General

The Engine of Compulsory Conformity: The BBC, the Bloomsbury Group, the Comintern and the NKVD in the 1930s

There was, in retrospect, no chance that BBC and its Talks and News output would ever be anything other than left-wing, pro-Jewish and anti-fascist. Since before it began to broadcast opinion pieces and news, the BBC was populated by “fanatics” like Charles Siepmann and Hilda Matheson who posited the myth of the “ultra-conservatism of the culture” and the “old Conservative clique” as needing redress by their own “progressive policies” and “subversive theory of balance”. Such people never willingly yield institutions of which they have taken control, and instead of facing any threat of being turfed out, they were then and are now confronted only by flaccid or traitorous Tories. The BBC, as Tom Mills says, “is part of a cluster of powerful and largely unaccountable institutions which dominate British society—not just ‘a mouthpiece for the Establishment’ as Owen Jones suggests, but an integral part of it.” Neither Mills nor Jones, though, would acknowledge that the Establishment was already by the early 1930s partly, and the BBC almost entirely, controlled by socialists, communists, globalists, homosexuals and Jews. Reith and Chamberlain headed the broadcaster and the government but did not prevent their ‘crusading’ subordinates having their own way. While communists and fellow travellers staffed the Corporation and amplified themselves and their comrades, not only were fascists or nationalists entirely excluded, but even the views of those who supported Chamberlain and peace were barely heard.

The Engine of Compulsory Conformity

The BBC, the Bloomsbury Group, the Comintern and the NKVD in the 1930s

The Company, originally a cartel of radio set manufacturers, had been lucrative for its directors, but the Post Office had sanctioned their privileges for questionable reasons, and after the agreed period of royalties and having established the state enforcement of the licence fee, and under a government less obliging to Marconi and GEC, the Company was reformed into a ‘public corporation’. Reith himself was the leading advocate of the novel concept which, as with David Sarnoff and RCA in the USA, happened to provide him with a personal fief of immense influence. Reith’s “higher conception” consisted in a belief in “democratic aim, not in democratic method”, not aiming to give the public what they wanted, and still less any choice, but rather what he thought best for them.2 The BBC licence fee, originally a device to compel listeners to deliver royalties to the manufacturers’ cartel, served after the BBC’s incorporation to compel them to fund the state broadcaster while all other would-be broadcasters were prohibited.

The Public Corporation

The BBC’s official history describes Reith as desiring an organisation “independent” of the market and of governments.3 This has only ever been the case in the formal sense that the corporation depends directly on the crown instead, but the powers of the crown have for centuries been exercised by the government anyway. As Tom Mills describes, “renewals of the Royal Charter, as well as the appointment of BBC governors and trustees, have formally been made by an Order of the Privy Council” using “the residential powers of the absolutist state which have never been subject to democratic controls” and which are, “in essence, absolutist decrees of the central government, signed-off by the monarch of the day.”4 The government also grants the corporation its licence fee increases.5 The BBC could be deprived of funding or closed by any government that wished to do so, but none ever has; the idea of public corporations was initially embraced by leftists, but the Conservative Party exists to consolidate the gains of their faux-opponents.6

Reith’s BBC consciously strove to present itself as a kind of conglomerated person with whom the public would identify and whom they would trust. In Asa Briggs’ words, early BBC staff wanted “to ensure that people felt—without thinking—that the BBC was theirs.”7 Announcers were soon, by some listeners, “thought of as the BBC, for it was they who mediated between the listeners and the programmes.”8 Announcers were deemed the best placed of all BBC employees “to build up in the public mind a sense of the BBC’s collective personality.” They would represent “[t]he BBC itself” and its own “policy and ideals”.9 An article in the Spectator in 1936 said that “The BBC has a personality of its own, pervasive and unmistakable, and it affects its reactions to public events, to education, to entertainment, and to the arts: it is the foundation of its policy.”10 The Corporation was and is, as with any media organisation, unavoidably biased in whom it recruits, what its editors select to report and omit and how it allocates programme time. However, it developed the ability to appear objective to many viewers while expressing approval or disapproval by the variation of announcers’, presenters’ and newsreaders’ tones of voice and, in documentaries, the use of background music and lighting.11 The more trusting or unthinking elements of the public are subliminally persuaded by such methods.

Reith was chosen by the BBC’s first board of directors, but as they receded in importance, he grew, and standard histories of the corporation speak of ‘Reithianism’ as its founding ideology. This blurs the reality, but Reith was certainly a formative factor. He was a Presbyterian who served in and supported the Great War.12 His diary and memoirs show that he opposed unionisation at the BBC and in his previous job, had “no particular feelings about Communism”, privately sympathised with Adolf Hitler at times and made occasional favourable remarks about Benito Mussolini. Yet in 1939 he described himself as a “Gladstonian liberal”.13 He wrote in October 1942 that Winston Churchill was a “bloody swine” and “the greatest menace we’ve ever had” with “country and Empire sacrificed to his megalomania, to his monstrous obstinacy and wrongheadedness.”14 His insistence on formality, elocution and a privileged position for Christianity are commonly said to characterise the BBC during and long after his tenure, but his own political and cultural views do not appear to have become those of the organisation.

John Reith

Crusading

Reith appears to have concerned himself primarily with broadcasting per se; he did not attempt to control all the BBC’s output or those he began to disagree with in the 1930s—people he had also hired and had come to rely upon. As Asa Briggs says, “The BBC’s philosophy owed an immense amount to one man: the BBC’s programmes were the work of many men of extremely varied experience and outlook.”15 He describes them as “men and women who ‘believed in broadcasting’ almost as a social and cultural crusade.”16 They also, more or less frankly, saw broadcasting as a means of indoctrination and intended to use it as such. As early as 1925, the leading Fabian Beatrice Webb had written that wireless had “a stupendous influence… over the lives of the people” and “might become… a terrible engine of compulsory conformity … in opinion and culture” but asserted that the BBC’s use of its influence was “eminently right”. Hilda Matheson, after six years at the Corporation, wrote in 1933 that “Broadcasting is a huge agency of standardization, the most powerful the world has ever seen.”17 Labour politician Herbert Morrison, later Home Secretary under Winston Churchill, had from the BBC’s earliest days “demanded that broadcasting … should be publicly owned and controlled.”18 In 1946, Morrison described broadcasting as “at least as powerful a vehicle of ideas as the printing press” and acknowledged that “the body which decides what goes into a broadcasting programme has an enormous power for good and evil over the minds of the nation” and averred that “that power must not fall into the wrong hands”, out of the right ones.19

After it began to be allowed to broadcast ‘controversial’ programmes from 1927 and as it became involved in education, nearly all the department heads and editors Reith’s BBC hired ensured that the political and cultural output was routinely leftist.20 An early producer of ‘controversial’ programming, Lionel Fielden, wrote that “[w]e really believed that broadcasting could revolutionize human opinion.”21 Charles Siepmann, the second Head of Talks, was in his own words “fanatically devoted”; he believed that

“broadcasting was the greatest miracle in human history… everything that any man had ever written down on paper, every note of music that had ever been composed was now universally available. This was what you might call ‘the new age of cultural communism’. And I believed that.”

Charles Siepmann

Siepmann referred to his own “progressive outlook” and “the progressive policies that both Hilda and I were pushing very hard indeed”. He lamented that Reith agonised too earnestly over balance and didn’t share Siepmann’s “very, very sensitive social conscience”. Siepmann remarked that his own “sense of balance” was “to redress the ultra-conservatism of the culture of that time… my theory of balance ‘was subversive in the sense that it was disruptive of the old Conservative clique” and the “Conservative Mind”.22

BBC Education and Talks

The BBC founded several publications, of which Radio Times continues today. Its first and formative editor from 1927 was Eric Maschwitz, son of a Jewish immigrant from Lithuania, whose career, like many BBC employees, included spells in broadcasting, the movie and music industries, the intelligence services, and wartime sabotage and terrorism under the Special Operations Executive. The Listener, founded in 1929, was an “educational periodical”, a printer of BBC Talks and a vehicle for the Corporation’s ‘cultural mission’. “By 1935 its circulation had reached 52,000, more than that of the New Statesman and the Spectator combined.”23 Richard Lambert was the first editor, having previously been, with Siepmann, the BBC’s representative on the Council for Adult Education, which the BBC funded to promote socialists including G D H Cole, John Sankey, William Temple and Harold Laski.24 Lambert employed Janet Adam Smith, later of the Fabian New Statesman, and the homosexual Joe Ackerley as assistant editors; his team’s use of The Listener to promote homosexual and communist poets like Cecil Day-Lewis, Wystan Auden, John Lehmann, Stephen Spender and Herbert Read provoked complaints from readers.25 Christopher Isherwood, another favourite poet, was a close associate of the Berlin-based pro-transgender, anti-nationalist activist Magnus Hirschfeld.26

Auden, Isherwood and Spender

Talks were originally a sub-division of BBC Education (which also included religion and early news operations), but “…in January 1927 the Control Board decided that a separate “Talks Section’ should be formed, quite distinct from education, news, and religion, with Miss Matheson in charge. She remained there until January 1932, leaving a very powerful imprint on the BBC.”27 Matheson was hired personally by Reith, first as an assistant in Education, then as the first Director of Talks in 1927. The BBC’s news operations began at the same time, initially merely repeating press agency reports. According to Kate Murphy, Matheson was “part of London’s cultural and intellectual elite” and “[her] approach to Talks reflected her liberal and progressive viewpoint.”28 She was also a feminist, a lesbian and a Soviet sympathiser who used her position to promote the views of her friends, lovers and comrades, especially members of the subversive Bloomsbury group and the socialist Fabian Society.29 Lionel Fielden was her main producer, also homosexual, anti-imperial and a supporter of Mohandas Gandhi, whom he promoted on BBC radio in India.

