrong and we need  to find out why, but we should wait because   we shouldn't do it during wartime. We shouldn't  criticize the army during wartime.

(23:16) We shouldn't   make the soldiers feel like they have to  hold back because if they need to shoot,   they should be allowed to shoot. And the  other thing we see is that politically,   everybody is eating each other up. I mean,  they're killing each other politically in   the press. So of course, everybody that's against  Netanyahu and wants to see it is attacking him. 

(23:35) His people are attacking the others for attacking  the government. I mean, there's this complete,   it seems like there's this paralysis as a result  of this infighting that is definitely affecting   the functionality of the state as a state.  Israelis are not living in the country, Israel   is not the state that it was prior to October 7th,  it was paralyzed for several weeks, and now it's   still paralyzed in many ways. You've got missiles  coming from the north, you've got missiles coming  

(24:05) from the south. You've got very large numbers of  Israeli soldiers being killed and thousands being   injured and the war, and it's not ending. They're  not able to defeat the Palestinians in Gaza,   the armed resistance and so on. So all of this is taking place,   and you read the Israeli press and it's just like  this cesspool that's bubbling and bubbling and   bubbling, and everybody's attacking everybody  else.

(24:30) And the army, like you said, it's true,   they are above reproach mostly, but from time  to time, like I said, this particular time,   the settlers are very angry because, also another  reason is because I guess the chief of staff,   the military decided to pull back some of the  ground troops, understandably, since they're being   hit so hard.

(24:52) And I remember that happening before  when the army pulled back out of Gaza, they were   being attacked for stopping the killing, for not  continuing these mass killings of Palestinians.  Well, you had what? 70 fatalities in  the Golani Brigade, I think. And they   were pulled back. This is a very elite unit. Yeah, it's very interesting because many of   the casualties are high-ranking officers.

(25:16)   You have colonels, lieutenant colonels,   very high-ranking commanders within Israeli  special forces are being killed. And they're   usually killed in big bunches, like you say,  in big bunches because they'll be in an armored   personnel carrier or they'll be marching together.  And in Jenin, just recently also a few days ago,   they blew up a military vehicle and killed a  bunch of soldiers.

(25:43) So Israelis are, I think,   scratching their heads, not knowing what the hell  is going on and what to do, because number one,   they were not protected as they thought they were. And I'm sure you know this, the Israeli   settlements, the kibbutzim, the cities in the  south that border Gaza, [inaudible 00:25:59],   they enjoy some of the highest standards of living  among Israelis. It's a beautiful lifestyle.

(26:06) It's   warm, it's lovely. Agriculture is, and I don't  think it ever occurred to them that Palestinians   would dare to come out of Gaza fighting and  succeeding the way they did. And that the army,   I mean the army was bankrupt. It was gone,  the intelligence apparatus, bankrupt,   nothing worked.

(26:28) And it is reminiscent of what  happened in 1973, I mean, this is far worse,   but it is reminiscent. And I don't think it's a  coincidence that October 7th attacks were exactly   50 years and one day after the 1973 October war  began, and the whole system collapsed. So that's   what we're seeing right now. How do you read what's   happening in Gaza, militarily? Well, clearly the Palestinians are able to hold   on and kill many Israelis.

(26:55) And even though the  Israelis have the firepower and they've got the   logistics, obviously they've got supply chains are  not a problem. Whereas Palestinians, I don't know   where they're getting supplies. I don't know where  they're getting food even to continue fighting.   They're obviously putting up a fierce resistance.

(27:10)   I don't think that militarily, there's a strategy   here. I mean, this is revenge. This is just,  Israel was humiliated, the army was humiliated,   and they needed to take it out on somebody. So they found the weakest victims they could   lay their hands on, and these are the Palestinian  civilians in Gaza. And so they're killing them by   the tens of thousands.

(27:32) I don't think anybody  believes in such a thing as getting rid of   Hamas. I don't think anybody really believes  that that's possible. I don't believe anybody   takes seriously or actually believes that  you can take too many people out of Gaza   and spread them around the world and into other  places, even though that's what they're saying.   But as long as Israel is allowed to kill, and  as long as the supply chain isn't interrupted,   they're going to continue to kill.

(27:58) And they're also, of course,   creating a humanitarian crisis. So  it's not just the bombs and the shells,   but it's now starvation. Diarrhea is an epidemic,  sanitation is broken. I'm wondering at what point   this humanitarian crisis becomes so pronounced  that really the choice is you leave or you die.  That's always the big question for Palestinians.

(28:25)   And the sad thing is that Palestinians are always   being placed in these situations where they  have to make that choice. It's the worst form of   injustice. And you know this, you've been in war  zones. I mean, we don't know how many bodies are   buried under the rubble and what that's going to  bring up.