According to Asa Briggs, “[t]he early members of the Talks Department introduced to broadcasting some of its most brilliant performers—Harold Nicolson, Vernon Bartlett, Ernest Newman, Stephen King-Hall, Raymond Gram Swing, and John Hilton.”30 Simon Potter adds that “Matheson invited influential and pugnacious figures from the world of politics to speak on air, including Winston Churchill and Harold Nicolson, as well as cultural figures like HG Wells and George Bernard Shaw.”31 John Hilton was “an ardent trade unionist” admired by communists including Guy Burgess with whom he later collaborated at the BBC; both were recruited into the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6).32 Nicolson, King-Hall, Bartlett and Churchill were all vociferous proponents of an anti-German foreign policy.33 Socialists were consultants as well as guests. “‘I remember best the trinity of EM Forster, Desmond McCarthy and HG Wells,’ Lionel Fielden has written, ‘who all gave us freely of their time and wise counsels, and would sit round our gas fires at Savoy Hill, talking of the problems and possibilities of broadcasting.’” 34 Nicolson was not only a guest but the husband of Matheson’s lover, Vita Sackville-West. Beatrice and Sidney Webb were central members of the Fabian Society and apologists for the Soviet Union during its most tyrannical period. George Bernard Shaw, also a Fabian socialist and Soviet sympathiser, was a proponent of racial mixing who cursed and derided ‘anti-Semites’ with the same canards used by The Times in 1882: “Anti-Semitism is the hatred of the lazy, ignorant, fat-headed Gentile for the pertinacious Jew who, schooled by adversity to use his brains to the utmost, outdoes him in business.”35 HG Wells, another defender of the Soviets, was given BBC airtime by Matheson to advocate for a world state and the end of nations.36 Matheson’s “pugnacious figures” also included the Marxist and Zionist Harold Laski, the Soviet agent EF Wise, the ‘Red Countess’ of Warwick, the Quaker and socialist Philip Noel-Baker, Ernest Bevin, the militant feminist Viscountess Rhondda and the pro-Soviet ‘pacifist’ and Focus member Norman Angell, as well as John Maynard Keynes, Leonard Woolf, EM Forster and others of the Bloomsbury circle. William Beveridge, a Liberal by party though a Fabian socialist in deed, “gave six talks on unemployment in 1931, following on a general series on the same subject.”37

Hilda Matheson

Asa Briggs writes that “[u]nder Hilda Matheson the BBC employed speakers of every persuasion, but this did not save it from charges of ‘leftwing bias’.”38 Briggs, a pro-BBC historian, was perhaps merely re-wording Matheson’s own statement in 1933 that “[a]n impression of left-wing bias is always liable to be created by any agency which voices unfamiliar views. … It does not always follow that the ideas themselves are of the left. In practice, they usually hail from every point of the compass.”39 As Ronald Coase said in 1950, “The fact that the Corporation has been criticised by the Right and the Left hardly proves, as many of its supporters contend, that it is impartial; of itself it merely shows that the Corporation has not been consistently at one of the extremes.”40 The Corporation leaned strongly to the left as soon as it began to broadcast opinionated content and was merely occasionally told to cancel one talk or disinvite a particularly aggravating speaker. I find no record of any nationalist or fascist being invited to give talks, and there were not even many Tories. All figures ‘of the right’ invited to speak on the BBC appear to have been anti-German.41 Ian McIntyre refers to Churchill as one of the “mavericks of the right”, a true if understated description in the sense that Churchill’s affectations and associations were vaguely right-wing but his deeds and legacy were the opposite.42 Lord Lloyd, first head of the British Council, an anti-fascist cultural propaganda body spun out of the Foreign Office, who spent the latter half of the 1930s agitating for war against Germany, was regarded within the BBC as of the “extreme right”.43 The BBC ‘balanced’ anti-German Soviet sympathisers with anti-German Soviet collaborators. The war, or the wars, against Germany, both of which Lloyd and Churchill supported, did more than any other events in history to empower the left and socialism, as Neville Chamberlain had predicted and striven to avoid.

Marxists and communists

Matheson’s contumacy toward Reith, especially in regard to criticism from the Daily Mail of her promotion of her comrades, resulted in her resignation. The New Statesman predictably blamed “official and orthodox pressure” which kept out “the expression of new ideas”, though “paid a tribute to the BBC as a whole” which, after all, was still a state monopoly and thus a castle to be held.44 Matheson was succeeded as Director of Talks by another leftist, the “like-minded” Charles Siepmann, of whose spell Briggs writes that “the same charges” of left-wing bias “were frequently repeated, and the Corporation found it desirable to seek ‘rightwing speakers’ who would offset criticism.”45 The dearth of such speakers actually broadcasting suggests that the Corporation went no further than ‘finding them desirable’. Instead, the socialist JB Priestley was given space for a “personal comment”, Winston Churchill warned about the ‘threat’ of Germany, and “An excellent series called Whither Britain? … was broadcast in 1934 (with Wells, Bevin, Shaw, and Lloyd George among the speakers) and this was followed later in the year by a series on The Causes of War (with, among others, Lord Beaverbrook, Norman Angell, Major Douglas—of Social Credit fame—and Aldous Huxley).”46

Eventually Siepmann, like Matheson, was, as Kate Murphy describes, “censured for being too radical”, i.e., “transferred to the role of Director of Regional Relations” in 1935.47 Hilda Matheson objected in the Observer, seeing him as her continuation.48 In Siepmann’s new remit, the largest of the BBC’s regions was BBC North, for which the Programme Director, EAF Harding, on his appointment in 1933, had “raided the Manchester Guardian” for its journalists “and with the full co-operation of WP Crozier, the editor” had drawn upon “the services of a number of the Guardian’s leaderwriters and reporters as North Regional broadcasters.”49 The strongly left-wing Guardian is the newspaper most read at the BBC today, vastly out of proportion to its sales to the public, and the BBC long sought to recruit to the greatest extent possible from among Guardian readers. Under Siepmann, John Coatman had been “deliberately brought in” by Reith for the role of the BBC’s Chief News Editor “as ‘right wing offset’ to ‘balance’ the direction of talks and news” but “showed no sign of doing so”; Coatman “insisted on his own independence as a maker of policy”.50 Richard Maconachie, “a man of conservative views” became Head of Talks in 1936, formally senior to the Director of Talks. According to Ben Harker, “His Director of Talks, Norman Luker, was by contrast a liberal intrigued by the far left” who “was keen to create a platform for a Marxist analysis of the issue” of class and wanted to reorient talks to appeal to the same audience as the anti-fascist Picture Post, edited by Istvan Reich, a Jewish political exile from Hungary, and the Left Book Club run by the Jewish communist publisher Victor Gollancz. Luker was a long-standing friend of the Cambridge Apostle, homosexual, Soviet spy and producer at the BBC, Guy Burgess. The robustness of the “right-wing offset” was evident in the rejection of Luker’s preferred Marxist lecturer, the Cambridge communist don Maurice Dobb; instead Luker had to settle for Arthur Horner, a member of the Communist Party’s central committee and a trade unionist. Dobb had, at any rate, already appeared “periodically” on the BBC earlier in the decade. Horner, in his broadcast in November 1938,

ranged freely from Marx’s theory of class struggle as the engine of history, through to an explication of the Communist Party’s line on fascism, to a description of the Spanish Civil War as militarized class struggle, and into a justification of the Moscow Trials as revolutionary justice against counter-revolution. His talk, which was published unedited in the BBC’s in-house magazine The Listener, concluded with a familiar Popular Front appeal for what he called ‘the cultural, clerical and professional classes’ – generally the assumed audience for National Programme Talks – to come over to the working class in the struggle against capital and fascism”51

BBC North

The BBC also issued Marxist propaganda via other avenues. As Ben Harker describes, communists coveted the BBC’s “growing cultural and political influence in the 1930s” which drew upon “its increasing significance in the construction of British identity, notably in its power to fashion the national narrative.”52 Fortunately for them, when the Corporation began to establish regional divisions in 1933, BBC North, the largest, became a “cauldron of Marxist and left-wing mischief” under its first Programme Director, the avowed Marxist EAF Harding.53 The producer Olive Shapley, the folk singer AL Lloyd, the thespian and director Joan Littlewood and her husband the singer and actor Ewan McColl (born Jimmie Miller) were central figures and all were members of the Communist Party of Great Britain. According to Shapley, Harding was also a “comrade”.54 The North producer Geoffrey Bridson was merely a close friend and a sympathiser who didn’t join the party but was introduced to Harding by the Comintern propagandist Claud Cockburn, inventor of the myth of the Cliveden Set.55 Shapley, though she left the party after university (as did Guy Burgess), continued as an agent of the cause, moved to New York in 1941, and interviewed guests like the subversive Eleanor Roosevelt and the singer Paul Robeson, later winner of the Stalin Prize, for the BBC’s Children’s Hour. According to Harker, “It was Harding’s view that all radio was propaganda: broadcasts which failed to give voice to the working class silenced it, those which failed to address structural inequalities shored up the status quo.”56 Harding broadcast propaganda without subtlety. Documentaries like May Day by Bridson simply issued a communist reading of history, one which led inexorably toward The Revolution.57 The North team produced programmes about Chartism that coaxed the listener toward the same conclusion: working Britons had not yet completed their revolution. The Classic Soil, proudly memorialised by the BBC today, was an overt vindication of the 19th-century writings of Friedrich Engels, co-author of the Communist Manifesto and Capital, read by Ernst Hoffman, an anti-fascist immigrant from Germany.58 Shapley, the producer, later described her own work as “probably the most unfair and biased programme ever put out by the BBC”.59

Olive Shapley and Eleanor Roosevelt on Children’s Hour

Soviet espionage

From its founding in 1917, the Soviet Union had engaged in ceaseless attempts to dissolve and undermine Britain and the empire, using the Comintern, espionage, front groups and the assistance of sympathisers.60 As John Costello says, referring to the late 1920s and early 1930s, “Stalin’s lust for obtaining secret intelligence endowed [the] OGPU and its “organs” with unrivaled power, and he stepped up the pressure to expand the penetration of foreign governments. The primary target was Britain—the main adversary, in Stalin’s eyes[.]”61 The OGPU was the successor of the Cheka and predecessor of the NKVD and KGB. The Soviet penetration strategy came to centre upon upper-class students at Cambridge and Oxford who were best-placed to enter the civil service; the infamous ‘Cambridge Five’ and others better concealed, were thus recruited. With some awareness of the threat, the most conservative elements at the Security Service (MI5) held meetings with the BBC in 1935 which “set in motion a system of political vetting” to cover new BBC employees which was “formalised with a written agreement in 1937.”62 The vetting was insufficient; in any case, MI5 itself had employed subversives like Hilda Matheson during the Great War and since.63 The Soviet spy Guy Burgess was appointed as a producer of BBC Talks in June 1936 and was recruited to work for MI6 during his time there.

The intelligence services contained genuine opponents of the left, but the social worlds of their agents, Foreign Office employees and other civil servants, Cambridge Apostles, overt and covert communists, the Bloomsbury group, and upper class homosexuals all appear to have blended together, as is exemplified by Burgess himself. Burgess later made Anthony Blunt, a fellow Apostle, homosexual and Soviet spy, a frequent guest on the BBC, and elevated the already-high status of the bisexual anti-fascist Harold Nicolson at the corporation. Jews were prominent in the same circles. Burgess met the philosophers AJ Ayer and Isaiah Berlin, both later to work in MI6, at a dinner party hosted by Felix Frankfurter.64 Victor Rothschild, the third Baron Rothschild, was another Apostle; according to Victor’s sister Miriam, Burgess was one of “the many people” whom her mother Rózsika, “assisted or supported by periodic and regular payments” for unclear reasons. Another was the Comintern agent Rudolph Katz.65 Victor Rothschild joined MI5 in 1939 (or before); the following year, Anthony Blunt was recruited on Rothschild’s recommendation.66

Victor Rothschild, the third Baron Rothschild

The suitability of Cambridge University as the prime location for Soviet recruitment owed much to the concentration of homosexuals among teaching staff and students. The Apostles, who included the amoralist philosopher GE Moore and others of the Bloomsbury group, had in earlier decades become “obsessed by homosexuality”, and several members “pursued what they called ‘the higher sodomy.’”67 “Higher” referred to their disdain for romantic love as well as their general sense of superiority. The Apostles were already a secret society, and homosexuality was actively prohibited in Britain until the 1960s. Some of those who practiced it formed “extensive underground ‘old boy networks’” which “reached out like a cobweb across the pinnacles of the British Establishment, with connections in Whitehall ministries, the universities, the foreign service, the church, and the armed services”; “several of the lines of this web of homosexual influence were spun by Apostles who, by the twenties, had anchored themselves firmly in the upper reaches of Whitehall” and “offered great opportunities to any blackmailer—or spy—who gained admission.” Jack Hewit, a lover of Burgess, first met him at a homosexual party in the War Office in 1936 at which Rudolph Katz was a guest.68 Burgess was extremely promiscuous and engaged in exchanges of love letters with ‘conquests’ to use as compromising material.

John Costello identifies Edward Marsh as “the leading behind-the-scenes string-puller in the interwar years” who “ascended the senior ranks of the civil service while pursuing his avocation as one of London’s leading literary impresarios”. Marsh

was always ready to pull strings and arrange favors for eligible Cambridge men of intellect, talent, and good looks. Successive generations of Apostles, including Blunt and later Guy Burgess, discovered this to their advantage. The Marsh network included bureaucrats, publishers, parliamentarians, and prominent members of London society. Marsh was longtime personal secretary to Winston Churchill, to whom ‘dear Eddie’ would attach himself like a faithful hound whenever Churchill had a ministry.69

Edward Marsh and Winston Churchill

Much of the same was true at Oxford University, where prominent dons like Maurice Bowra, aware of their closeness to Soviet intelligence agents, referred to themselves as being in the ‘homintern’; Bowra referred to Wadham, his college, as Sodom. During the Second World War he became a frequent guest on the BBC. Marxist members of the homosexual networks based in Cambridge, Oxford and London, including Roger Fulford and Kemball Johnston, attained positions in MI5 where they were able to influence their superiors in favour of members of the Communist Party.70

Popular Front

Though some communists may have been excluded from working at the BBC by MI5’s vetting, the corporation’s programmes were already used to support an effectively pro-Soviet foreign policy long before 1937. Winston Churchill is cited as one of a few right-wing speakers who disprove that the corporation was left-wing, but he exceeded the BBC in its fervour for the anti-German cause. In November 1934, Churchill was invited by the BBC to broadcast a speech in which he forebode the “destruction of the British Empire” and “Teutonic domination” of “our people” unless Britain sought allies to achieve “[p]eace… founded upon preponderance” by “mak[ing] ourselves at least the strongest Air Power in the European world.”71 This was, not by chance, the same demand as that of the civil service faction headed by Robert Vansittart and Warren Fisher that furtively supplied Churchill with false estimates of Britain and Germany’s military strengths.

The week after Churchill’s radio speech, the British arm of Samuel Untermyer’s Anti-Nazi Council was founded, and the following October it held a large demonstration in Hyde Park; the BBC broadcast the speeches by Eleanor Rathbone, Clement Attlee, Walter Citrine, JBS Haldane and Sylvia Pankhurst, all socialists or communists. There was no BBC Talk given by Oswald Mosley to ‘balance’ Churchill and no coverage of demonstrations against communism or hostility toward Germany. The BBC covered the events of the largest such demonstrations, those of the British Union of Fascists, by spotlighting the blackshirts’ eviction of hecklers and invaders. The BUF’s Olympia rally in 1934 occurred at the same time the BBC began to be allowed to create its own news reports. The ludicrous myth of the BUF intentionally causing violent disruption of its own events has endured.

Oswald Mosley and BUF members

From 1936, BBC Television broadcast selected newsreels from Gaumont and Movietone, the latter being a subsidiary of Wilhelm Fuchs’ Fox Corporation and the former owned by Isidore Ostrer. Ostrer was, according to Nicholas Pronay and Philip Taylor, “the most skilful and clear-minded manipulator of the propaganda potential of the newsreel”; as Gaumont also produced films and owned many cinemas, the effect of his skills was amplified greatly.72 Fuchs and Ostrer were both descended of Jewish immigrants from the Russian Empire. The British film industry and cinemas were largely Jewish-owned through the 1920s and 30s.73 Burgess, before being hired by the BBC, was recruited to work for the Soviet NKVD probably by Arnold Deutsch, a cousin of Oscar Deutsch, the founder and owner of Odeon Cinemas and a referee for Arnold’s immigration application.74

The BBC, especially the North division, effectively joined the Popular Front, a Soviet anti-fascist initiative, and thereby aligned with the aims of the international Jewish alliance agitating for regime change in Germany and with organised Jewry in Britain, whose activists secured special privileges. According to Geoffrey Alderman, “An agreement … was reached with the BBC which undertook to submit” to the Board of Deputies of British Jews “the scripts of any programme “of Jewish interest” before the programme was broadcast.” The agreement was part of the Board of Deputies’ Defence Committee’s anti-fascist strategy which also included “intelligence-gathering, media-monitoring and co-operation with the Special Branch.”75 In the spring of 1938, recalling 1881, “a Mansion House Fund and innumerable appeals on behalf of refugees from Austria, Germany and Czecho-Slovakia were broadcast from the BBC and in the British Press.”76

Guy Burgess

Propaganda and black operations

As the BBC aligned with Jewish and Soviet policy, it applied its “power to fashion the national narrative” in accordance with the propaganda bodies of the British state, staffed and governed increasingly by anti-fascists, which were used to counter Italian and German (not Soviet) propaganda. The most overt, the British Council, was an initiative of Rex Leeper, head of the Foreign Office’s News Department and payee of the Soviet-aligned Czech government; he introduced Churchill to the Anti-Nazi Council, which Churchill renamed the Focus, in April 1936. The BBC’s Empire Service and foreign language broadcasting were launched to work to the same purpose as the Council. Britain declared war on Germany in September 1939, but the propaganda war was underway at least two years earlier when the Focus member Lord Lloyd, another figure of the “extreme right” who sided with the extreme left in foreign policy, became chairman of the Council.83 Anti-fascism and sympathy for the Soviet Union were already embedded institutionally in Britain long before the Anschluss, ‘Munich’ or Kristallnacht.

Section D of MI6 was created in March or April of 1938 “to provide lines of communication for covert anti-Nazi propaganda in neutral countries”, to “organise and equip resistance units, support anti-Nazi groups” and enact “sabotage, covert operations, and subversive propaganda.” Guy Burgess was employed by Section D, the first of a chain of propaganda bodies established by the British state which presented Jewish emigrants from Central Europe as friends of and spokesmen for Britain. Vansittart, Claude Dansey of MI6, Churchill and the Focus had been using the same people for (often fabricated) intelligence and propaganda for some years. As Andrew Lownie describes, “Section D used a series of front organisations, such as the news agency United Correspondents, which produced innocuous but anti-Nazi articles for circulation to newspapers around the world, and Burgess worked with writers such as the Swiss journalist Eugen Lennhof and the Austrian writer Berthe Zuckerkandl-Szeps.”84 In Section D, John Costello says, “Burgess appears to have been the main fount of ideas and principal producer of clandestine programming. In compiling the careful assembly of propaganda talks, variety shows, and hit records, he was assisted by Paul Frischauer, an Austrian refugee, and his wife, who were members of an anti-Hitler group in London.”85 The “radio war” consisted initially of illegally broadcasting Chamberlain speeches into Germany on Radio Luxembourg, owned by Isidore Ostrer and run by Eva Siewert, a Jewish lesbian and Soviet sympathiser.86

The covert counterpart of the British Council and an adjunct of MI6 and the BBC was the Joint Broadcasting Committee, which operated in sufficient secrecy as to be unknown to MI5. According to Lownie, “The JBC was very much a BBC operation. It was run by Hilda Matheson… assisted by Isa Morley, the foreign director of the BBC from 1933 to 1937. Burgess was number three and represented Section D’s interests. In March 1939 Harold Nicolson joined the Board.” Angus Hambro, a Tory MP from an established Jewish banking family, was also a member. “JBC staff were authorised to use BBC studios”, and though “scripts were prepared by JBC staff, many were read by prominent exiles such as the writer Thomas Mann, or later by well-known actors such as Conrad Veidt”, both married to women of Jewish ancestry. Burgess also recruited John Bernal, a Jewish communist and a science don at Cambridge, as well as Edvard Benes, the former Czech Prime Minister and a friend and ally of Stalin, to record speeches for the JBC.87

Conclusion

There was, in retrospect, no chance that BBC and its Talks and News output would ever be anything other than left-wing, pro-Jewish and anti-fascist. Since before it began to broadcast opinion pieces and news, the BBC was populated by “fanatics” like Charles Siepmann and Hilda Matheson who posited the myth of the “ultra-conservatism of the culture” and the “old Conservative clique” as needing redress by their own “progressive policies” and “subversive theory of balance”. Such people never willingly yield institutions of which they have taken control, and instead of facing any threat of being turfed out, they were then and are now confronted only by flaccid or traitorous Tories. The BBC, as Tom Mills says, “is part of a cluster of powerful and largely unaccountable institutions which dominate British society – not just ‘a mouthpiece for the Establishment’ as Owen Jones suggests, but an integral part of it.” Neither Mills nor Jones, though, would acknowledge that the Establishment was already by the early 1930s partly, and the BBC almost entirely, controlled by socialists, communists, globalists, homosexuals and Jews. Reith and Chamberlain headed the broadcaster and the government but did not prevent their ‘crusading’ subordinates having their own way. While communists and fellow travellers staffed the Corporation and amplified themselves and their comrades, not only were fascists or nationalists entirely excluded, but even the views of those who supported Chamberlain and peace were barely heard. The weakest period for the anti-fascists was in 1938, as Chamberlain’s Cabinet Office actively subdued them; Guy Burgess resigned from the corporation in frustration. Yet after Lord Halifax joined the war party, Chamberlain was isolated in the Cabinet and Parliament and cornered into adopting anti-German policies. The ensuing war enabled Churchill to form not only a government in May 1940, but a new anti-fascist regime which has ever since imposed a false version of history via the BBC and the education system. The ‘maverick of the right’ was the best friend the left have ever had.