(28:41) And there are hundreds of thousands now,   like you said, that are suffering from all kinds  of diseases as a result of this environmental   catastrophe. And you remember, what was it? 2016  or something, 2017, the UN came out with a report   that by 2020, Gaza would be uninhabitable. I don't  think the Gaza Strip has ever been inhabitable.  

(28:58) It's been a humanitarian disaster since it was  created in the early fifties, late forties,   early fifties. Because they suddenly threw all  these refugees there with no infrastructure and   that was it, and then began killing them. So it's a question, and I was talking to   some people the other day, as Americans, as  taxpayers, wouldn't we want the Sixth Fleet,   which is in the Mediterranean, the US Navy's  Sixth Fleet, to aid the Palestinians? To provide   them support? To create a no-fly zone over these  innocent people that are being massacred? I mean,  

(29:34) as Americans, isn't that the natural, shouldn't  that be the natural ask? The natural desire to   demand our politicians to use, because American  naval vessels have been used for humanitarian   causes before.

(29:49) Why aren't they supporting the  Palestinians? Why aren't they providing them   aid? Why aren't they helping them rebuild? Why  are American tax dollars going to continue this   genocide rather than stop it and aid the victims? I think these are questions Americans need to ask   themselves because it makes absolutely no sense.

(30:08)   It is absolute madness that people are allowing   their government to support a genocide that's  not even done in secret. It's not even done in   hiding it. It's on prime time. Everybody sees  it. Everybody knows what's going on. And again,   for some strange reason, Americans are allowing  their military and their government to aid   the genocide. And there's no question, I mean,  there's no question that it's genocide.

(30:30) I mean,   the definition of the crime of genocide  is so absolutely clear, anybody can look   it up and compare it to what's been going  on in Palestine. So that to me is really   the greatest questions. Why aren't Americans  demanding that the US support the Palestinians?  Well, according to opinion polls, most Americans  want a ceasefire.

(30:49) But the Congress is bought and   paid for by the Israel lobby. Biden is one  of the largest recipients of aid or campaign   financing from the Israel lobby. And this  is true within both parties. I mean, Chuck   Schumer was at the rally saying, no ceasefire. Which is odd. I mean, a ceasefire, I mean,   I think ceasefire is a very small ask, and  I don't know why Palestinians, we always ask   for the bare minimum for Palestinians.  But let's talk about ceasefire.

(31:18) I mean,   Israeli soldiers are being killed as well in  very large numbers. How has ceasefire suddenly   become an anti-Israeli demand? But I think that  it's a very small ask. I don't know how it was   or where it was that this idea of demanding just  a ceasefire came up because that is really not a   serious demand. Ceasefire gets violated by Israel  anyway, within 24-48 hours.

(31:47) I mean, you know that,   historically Israel always violated ceasefires.  What is required here are severe sanctions,   a no-fly zone, immediate aid to the Palestinians,  and stopping this and providing guarantees for   the safety and security of Palestinians forever  moving forward so this can never happen again.  That's what really needs to be the ask.

(32:14) At  this point, after having sacrificed so much,   after having shown such, what I believe is  immense courage, Palestinians deserve everything.   We as people of conscience need to demand not to  ceasefire, we need to demand a dismantling of the   apartheid state and a full stop and end absolute  end to the genocide and guarantees put in place   that Palestinian kids will be safe. I mean, I was  talking to Issa Amro earlier in Hebron.

(32:40) I mean,   it's ridiculous when nobody even talks about  what happens in the West Bank. Friends of mine   who are Palestinian citizens of Israel, nobody  dares to leave the house, nobody dares to text.   They're afraid to walk down the streets.  Their safety is not guaranteed by anyone.  Palestinian safety and security is left to  the whims of any Israeli, and that should be   the conversation right now, after such horrendous  violence.

(33:06) That needs to be the demand, that needs   to be the ask when we go to protests, when we make  these demands, ceasefire, and even that, Israel is   not willing. And like you said, these [inaudible  00:33:15] political supporters of Israel here in   America are not willing to entertain a ceasefire.

(33:27)   I believe it's really a crazy part of history that   we're experiencing right now, and I think it's  a watershed moment. I think October 7th created   an opportunity to end this for good, to end the  suffering of Palestinians, the oppression, and the   genocide for good.