Horus is the pen name of a British historian. He posts his essays on Substack. Please subscribe.


1

The Birth of Broadcasting, Asa Briggs, 1961, p180-2. Reith sought to apply the “brute force of monopoly” beyond Britain, as British law alone could not prevent commercial stations broadcasting into Britain from transmitters abroad, which they did through the 1930s. The BBC lobbied via the International Broadcasting Union for the greatest possible restrictions on Radio Luxembourg, Radio Normandie and others, and did so with the support of the Newspaper Proprietors’ Association, but Radio Luxembourg exceeded the BBC’s listening figures at times and only ceased operations when its facilities were effectively nationalised after Britain and France declared war on Germany in September 1939. Under Reith, the BBC had only broadcast for a few hours on Sundays and the content was mostly religious while Radio Luxembourg played more dance music. See The Golden Age of Wireless, Asa Briggs, 1965, p92, 360.

2

The Golden Age of Wireless, Asa Briggs, 1965, p433. Briggs is paraphrasing the Labour politician and BBC governor Mary Agnes Hamilton.

4

The BBC: Myth of a Public Service, Tom Mills, p21. See also p5, 23

5

Mills, p25

6

Briggs, Golden Age, p419.

7

Briggs, Birth, p246

8

The BBC, Asa Briggs, 1985, p72. My emphasis.

9

Briggs, Birth, p292

10

British Broadcasting – A Study in Monopoly, Ronald Coase, 1950, p188-9

11

Dolphins are discussed with an approving voice and jolly music; the ‘far right’ is mentioned in an alarming tone with sinister music.

12

The Expense of Glory, Ian McIntyre, 1993, p70

13

McIntyre, p99, 217, 250. ‘The Trumpet of the Night’: Interwar Communists on BBC Radio, Ben Harker, History Workshop Journal, Volume 75, Issue 1, Spring 2013, p82

14

McIntyre, p270

15

Briggs, Golden Age, p57

16

Briggs, Golden Age, p13. Briggs is quoting Hilda Matheson.

17

Briggs, Golden Age, p39

18

Briggs, BBC, p53

19

Coase, Study, p163

20

About lifting the ban on controversial broadcasting, see Coase, Study, p62

21

Briggs, Golden Age, p13. One early element of the “social and cultural crusade” was to expose the public to subversive artists, writers and musicians. In music, as Asa Briggs describes, the BBC chose “the hazardous enterprise of introducing to the British listener Schönberg and Webern as well as Bartok and Stravinsky. In music it was always among the avant-garde…” Briggs, Golden Age, p171-2

22

Charles Siepmann interviewed by Harman Grisewood in 1978. Siepmann was later paid to move to the USA by the Rockefeller Foundation and wrote a paper for the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith.

23

Briggs, BBC, p115

24

Briggs, Golden Age, p219. Harold Laski was the brother of the head of the Board of Deputies of British Jews from 1933 and son of the man who “enlisted” Winston Churchill to campaign for open borders in 1904.

25

McIntyre, p190

26

Glamour Boys, Chris Bryant, 2020, introduction

27

Briggs, Golden Age, p124. “The place of adult education in the BBC’s central organization was never secure. In February 1931 it hived off from the Talks Department and became a separate department under the direction of Siepmann; in February 1932 it became a department of a new Talks Branch when Siepmann replaced Hilda Matheson as Director of Talks; in September 1934 it was fully merged in the Talks Branch, losing its departmental identity. Behind these vicissitudes there were not only personal differences but deeper uncertainties about what exactly was the relationship between Talks and organized adult education.” Briggs, Golden Age, p222

28

Behind the Wireless, Kate Murphy, 2016, chapter on Hilda Matheson

29

Harker, p87

30

Briggs, Golden Age, p126

32

The Mask of Treachery, John Costello, 1988, p317-8 and p590

33

Harold Nicolson was the son of Arthur Nicolson, a diplomatic protégé of King Edward VII. Stephen King-Hall was a future Labour MP and publisher of the anti-German London Newsletter which shared an audience with publications of the Focus and the Comintern; he was “a frequent broadcaster”. Briggs, BBC, p119

34

Briggs, Golden Age, p127

35

Bernard Shaw, Michael Holroyd, 1998, chapter 2, 3. Shaw “was to define fascism as ‘State financed private enterprise’ or ‘Socialism for the benefit of exploiters’. From the 1930s onwards Shaw chose to call himself a communist: ‘that is, I advocate national control of land, capital, and industry for the benefit of us all. Fascists advocate it equally for the benefit of the landlords, capitalists and industrialists.’”

36

Briggs, Golden Age, p126-7. Wells speaking on BBC radioThe Listener praised Wells as a man “who can see the future”; presumably the producers who chose him were prescient too.

37

Briggs, Golden Age, p41

38

Briggs, Golden Age, p141

39

Briggs, Golden Age, p43. Matheson continued: “How is the inevitable fear they provoke to be reconciled with the spirit of open-minded enquiry which is inseparable from all education, from any search after truth?’”

40

Coase, Study, p188-9

41

I have not found any counter-examples.

42

McIntyre, p188

43

Briggs, Golden Age, p470-1

44

Briggs, Golden Age, p43

45

Briggs, Golden Age, p141; Harker, p87

46

Briggs, Golden Age, p143-4. Beaverbrook, the most ‘right-wing’ of these, often dined with the Soviet ambassador Ivan Maisky, employed the anti-fascist cartoonist David Low and joined the wartime government in May 1940 after Churchill became Prime Minister. He also served in the wartime Cabinet in 1918.

47

Murphy, chapter on Hilda Matheson

48

Mills, p40

49

Briggs, Golden Age, p330

50

Briggs, Golden Age, p118, 147

51

Harker, p87-8

52

Harker, p92

53

Audio Drama Modernism, Tim Crook, 2020, p264

54

Interview with Olive Shapley, 1984, p3-4 and Broadcasting a Life, Olive Shapley, 1996, p37. From the latter, referring to her first meeting with Harding where he asked her to stay behind: “‘When the room was empty apart from the two of us, he extended his hand and said, ‘Welcome, comrade.’ I was never a very devout communist, but I could tell that I was among friends.’”

55

Harker, p89

56

Harker, p90. How exactly the middle-class Shapley interviewing the wealthy Roosevelt gave voice to the working class is unclear.

57

Harker, p92

58

Harker p93. Marx only completed the first volume of Capital by himself.

59

Shapley, Broadcasting, p54. The BBC’s programme index lists Engels as a contributor to the programme.

60

Though they had small resources and were about to engage in war on several fronts, the Bolsheviks commenced espionage against Britain immediately after the coup. Chapter 5, ‘Exporting the Revolution’, of John Costello’s book The Mask of Treachery gives a summary. See also chapters 1-5 of Giles Udy, Labour and the Gulag.

61

Costello, p182

62

Mills, p42. “The practice was maintained for fifty years, abandoned only in 1985 after being exposed by a team of investigative journalists. Much of what is known about political vetting, stems from the revelations at that time and the declassified BBC files that have become available since.”

63

MI5 now names Hilda Matheson as a “lesbian role model”.

64

Stalin’s Englishman, Andrew Lownie, 2015, chapter 5

65

Costello, p299-300. Costello suggests that Burgess worked for the Rothschilds’ own intelligence network as well as MI6 and the NKVD:

“Since private intelligence was an essential element of the Rothschild business operation, what better cover could they give their latest recruit in 1935 than to characterize Burgess as an investment counselor and dispatch him as their private spy to monitor the Anglo-German Fellowship? Information about threats to the House of Rothschild resulting from secret deals between British sympathizers and the Third Reich would more than justify the hundred guineas a month paid to Guy Burgess.

Victor Rothschild had implicit faith in his Cambridge friend because he, like Blunt, knew of Burgess’s true loyalties. But Burgess’s volatile enthusiasms would help persuade his right-wing friends that he had recanted his earlier Marxism. His homosexual appetite would prove an exploitable talent when it came to sharing the bed of a pro-German Tory well placed to pull strings and advance an ambitious young man’s career. Nor should it be forgotten that Rudolph Katz, with his own extensive network of homosexual and Comintern contacts, also contributed to Rothschild’s private intelligence network that, at the time, shared with Stalin a common enemy: Hitler.” Costello, p303-5

66

Lownie, chapter 17; Costello, p369-71

67

Costello, p143

68

Costello, p307-8

69

Costello, p65, 150-1. See also Churchill’s War, volume one, David Irving, 2003, p26-7

70

Costello, p427-30

71

Winston Churchill – the Greatest Briton, Parliament Archives. Churchill – “After he had given his talk in the 1934 Causes of War series there were complaints that he had delivered a ‘gratuitous attack on Germany’, and one writer said that it was ‘in need of far more censorship than Professor Haldane’s’, a talk on the extreme left.’” Briggs, Golden Age, p146

72

‘An Improper Use of Broadcasting…’, Nicholas Pronay and Philip Taylor, Journal of Contemporary History, Volume 19, Number 3, July 1984, p368

73

Edward Marshall in New Directions in Anglo-Jewish History, edited by Geoffrey Alderman, 2010, p163-8

74

The Defence of the Realm, Christopher Andrew, 2009, p171

76

The Czech Conspiracy, George Henry Lane-Fox Pitt-Rivers, 2003. Rothschild used a speech at Mansion House to invoke “the slow murder of 600,000 people” (German Jewry). It is not clear that even one thousand had yet been murdered in the nearly six years of Hitler’s regime.

77

Truth Betrayed, WJ West, 1989, p40. Burgess’ friend Kim Philby, who worked for MI6 and the NKVD simultaneously, was The Times’ correspondent during the civil war and MI6’s head of undercover operations in Spain and Portugal during the world war. Burgess and Philby both worked for MI6’s propaganda-focused Section D and, like Eric Maschwitz, the sabotage-focused Special Operations Executive in 1939 and 1940. In 1934 Philby had married Litzi Friedmann, a communist from Vienna and an associate of the Soviet spy Edith Tudor-Hart. By 1941, when Burgess rejoined BBC Talks, the corporation was under the control of Churchill’s government and hired Burgess precisely because he was pro-Soviet.

78

West, p138-40

79

West, p54-7. Burgess recorded his recollection of visiting Churchill’s mansion Chartwell.

80

West, p106

81

According to Chris Bryant, Vansittart was “married but predominantly homosexual”, though Bryant does not give a source. Bryant, chapter 11

82

In November 1938, according to the ambassador to Italy, Eric Drummond, the 7th Earl of Perth, BBC presenters used tone of voice to mock Chamberlain and praise Anthony Eden. West also says that “There had been a number of concerted attacks on Chamberlain by the BBC, usually in the form of selective reporting of speeches and debates.” See West, p166, including note 101.

83

Briggs, BBC, p141; Briggs, Golden Age, p397 to 408

84

Lownie, chapter 13

85

Costello, p331

86

Alderman, New Directions, p165. See also West, p111. Reith had been the leading advocate of the International Broadcasting Union, in the violation of which the BBC now collaborated.

87

Lownie, chapter 13. The JBC had a “strong focus” on “securing British propaganda broadcasts on the American networks.” American networks also had their own plans. “The covert side, where Burgess largely worked, produced programmes for distribution in enemy countries, working with Electra House. Burgess was responsible for a variety of programmes that were recorded on large shellac discs and then smuggled in the diplomatic bag or by agents into Sweden, Liechtenstein and Germany, and broadcast as if they were part of regular transmissions from the German stations themselves.” The ‘Chaos of the Ether’ had gone from a myth to a tactic. About the JBC, see also Murphy, Behind the Wireless, chapter on Hilda Matheson, and West p118, 140.

Jerusalem Post: New survey finds French views of antisemitism and French Jews in 2024

MATHILDA HELLER

Almost 1 in 5 young French people think Jews leaving country would be good, CRIF finds

“Young people are more receptive to antisemitic, Islamist and conspiracy theories, which are invading social networks,” said Jonathan Arfi.

In terms of harbored prejudices against Jews, a majority of respondents felt Jews were more attached to Israel than to France.

The next highest-held anti-Jewish stereotypes were: Jews have very powerful lobbies that operate at high levels; Jews use the Holocaust to achieve their interests; Jews are richer than the average French person; and Jews are too present in the banking sector.

Almost 1 in 5 young people in France think it would be a good thing if Jews left the country, according to a recently commissioned survey by CRIF (the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France) and carried out by Ipsos.

The survey – named “The French View of antisemitism and the Situation of French Jews in 2024” – was published for the first time in weekly magazine Le Point on Thursday.

“There has been an upheaval in the types of French people who express anti-Jewish opinions,” Brice Teinturier, deputy CEO of Ipsos, told Le Point.

“It’s a historical reversal of the political map,” added Brice Teinturier. “LFI [far Left La France Insoumise Party] is now competing with the far Right for leadership in antisemitism.”

Views of Jews in France

Among the key revelations are that 12% of the general population in France believe Jews leaving the country is a good thing, compared to 6% in 2020. As mentioned, 17% of under-35s believe this would be a good thing.

‘All the security is not a normal life,’ Rabbi Moshe Sebbag told The Jerusalem Post as French Jews face an uncertain future. (credit: ALAIN AZRIA)“It is very violent, and contrary to the historical trend,” said president of CRIF Jonathan Arfi. “Young people are more receptive to antisemitic, Islamist, and conspiracy theories, which are invading social networks.”

Only 53% of French people between the ages of 18-24 felt that Jews were integrated into French society.However, 68% of respondents felt they had positive or very positive relations with Jewish people, whereas only 55% felt they had positive relations with Muslims.

One question asked what the reactions would be to seeing certain types of people on the street. Most respondents were indifferent to seeing men in traditional Jewish garb, and Jews wearing a kippah. Only 5% of people said they felt nervous seeing this.

Some 40% felt nervous or annoyed seeing people wearing a keffiyeh, and 3/4 had adverse reactions to seeing women in a full burka.

Views on antisemitism

In terms of harbored prejudices against Jews, a majority of respondents felt Jews were more attached to Israel than to France.

The next highest-held anti-Jewish stereotypes were: Jews have very powerful lobbies that operate at high levels; Jews use the Holocaust to achieve their interests; Jews are richer than the average French person; and Jews are too present in the banking sector.

Less commonly held stereotypes included that Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus, Jews had too much power, and Jews controlled the media.

When asked if they agreed with 16 different antisemitic opinions on Jews, 27% of respondents agreed with 3-5 of them.

There were 46% or respondents who held six or more antisemitic opinions – an increase from 37% in 2020.

ONLY 3% of French people held none of the listed stereotypes.

Regarding demographics, the age bracket with the highest antisemitic views was 25-34. In general, the people who held such views had a lower level of education.

Politically, 55% of those holding such views were supported by those from La France Insoumise.

In positive terms, 89% of respondents said there was no excuse for antisemitic words or actions, and 85% said that Jews are French just like anyone else.

Some 79% said antisemitism was widespread in France, and only 2% felt it wasn’t. Also, 70% felt antisemitism was increasing.

There was a general understanding among respondents that if Jews left to go to Israel or other countries, it was because of rising antisemitism (63%).

Interestingly, 16% felt that Jews were responsible for rising antisemitism.

Nearly a third, 30%, felt too much importance was given to Holocaust remembrance. This as seen highest among those voting LFI.

“LFI has given antisemitism a political legitimacy,” Jonathan Arfi told Le Point.

“We observe this toxic porosity between criticism of Israel and the ostracizing of French Jews. The Palestinian cause becomes a license to hate,” he said.

Another key finding was that, in general, more people had a positive view of Israel than of Palestine, with 21% viewing Israel positively, as opposed to 18% for Palestine.

While the majority of people (75%) viewed Israelis positively, only 26% viewed the Israeli government positively. Slightly over a majority, 51%, viewed the state of Israel negatively.

A strong number, 88% of those who voted for LFI, felt the state of Israel was aggressive.

Of those who were aware of the BDS movement, 62% felt it was in place as a way of damaging the image of Israel. Only 38% felt it was legitimate.

More people held sympathy for Israel (47%) over Palestine (40%) in the conflict. Two-thirds viewed Hamas as a terrorist organization.

Among LFI voters, 25% expressed sympathy for Hamas.

Three-fourths (75%) felt the war in Israel-Gaza was responsible for the rise in antisemitism in France. CRIF is set to hold its 14th convention on Sunday in the presence of Interior Minister Bruno Retailleau, former Prime Minister Bernard Cazeneuve, and Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo.

Biden’s Attempt to Create a Neocon-Approved Legacy

The Trump Factor and Our Victory in Ukraine

Alexander Dugin asserts that Russia’s survival depends on victory in Ukraine and navigating the geopolitical shifts under Trump amid globalist and neoconservative challenges.

Russia’s entire future hinges on victory in Ukraine. Whether Russia will continue to exist at all depends on this outcome. Thus, no topic is more important than this war. It is sacred.

The arrival of Trump in the White House, the same Trump who indirectly unleashed this war against us, carries immense significance. His leadership represents a significant shift in the image of our primary adversary, who remains our chief opponent to this day. We are fighting the collective West, NATO, and the globalist elite that directs both. And now Trump rises to lead the United States, declaring, “I am also fighting the globalist elite.” Yet the U.S. remains the core pillar of the collective West and NATO — with or without Trump. This creates a unique tension.

Our heightened interest in Trump is entirely justified, as this represents a change in leadership in the camp of our main adversary. Much depends on this shift.

We cannot predict what to expect from Trump and his administration. However, certain trends are evident. Trump clearly distances himself from left-liberal globalism, rendering attempts to engage with Washington through organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations or other left-liberal structures entirely counterproductive. As for the neoconservatives, there is no point in talking to them — they are not interested.

It seems that Trump’s strategists will represent a hybrid of neoconservatives (right-wing globalists) and realists. Trump himself leans toward the realists, but this school of thought in international relations has been largely dismantled over recent decades. Realists would be the ideal partners for us since Ukraine in NATO — and especially a war with Russia — has no real value for U.S. national interests, which realists prioritize. However, we are not dealing with pure realists but with a hybrid — right-wing globalist realism. This is a complex configuration, and much of our path to victory will now depend on it.

With Biden’s globalists (both right and left), we came dangerously close to nuclear war and total mutual annihilation. Even now, we are balancing on this perilous edge. How relations will evolve under right-wing globalist realism remains uncertain.

It is crucial not to overestimate Trump’s significance for us. That would be a mistake — he is not a gift, and the fight will be long and arduous. Nothing will end or halt quickly. But it is equally important not to underestimate Trump and the changes associated with him. That too would be an error. Certain dynamics between Washington and Kiev, and between Washington and Brussels, will shift. We must clearly and promptly understand exactly how.

Negotiations about freezing the conflict along the line of contact, creating interim demilitarized zones, or guaranteeing Ukraine’s non-entry into NATO are no longer on the table. We have irreversibly moved past these possibilities. Now, only the full capitulation of the Kiev regime and Ukraine’s transition under our control will suffice — whether as part of Russia (as it has been historically) or as a friendly and guaranteed loyal entity. That’s it. All negotiations begin and end with this premise. Everything else will be decided on the battlefield. The only question is when we will win — not if. Either we win, or humanity ceases to exist (let alone Ukraine). Russia’s complete and absolute victory in Ukraine is the guarantee of peace and the survival of humanity. A defeated Russia is a deadly threat, whereas a victorious Russia is friendly and harmless. This is a realism axiom in international relations.

The globalists see the situation differently. Their overarching idea is total control over humanity, and any pole of sovereignty — especially one as large and active as Russia — is an enemy to be destroyed at any cost. Their ultimate goal is our annihilation. Our ultimate goal is to preserve ourselves as a state-civilization. The two objectives are diametrically opposed.