(33:44) And if we don't take advantage,  again, we being people of conscience, if we don't   take advantage of this now and bring it to an end,  this will be, we will regret this for generations.  The Netanyahu government is talking about this  assault on Gaza, this genocide continuing for   months. There are strikes, have been strikes  against, now Hezbollah leaders. What concerns   you? I mean, how could this all go terribly wrong? I mean, it's already gone terribly wrong because   of death and destruction of so many innocent  lives is, I don't even know that there's a word   for it. It's beyond horrifying. I think that,  I think Netanyahu is relying on the restraint  

(34:27) of Hezbollah and the restraint of Iran and the  restraint, of course, the Arab governments have   all been neutralized either through destruct,  being destroyed or through normalization. So   he's relying on that, and he knows that he can  keep triggering, he can keep bombing Lebanon,   bombing Syria, instigating all of these things and  it won't turn into an all-out war.

(34:50) Because at the   end of the day, even though the Hezbollah  fighters have shown, Lebanese fighters and   Hezbollah and the Palestinian fighters have  shown that they're superior as fighters,   they don't have the supply chains, they don't have  the warplanes, they don't have the tanks. So more   and more civilians are going to be hurt.

(35:06) So I don't think it's going to turn into a   regional war by any stretch of the imagination.  And so Netanyahu is betting on that, and that's   why he's allowing this to go on. And for him, this  is a win-win. I mean, there's no way that he can   be unseated by anybody that's around him. There's  really no opposition.

(35:25) And as long as this goes on,   as long as everybody's in a state of crisis, he  can continue to sit in the Prime Minister's seat,   which for him is the end all and be all of  everything. And look, the world is supporting, the   world, as governments of the world, I should say. I do interviews with African TV stations,   Indian TV stations, Europeans, everybody is  supporting Israel.

(35:51) Everybody listens to what I   have to say, and they think I am a lunatic for  supporting terrorism or whatever it is they,   however it is that they frame it. But I don't  think anything good, I don't see this ending   unless there is massive pressure by people of  conscience on their governments to force change,   to force sanctions, to force the end of the  genocide and the end of the apartheid state. 

(36:16) I want to talk about the shift within Zionism  itself from the dominance of a secular leadership   to, we see it of course in the government of  Netanyahu, the rise of a religious Zionism, which   is also true now within the IDF. And I wondered  if you could talk about the consequences of that?  Sure. So originally, traditionally, historically,  Zionism and Judaism were at odds.

(36:45) And even to   this day, as you know, ultra-orthodox Jews reject  Zionism and reject Israel by and large. But after   1967, there was this new creation of the Zionist  religious movement. And these are the settlers   who went to the West Bank and they became the new  pioneers.

(37:05) And they are today, they make up a large   portion of the officers and those who joined  the special forces and so on. And in the past,   in the army, the unofficial policy was that these  guys, they should not be allowed to advance. The   current chief of staff comes from that world,  which is a huge change. And there are several   generals, and of course commanders, high-ranking  commanders and so on who come from that world.

(37:32) And   the reason that it was the unofficial policy that  these guys should not be promoted was that it's   an incredibly toxic combination, this messianic  form of Judaism, which is really an aberration.  It's not Judaism at all, with this nationalist  fanaticism.

(37:59) This combination is toxic and look   what it created. It created some of the worst  racists, some of the most violent thugs that   we've seen, certainly in the short history of  the state of Israel, although I don't know that   they're any less violent than the generation of  Zionists of my father who are secular. But this   was a big concern in the past but now they're  everywhere and of course, look at its current   government.

(38:26) They hold the finance ministry,  they hold the national security ministry,   certainly in the military they're everywhere.  And they hold many sub-cabinet, and they're   heads of committees in the Knesset and so on. And  they've done their work. I mean, they worked very   hard to get to where they are today, which is  where they call the shots.

(38:41) And they are really,   Netanyahu's guaranteed to remain in power. They're his support group. That's why you   could have had, as we had earlier this year,  hundreds of thousands of Israelis protesting   in the streets and it didn't affect him because  he has his block in the Knesset that will never   leave him as long as he allows them to play their  game. And this is what's happening.

(39:05) So in terms   of violence and the actual facts on the ground, I  don't think these guys are any worse again than my   parents' generation who were young Zionists and  zealots at the time and committed the 1948 Nakba   and ran the country for the first and operated  the apartheid state for the first few decades.  

(39:24) But it's definitely a new form of fanaticism being  that it is religious as well as fascist. So it's   very toxic. And I think they have a stomach, more  of a stomach for killing civilians than we've ever   seen before, even for Israelis.

(39:48) I mean, this  is new, this is, these numbers are just beyond,   these numbers are beyond belief, even for Israel. I'm wondering if this religious Zionism probably   has its profoundest effect within Israel,  in terms of shutting down dissidents,   civil liberties, this kind of stuff. Well, Israelis love them. Israelis love   these guys because they're religious, but they  dress like us.