American realists, however, have a different ultimate goal: to make America great again — an independent, sovereign, and prosperous state-civilization. For this goal, Russia is not an obstacle. By all means, make America great again — that is your right. And we will make Russia great again. Together, we could better eradicate the evil of globalism, which brings harm to all. This is our approach. In theory, MAGA adherents should agree. However, the neocons — right-wing globalists — complicate matters, interpreting America’s restored greatness as a new wave of hegemony and imperialism. In this scenario, even a non-threatening Russia once again becomes a stumbling block.

This is the complex geopolitical dilemma we must resolve with the new Washington administration.

Unfortunately, most of our international relations experts, shaped by globalism and liberalism, are entirely unprepared for this challenge and lack the necessary competence. Our goal is to preserve sovereignty and multipolarity. Our goal is victory in Ukraine. This demands profound patriotism, not the current superficiality. On the other side, we encounter traditionalists and Christian (sometimes Judeo-Christian) conservatives, unfamiliar and alien to our experts.

Thus, relations with Trump’s America pose a serious challenge. We must respond to it with dignity.

(Translated from the Russian)

Huckabee: Changing Iran’s Regime Needs to Be World’s Goal

One can only hope that Huckabee will have little, if any, influence in Trump 2.0. The other people around Trump are dead set against such regime-change insanity. Notice: “Huckabee added that the Iranian people would be pleased if the regime changed and that if he becomes Ambassador, it’s not going to be him setting policy.” Fortunately, because  I very  much  doubt that regime change could happen without American troops on the ground.

On Friday’s broadcast of NewsNation’s “On Balance,” Mike Huckabee, President-Elect Donald Trump’s nominee to be U.S. Ambassador to Israel, who was speaking in his personal capacity since he hasn’t been confirmed, praised the maximum pressure campaign under the first Trump administration, stated that things in the Middle East can’t go back to the way they were pre-October 7, and “the world needs to look to” regime change in Iran as the goal.

Huckabee said that the Middle East needs “A good dose of reality, for one thing, and that reality means that there’s got to be an understanding that it’s the Iranians who are funding the terrorism of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. The attacks that have happened on Israel in the last 400-plus days since October the 7th are largely funded because Joe Biden took his foot off the brake, put it on the gas pedal, and basically made it possible for the Iranians to have money that Donald Trump had shut off because of the maximum pressure sanctions. Donald Trump never bombed Iran. He didn’t have to. He was bankrupting them, which is far more effective and a lot less lethal for innocent people. The result, however, of what changed in that policy was the bloody mess that was created when Hamas went and massacred innocent Jewish civilians in Israel. And it’s changed the dynamics without any way to go back to thinking that it’s all going to be like it once was, it can’t be.”

Host Leland Vittert then asked, “Benjamin Netanyahu has been clear, especially in the past couple of weeks or months, that the regime in Tehran needs to change, not just sanctions, not just pressure. Should the United States look to that end goal as well?”

Huckabee responded, “I think the world needs to look to it. Quite frankly, let’s face it, Leland, every Gulf state in the Middle East would be delighted if there was regime change. I don’t think they’re probably going to say it publicly. But don’t you think there would be celebrations in Saudi Arabia, in the UAE, perhaps even in Qatar? I can’t think of any Muslim-led nation that wouldn’t be better off if there was a regime change, because the Iranians are not really interested in building a neighborhood where everyone can kind of get along and create diplomatic relationships and share tourism and trade. They’ve never been into that. They are for annihilating Israel, and, ultimately, the U.S. And one of the stupid things that happens in this country is when Americans think that all of this is just going to be contained there, that the Iranians have no intention beyond Israel, if they can just get them from the river to the sea, it’s over. They’ve repeatedly said, Israel is the little Satan, we’re the great Satan. So, their goal is not to end their conquest with Israel. It’s just the warm-up for the real fight, which they think is us.”

Huckabee added that the Iranian people would be pleased if the regime changed and that if he becomes Ambassador, it’s not going to be him setting policy.

Tucker Interviews Glenn Greenwald on Blinken’s Ukraine Insanity

https://tuckercarlson.com/tucker-show-glenn-greenwald-2

Greenwald: So the question has been all these consequential decisions we made deploying massive military assets to the Middle East, making declarations about when we would go to war in the Middle East and for whom escalating the war in Ukraine now authorizing the use of these long range missiles is obviously not coming from Joe Biden. He barely understands where he is. It’s it’s not a character flaw on his part, but is just a disability, a clear disability. He’s obviously not making any of these decisions.

Tucker [00:00:00] I think we’re watching the most evil thing I’ve ever seen in my lifetime, which is the lame duck administration leaving the next administration with a world war, with a nuclear conflict by allowing Ukraine a proxy state of the United States to strike within Russia. And I’ll have one editorial comment that I must let you go. But I think that people in Washington misunderstand Vladimir Putin and they think he’s a monarch with absolute power, which is not true. And Russian politics is complex and it’s lively. And Putin is very concerned with his approval rating within Russia. He cannot appear weak. That’s a huge threat to him. He feels that I can confirm. And if he can’t hide attacks on him by the United States through Ukraine, either in Moscow or big civilian casualties, I think he will have no choice, in his view, but to launch a serious response against Ukraine or some or NATO’s countries or possibly the United States. So this seems like seems like the most reckless thing that’s ever happened in my life.

Glenn Greenwald [00:00:58] I hardly have four words for it.

Tucker [00:01:01] Let me just say my overstating it. Do you think?

Glenn Greenwald [00:01:02] No. No, not not even remotely. If so, let me just say specifically what has been authorized? Yes. This is something that some NATO countries, including the United Kingdom, have been pressuring the Biden administration to do for quite a long time, for at least a year. But going all the way back to the beginning of 2022, this was an option that they had, which is the we have these these guided missiles called it outcomes, which are very powerful for attacking inside Russia. You can guide them specifically and very precisely to where you want them to go. Obviously, you have to get intelligence about where you want to strike. And the reason we never permitted the Ukrainians to use them is because the Ukrainians can’t use those missiles on their own. In other words, if they want to launch these missiles, it’s not just the U.S. giving them the missiles and then telling them they’ll probably go and use them. It requires the direct involvement of the United States and or a major country like France or the U.K. or Germany, because the Ukrainians don’t have the guiding capability in order to know how to launch these missiles. So this is not just us giving them missiles and saying go attack deep inside. Imagine if some major country, China, Iran, Russia, whoever gave missiles to Canada, if we were at war with them or Mexico or Cuba and said, we’re giving you these specifically for you them to use them inside the United States, we would consider that a grievous act of war, not just on the part of the countries shooting them, but on the part of the country, giving them what Biden did here is so much worse. He didn’t just give Ukrainians missiles and say, feel free to use them inside Russia. We are going to participate in the bombing of Russia, NATO and or the United States because there’s no way the Ukrainians can launch these missiles on their own, which means we are now our military, our intelligence community are participating in missile attacks inside the country of Russia. This is something that even the Biden administration, for all their hawkishness on Russia and Ukraine, feeding that war, fueling yet preventing diplomatic resolutions because they wanted this war even they were unwilling to do it because they understood the dangers of the escalatory risks for Joe Biden or whoever’s acting in his name to do this. Just two weeks after the country resoundingly rejected governance by the Democratic Party in the administration and on his way out as an 81 year old man, knowing that he has about six weeks left in office to just say, Yeah, I know that these are massive risks, but I’m willing to take them. I’m 81. I don’t really care. And then to make it so much more difficult for the following administration to do what they promised to do during the campaign, which the American people voted for and wanted, which is to resolve this war. Instead, we’re risking escalation with the world’s largest superpower. Nuclear power. Over what?

Tucker [00:04:11] Over what we I mean, placed in context, too. This is without precedent and I think is Blinken I want to ask about that in a second. But so in 1956, Soviets invade Hungary and murder a ton of people. 61. They put nuclear weapons in Cuba, 68. They invade Czechoslovakia, murder a bunch of people. Once again, these are all, you know, incredibly provocative acts, far more provocative than invading eastern Ukraine. And this is the middle of the Cold War. And no American presidents, Democrats and Republicans in charge during those periods. They didn’t respond by attacking Russia. I mean, there’s nothing like this ever happened. No one’s ever been this crazy.

Glenn Greenwald [00:04:50] Well, this is, you know, my big breach with the left, my big permanent split with whatever they thought I was in terms of.

Tucker [00:04:58] We want them to. They hate.

Glenn Greenwald [00:04:59] You. Yeah, I know. And that all happened in 2016 when out of nowhere, Russiagate appeared. And I remember like it was yesterday, the very first ad from Hillary Clinton’s campaign with this menacing baritone voice. You know, what does Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump have in common? What are they? What does Russia have on Donald Trump? And journalistically, I just couldn’t believe it because it was so redolent of McCarthyism, which is a civil libertarian ism. I found I was caught was like one of the worst civil liberties of the 20th century. I agree. Yeah, I mean, you go around just accusing people of being Russian agents with no evidence, destroying their reputation, their lives, kind of like what they’re trying to do to Tulsi Gabbard now, what they tried to do for Donald Trump for the last eight years. So just on that ground, I was kind of offended by it journalistically. I was so skeptical of it because when you have intelligence agencies leaking anonymously, unverified claims to The Washington Post in The New York Times and they put it on the front page and their Pulitzers for that, and that’s usually a sign that a huge disinformation campaign of deceit is underway. That was the exact method used, for example, to sell the war on Iraq to the American people. …  But what Obama most [disliked] was that the climate was deliberately created in Washington, especially once Hillary lost, and they blamed Russia for it, [so] that any communications. With Russia–anyone who visits Russia, anyone who talks to a Russian official is automatically deemed sinister or treasonous. And as you said, during the Cold War, which dominated our American life for 50 years, Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union the evil empire. They were infinitely more powerful, more threatening, more everything than than Russia is now. We always communicated with Soviet leaders. There were phones all over Washington that rang to the counterparts. They comment that they communicated constantly. After Russiagate, there’s basically no communication any longer between the Russian leaders and the Americans.

Tucker [00:07:02] On either side. And I should just say, I.

Glenn Greenwald [00:07:05] Mean, not because Russia wanted that. That was something that in Washington got created because they blamed Russia and claimed that Russia Russia was our existential enemy because of their claim that they interfered in the 2016 election. Before that, there was all the Obama administration and the Putin government cooperated in all sorts of ways around the world, of course.

Tucker [00:07:26] And but it’s it’s the leadership of the Republican Party, too. I had a conversation with the speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, and he was about to appropriate tens of billions more for Ukraine. And they said, well, why don’t you check with Putin? Aren’t you the speaker, the House number three in line for the presidency? What? What? Okay. I said, Bob, I’ll see if I can facilitate that. I’ll call the press office. Kind of set you up when you talk to Putin. No, absolutely not. Will not.