(40:10) They don't look like the old Jews   with the big beards and everything. They're kind  of cool. They wear jeans. And the reason I say   this is because one of the things, one of their  objectives is to take over Al-Aqsa and build a   Jewish temple. They're destroying Al-Aqsa and so  they conduct these tours.

(40:27) And you may know this,   in the old city of Jerusalem, there's a  particular path that you take from where   the western wall is up to Al-Aqsa, which is  open for non-Muslims. And so they hold tours   and there's several odd times throughout the day,  and I've taken some of these tours, just to see   what it's about, what these guys do, you know? These are basically prayer tours.

(40:48) And they've   taken, hundreds of thousands of Israelis go on  these tours. And these are Israelis who are not   religious at all. These are secular people.  I mean, I see the people that go on the tours   and you go up that bridge, just to give you an  idea of what this is about. You go up on that   bridge and then you wait until the tour starts  because you have to go in a group.

(41:10) And there's   a massive model of the new temple, of the Jewish  temple that is going to be built there. And then   you have a huge group of armed police. They're not soldiers, they're police,   but dressed like, completely militarized that  accompany the tour all around. And of course,   Muslim Palestinians are not allowed, they  accompany the tour all around.

(41:34) And they stop   and they pray and they stop and they pray  and they stop and pray at various places,   the whole thing takes maybe an hour. But the  interesting thing is that the people that go   on these tours are secular Israelis. And then  as I was doing this, I was remembering it, even   as a kid growing up completely secular, we would  sing songs about the day that we build a temple. 

(41:55) Why did we sing songs about building a temple?  Because I think it went beyond our religious   significance, and it became a national  significance. And there's no question in   my mind that Netanyahu, when secular Israelis  are, would love to see this idea of destroying   Al-Aqsa and having a Jewish temple there. It's  a sign that we're back, King David is back.

(42:15) And   the connection, even though it has nothing to  do with history and there's no truth in it,   the connection that we are descendants of King  David is something Israelis really love. That's   really what this is about so the relationship  between the settlers, the so-called settlers,   that's what they're called in Israeli jargon.

(42:36)   They're called the settlers, and regular secular   Israelis is an interesting one because on the  one hand, they're looked down upon because   they're religious, but on the other hand, they're  kind of cool religious. So there is an affinity.  Great. That was Miko Peled, author  of The General's Son: Journey of an   Israeli in Palestine and Injustice: The  Story of the Holy Land Foundation Five.  

(42:57) I want to thank the Real News Network and  its production team, Cameron Granandino,   Adam Coley, David Hebden, and Kayla Rivara.  You can find me at: chrishedges.substack.com.

This page provides live updates on the progress of Dr. West's campaign in achieving ballot access for the 2024 elections.

As of June 2024, Dr. West's campaign has secured ballot access in Washington State, Oregon, Utah, Colorado, Nebraska, South Carolina, North Carolina, South Carolina, Vermont, Main and Alaska.

The campaign has official write-in access in California, Arizona, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Texas, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohaio, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts. 

If you reside in states where ballot access is still in progress, we encourage you to sign up and contribute to creating change in our upcoming elections.

In a number of states, access to the ballot is marked as Write-in Vote.

Here is what you need to know about eligibility of Write-in votes.

A candidate can win a state with write-in votes, but it is highly unusual and challenging. Here are some key points to consider:

1. Legal Requirements: The rules and regulations governing write-in votes vary by state. Some states require write-in candidates to register in advance, while others do not count write-in votes at all unless the candidate has declared their candidacy.

2. Recognition and Campaigning: For a write-in candidate to win, they must have substantial recognition and a well-organized campaign. Voters need to be aware of the candidate and motivated to write in their name correctly on the ballot.

3. Historical Precedents: There have been instances in U.S. history where write-in candidates have won elections, particularly at the local level. For example, Strom Thurmond won a U.S. Senate seat in South Carolina in 1954 as a write-in candidate.

4. Challenges: The main challenges for a write-in candidate include low voter awareness, the difficulty in spelling and writing the candidate's name correctly, and the lack of a formal party infrastructure to support their campaign.

What we need to know specifically for the Cornel West campaign is that Write-in votes are a legitimate way to get votes, and what we need is a highly motivated voter base to defeat the status quo. 

The post discusses the rise and decline of the "Z" symbol, which emerged as a viral emblem in Russia during the invasion of Ukraine.

Initially, it gained widespread attention and was used by the Russian state as a versatile symbol to rally support for the war, representing ideas like "for victory" or "for Russia."

However, its appeal has diminished over time, possibly because the state co-opted what was originally a grassroots symbol, making it lose its original allure.

The decline in its use may also indicate a shift in public sentiment or the state's changing strategies for garnering support.

The post also touches on the idea that symbols like "Z" can unite people but can lose their impact when overused or co-opted by officialdom.