Glenn Greenwald [00:07:48] Why? Imagine if he had, though. And that leaked. But. But I’m not excusing him.

Tucker [00:07:53] Why wouldn’t he just say I mean, I’m not attacking Mike Johnson. I guess I am attacking me, which I don’t know what I’m saying. I’m just reporting what actually happened. I said, you know what? Don’t you have a moral duty to get as much information about this war before you fund its continuation and the killing of all these people? Shouldn’t you no more? No.

Glenn Greenwald [00:08:11] I think it is important to say that this war has been 100% bipartisan, although the Biden administration, as the leader of the executive branch, is primarily responsible. The primary there’s been about, I would say, 5 or 6 dozen anti-interventionist Republicans, typically more Trump supporters, both in the House and Senate, who have spoken out from the beginning against funding this war. But the vast majority of Republicans, to the extent they have a criticism or had a criticism of the Biden administration at all with respect to Ukraine, it was that they didn’t do enough. They didn’t spend enough money on Ukraine. They didn’t give Ukraine enough weapons. They didn’t get more involved, more heavily, more and earlier than they should. But, you know, the thing that you said about encouraging Mike Johnson to speak to Putin, which of course, as the third in line to the presidency, as you said, when they’re proposing to escalate a major war, of course, you should want to understand the Russian perspective. This is what Tulsi Gabbard did in 2017 when she was a member of Congress and the Obama administration had unleashed this billion dollar a year CIA dirty war to change the government of Syria, to dislodge Bashar al Assad from the government. And we fought along ISIS and Al Qaida, who also wanted Assad gone. We were told those were our existential enemies for 15 years. We fought alongside them to do it. And so many of the weapons we sent ended up in the hands of al Qaeda and ISIS and other Islamic radical groups in Syria. And Tulsi Gabbard, as a member of the military but also as a member of Congress, have constitutional responsibility to authorize or authorize a war, wanted to go to Syria and see what was happening for herself. And then she spoke with Syrian officials and got an opportunity to speak with the Syrian president. And based solely on that, she’s now accused of being a Russian agent, being a some sort of, you know, treasonous sympathizer of Bashar Assad. This is the jingoistic climate that has been created way worse than what prevailed in the Cold War when all we Nixon went to China, Reagan negotiated all kinds of arms deals with the Soviets. This is now totally prohibited. It’s like we live in a marvel cartoon for children where there’s good guys and bad guys, where the good guys do not speak to the bad guys and the.

Tucker [00:10:19] Good guys and dangerous Qaeda and ISIS. They’re the good guys.

Glenn Greenwald [00:10:22] Yeah, we can fight with them because they.

Tucker [00:10:23] To her point. I don’t want to speak for Tulsi Gabbard, our new director of national intelligence nominee. But my view was I don’t have any feelings about Assad or Syria, but it’s a fact that that government protected religious minorities, including an ancient Christian community there and the Alawites, of which he’s won in that country for a long time, he and his dad. So why are they my enemy exactly? I don’t like what is why should I be opposed to Assad in Syria? Why should I be opposed to Vladimir Putin? Why was not supposed to be opposed to the Soviets who are anti-Christian? But now you have a pro Christian president supposed to be against him. Tell me why it wasn’t him. Explain to me why, as a 55 year old American taxpayer, I should be against it.

Glenn Greenwald [00:11:03] So first of all, I think the principle is that and this is what Donald Trump requires politically in 2016 was that we shouldn’t be involved in wars designed to change the governments of other countries, build, rebuild their governments, transform their societies, in part because it’s not our place to do it, and in part because we’re terrible at doing it, because they have very complex, rich, long histories that American intelligence officials and political leaders have no understanding of whatsoever. Good language.

Tucker [00:11:33] I mean, they don’t know anything.

Glenn Greenwald [00:11:35] They know nothing. And we’ve proven that over and over and all these failed attempts. But also, when it comes to I mean, the policy gabbard’s entire worldview, and I have spoken to her about this. I’ve interviewed her about this. So I feel comfortable saying this is that she’s not in any way antiwar, pacifist. She believes that we should be very militarily aggressive against, say, terrorist groups that actually want to attack the United States or have done so, or American assets or American interests on the world. Her argument is, is that we should not be involved in regime change wars of the kind we did in Iraq that she fought in, of the kind we did in Syria, of the kind we did in Libya, of the kind that we did in Ukraine in 2014 when we actually engineered a coup on that most sensitive part of the.

Tucker [00:12:14] Kind that we’re trying to pull off in Russia right now. The point of this is to knock out Putin.

Glenn Greenwald [00:12:18] Yeah. To to weaken that regime and to. But the thing is, though, what you said about Putin is so important, which is Putin’s critics. He doesn’t have very many liberal critics, meaning people to his left. Exactly. His real critics are hardcore nationalist. Exactly. And their criticism of.

Tucker [00:12:34] Him as a liberal.

Glenn Greenwald [00:12:35] Who see him as weak or insufficiently militaristic when it comes to confronting the West. But clearly, on Ukraine, they wanted they want destruction of Ukraine. They’re there. A lot of them are enraged. And as you say, the Russian government has taken the position, warned the United States government privately and publicly that any use of these missiles involving as they do, direct U.S. or Naito involvement in their launching against Russia will be seen as the entrance of the United States and NATO’s belligerence in this war as a war against Russia as World War three. And he will have to treat it as such, even though he’s been very constrained, even though he clearly doesn’t want a broader war. There are a lot of people inside Moscow who do wield a lot of power, who do and who who will demand that he treated as such. Why would why wouldn’t they? We are attacking Russia. We’re shooting missiles inside Russia.

Tucker [00:13:27] So I think, as you’ve said, I don’t think we can say it enough. So much of this has been conducted in bad faith, but also so much of the bad faith has been informed by ignorance or uninformed by ignorance, not informed at all. And I think that people really think that Putin is an absolute dictator who can do whatever he wants, and that is not the case. It’s not the case. Super complex place. A lot of smart people in Russia, complicated political situation. So I agree completely. We’re pushing him toward that. The view I think I know from Putin is that Blinken is driving this and that Blinken has a lot of hostility, is reckless, but has a lot of hostility toward Russia. That has nothing to do with the United States at all. Do you think that’s true? You think Blinken is driving this?

Glenn Greenwald [00:14:09] Yeah, I mean, I think I think Blinken, Jake Sullivan, that’s kind of the brain trust as it is. Obviously, Joe Biden has no involvement in this whatsoever, which I think, you know, has been a an issue which we’ve shockingly ignored. Everyone saw what Joe Biden was long before that debate. Yes, everyone knew it. The only people who didn’t say so are the media and Democratic allies. After the debate, it became untenable for them to deny it any longer that this is an old man who has lost his cognitive capabilities, yet he’s still the sitting president of the United States. And you had the vice president understandably doing nothing for the last four months other than working on her own empowerment through the campaign. She obviously wasn’t involved ever in any decision making, let alone when she became the nominee. So the question has been all these consequential decisions we made deploying massive military assets to the Middle East, making declarations about when we would go to war in the Middle East and for whom escalating the war in Ukraine now authorizing the use of these long range missiles is obviously not coming from Joe Biden. He barely understands where he is. It’s it’s not a character flaw on his part, but is just a disability, a clear disability. He’s obviously not making any of these decisions. I do think that if you look at the national security crowd that emerged from the Obama presidency, especially the people who are associated with the State Department run by Hillary Clinton, then John Kerry, even before Russiagate in 2016, they had an obsession with Russia. In fact, when Hillary Clinton left the administration as secretary of state and wrote her book Hard Choices, the only areas in which she was critical of Obama was her view that he wasn’t willing to confront Russia sufficiently. Obama had this view, sort of this realist view from Brant Scowcroft. Those are the kind of people who like Jim Baker that why would we send lethal arms to Ukraine and provoke Russia? Ukraine is not a vital interest to us, but it is to them. He wanted to work with Russia and did to facilitate the Iran deal to bomb terrorist targets in Syria. And there was a faction in the Obama administration led by Hillary Clinton. Blinken was there all these sort of national security people woven into the, you know, that victory, victory. No one was hired by Hillary Clinton. That’s how she made her way into the Obama administration. They viewed Russia as this grave menace. The reason Putin hated Hillary Clinton was because when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, the United States openly spent millions of dollars funding opposition groups and organizing protests in Moscow. I mean, we talk about Putin interfering in our sacred politics and our internal affairs. Hillary Clinton was openly funding protests and and and and anti-Putin agitated outside agitators inside Russia in the 2010 election, in 2012, 2011, rather. And they were obsessed with Russia well before that. And I do think that Russia is disliked by a lot of people in Washington because of the perception that they are detrimental to our interests in the Middle East and especially to Israel’s interests in the Middle East, including their support for Bashar al-Assad in Syria. The fact that they have a good relationship with Iran, it doesn’t really always have a lot to do with the United States, but with the interests of other countries as well.

Tucker [00:17:34] So you think that’s the prime mover here? Because it is true that Assad is only there because of Russia? I think I think that’s a fair statement.

Glenn Greenwald [00:17:40] Yeah, that’s their ally in the Middle East and has been their ally in the Middle East for four decades. And just like we support our allies around the world, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, you know, very savage, brutal dictatorships. But at least to do our bidding, the Russians have theirs as well. They have a long term relationship with Venezuela, with Cuba, going back to the Cold War and still do as well as with Syria. And yeah, the Russians operate in Syria, They protect Assad in Syria, and as a result, they end up being antagonistic to Israel, which ends up being defined as U.S. interests as well. Like there’s no sure bit.

Tucker [00:18:12] But strictly speaking, this has nothing to do with us whatsoever. I mean, I don’t I honestly.

Glenn Greenwald [00:18:18] Believe that unless you see Israel as a part of the United States.

Tucker [00:18:22] You know, I’m not hostile toward Israel, but I think it’s a separate country.

Glenn Greenwald [00:18:24] It seems to me as well, it’s often not treated as that. I’m just saying.

Tucker [00:18:28] Don’t don’t pay taxes there wasn’t born there. So from my position, from an American perspective, without wishing ill on any other country at all, and I really don’t, I have been struggling for really since the 2016 election, but particularly since the war began in February of 2022, to identify what exactly would be the U.S. interest in this. And I and I just can’t and I’ve really, I think, tried hard, but I just I just don’t see what’s in it for us at all.

Glenn Greenwald [00:18:53] Tucker, there’s nobody I’m certain of this in the United States, just an average, ordinary American voter who believes that their life is affected in any way by the question of who rules various provinces in the Donbass in eastern Ukraine. Nobody thinks about Ukraine, let alone the Donbass, let alone eastern Ukraine. It’s an incredibly complex situation there in terms of the people’s allegiances, which are far closer to Moscow than they are to Kiev. The question of what that territory should be, should it be somehow autonomous, should it be used as a buffer against the West? The whole framework, as you well know, and as other people have pointed out, when Russia agreed to the reunification of Germany, which was obviously an extraordinary thing for the Russians to agree to, given the Russian history in the 20th century with respect to Germany, when they opened, the Berlin Wall fell and they allowed the eastern and the western parts of Germany to reunite and to become part of the West and become part of the EU. The only concession they extracted in exchange for that was okay with reunification. NATO’s now moving eastward, closer to our border in a country that has devastated our country twice in two world wars, invaded Russia twice, killed tens of millions of Russian citizens. The only thing we need as a security guarantee in exchange for allowing that is that Neda will never expand one inch eastward beyond what was East Germany and the United States agreed to that. And immediately in the 90s, an administration, the administration started talking about it and implementing NATO’s expansion eastward toward Russia. Exactly what was promised to Gorbachev the United States would not do in exchange for them agreeing to reunification. And why? Why? Why did we need to expand our I.

Tucker [00:20:38] Never understood.

Glenn Greenwald [00:20:39] Word toward Russia. And now it’s not just eastward in general. It’s going directly up to the Russian border on the part of their border that has been invaded twice in Ukraine to destroy Russia. And both of those those world wars, we also participated in the change of government. We remove the democratically elected leader of Ukraine before his constitutional term was expired in 2014 because we perceived him as being too friendly to Moscow, which is what the Ukrainians voted for and replaced him. Victoria Nuland constructed a government and they was replaced by a government that was more pro-U.S.. Imagine if the Russians engineered a coup in Mexico to take out the government because they were too friendly to us and put in a hard line, pro Russian, anti-American, anti-NATO president. Imagine how threatening we would regard that as. And that’s exactly what we did in Ukraine. The question is, though, this has nothing to do with the national security of the American people. No American is threatened by who governs Ukraine. What they’re threatened by is what the United States is doing in Ukraine, including this most recent act.

Tucker [00:21:40] I’m Tucker Carlson for out now. As you know, the FDA requires us to warn you whilst we do the warning, quote, warning this product contains nicotine. Nicotine is an addictive chemical. And quote, We’re required to tell you that by the federal government, but we don’t shy away from that. It’s addictive and there’s an upside to it. Yes, nicotine is an addictive chemical. That is true. There are a lot of things in life you forget your car keys, your wallet. One thing you’re never going to forget is out because nicotine is an addictive chemical. You may forget to put your shoes on in the morning. You may forget to kiss your wife on the way out. You may come home and not remember your own dog’s name. But one thing you’re not going to forget is your ALP. Why? Because you’re addicted to it. Because your body will tell you, Hey, better bring your ALP with you and you will. I do. I’m never anywhere without my ALP. It’s by the side of my bed. When I go to sleep. It’s there. When I wake up in the morning, it’s in the front pocket of my pants as I head out into the world. ALP is always with me. It’s on the desk because I do interviews everywhere I am. ALP is because it’s an addictive chemical. That’s exactly right. And we’re not afraid of that. We’re not ashamed of it. It’s addictive in the same way that air, water and sex are addictive. They’re so great and you want to do them every day. Thankfully, it’s easy to have the ALP with you at all times. Just go to our website. ALP couch.com and never be without it. Nicotine. Yes, it’s addictive. That’s why we like it. So I find it so terrifying. I’m not I don’t think I’m sort of overstating that. I mean, we are on the brink of a global war.

Glenn Greenwald [00:23:20] But can I just say one thing about that, don’t you think? Aren’t you kind of amazed by how impervious and dismissive media and political elites are, the prospect of nuclear war?

Tucker [00:23:32] Well, I it’s unimaginable. And and yes. And I mean, that’s why I.

Glenn Greenwald [00:23:36] Think it can’t happen.

Tucker [00:23:37] Without knowing the situation. Yeah. And I will say, the one thing that Trump has said repeatedly over the over the past, certainly since he left the presidency for years, that he’s received no credit for and should get enormous credit for, is that nuclear war is the worst thing. He was, of course, been briefed on it as the person who controlled the launch codes. He knows what it means. And anyone who spends five minutes looking into what a nuclear exchange would actually, you know, do is is terrified of it. But only Trump seems worried about it. I don’t understand.

Glenn Greenwald [00:24:13] I’ve said this. I’ve talked about it so many times. And I think it goes back to when Trump was president in the early stages of presidency. Every time Trump talks about the prospect of nuclear war, he knows that he’s limited in what everything he can divulge. But he’s so clearly trying to signal and he often says that these weapons are of a different universe than even the ones we dropped. And. That’s correct. And he’s obviously, as you said, understands and been briefed on.

Tucker [00:24:40] But you see these morons at the Atlantic Council or AEI or Hudson or these like this cluster of the dumbest people in the world all implicated in the Iraq disaster say, well, you know, maybe tactical nukes are fine.

Glenn Greenwald [00:24:51] That we that that’s such next level crazy.

Tucker [00:24:55] That’s crazier than any schizophrenic sitting next to you on a public subway.

Glenn Greenwald [00:24:59] Yeah. I mean, it’s crazy. We we constantly call like RFK Jr. They call him crazy. They call, you know, talking government gates crazy. Whoever these people who have been in power, who have been generating American orthodoxy, especially on foreign policy, are the most insane people on the planet. It’s because actually the United States has been the most powerful country in the world. No one could constrain it. No one could stand up to it. And as is true with everything, that level of unconstrained power corrupts people. That is, these people who have been control of this power for decades that has passed on one to the other through this document that gets increasingly out of touch and detached from reality and and.

Tucker [00:25:38] And megalomaniacal.

Glenn Greenwald [00:25:40] Exactly. I mean, at least during the Cold War, I’m not saying it was a good thing, but the Soviet Union and the states were of equal power. They were competing with one another. They were both very constrained in what they were. They both were petrified of a nuclear war. We almost came to nuclear apocalypse at least twice, especially in the Cuban Missile Crisis, through misperception and miscommunication, when a Russian commander of a submarine thought incorrectly that they were using nuclear weapons against the submarine and against Cuba and almost launched the nuclear weapons at the subcamp, about five minutes away from doing so until someone intervened on that sub. And so I don’t think that this is actually an attack. It’s very possible we’ve come to the brink of it before. It probably is the single greatest threat to the survival of the species. Not probably definitely is the use of nuclear weapons. Every time Trump talks about it, you can see the fear that he has. He’s trying to convey to others every time. And. I’m. I mean, Tucker, I’m amazed. This is like impeachment level stuff. For Joe Biden on his way out of the door to involve the U.S. directly in a war for the first time, we’ve been very involved in other ways.

Tucker [00:26:48] They should impeach him. Why doesn’t the.

Glenn Greenwald [00:26:50] Usual limitation on the president’s ability to involve the U.S. in a war without congressional authorization, which is exactly what has happened through the use of these missiles, which, as I said, we need to help direct. And the question is, yeah, why? The answer, though, is, is that the vast majority of the Republican caucus in the House and in the Senate supports what Joe Biden is doing, thinks he should have done this a year ago. And there’s probably not a lot of anger in the House and Senate over this, except the question that it’s called lame duck for a reason. A lame duck is supposed to be a duck. That really doesn’t do much, can’t do much, does move much. It’s by design, pretty limited. It’s like this transition period.

Tucker [00:27:30] Yeah, he’s floating in the water because he’s been shot.

Glenn Greenwald [00:27:32] Yeah, exactly. His legs are broken, and so he’s lame. This is not a lame duck decision and it’s not like there was any emergency to it. It wasn’t there was no emergency to it. They just wanted to escalate it because they thought Trump wouldn’t. And so they did.

Tucker [00:27:52] It puts us in this remarkable moment where the only adult is Vladimir Putin. This person, we’ve been told, is Hitler and deranged, crazy, dying of nine different kinds of cancer can’t be trusted like the only reason we’re not. I mean, we’re all relying on his restraint. That’s just a fact right now. How weird is that?

Glenn Greenwald [00:28:13] Well, I mean, first of all, this is this is what amazes me is that sometimes propaganda and propaganda is you have to respect it. It’s a very potent field of human knowledge that has been refined over many decades, using every field, the disciplines of social sciences and psychology and psychiatry. I mean, propaganda is not just some, you know, intuitive thing that people do.

Tucker [00:28:35] It’s an argument you make. Yeah.

Glenn Greenwald [00:28:37] And it’s very powerful. And we love to talk about how propagandized the Russians are and the Chinese are and how there’s no dissent allowed. You know, George Orwell, in the preface to Animal Farm, wrote actually in 1984, wrote an essay where he was essentially saying that overt totalitarianism of the kind that was taking place in the Soviet Union is repressive, but it’s not nearly as effective as subtle repression, the kind where you give the illusion that people are free. But in reality, the flow of information is heavily controlled because at least when you know the guys dressed in black with weapons come and take you and put you in a gulag for criticizing the government, everybody understands the level of oppression that often generates a backlash. But when you combine repression with the illusion of freedom, that’s what’s incredibly effective. And that’s what we owe.

Tucker [00:29:30] People with an abundant consumer economy. Like, you know, here your edibles, here’s your Netflix come down. Yeah, yeah. And you can basically get them to do anything.

Glenn Greenwald [00:29:40] Yeah. And at the same time, there has been a concerted effort to control what was supposed to be the one innovation that was going to break the centralized control of information, which is the Internet. That’s why there’s so much attention and energy. It’s why it’s the number one priority of Western power centers to control the Internet, because it’s the one threat to their ability to maintain this propagandistic control. You know this I still can’t believe this, that it’s not talked about as much. But right after Russia invaded Ukraine and Western governments decided they wanted full on support for Ukraine and this very simple minded narrative that they fed their public.

Tucker [00:30:15] After they started the war, I mean, the bad administration started. That’s my view of it. They knew that Russia would invade if they publicly pushed Zelensky to join NATO’s. So they did that. Kamala Harris did it in Russia with my view as they started this war.

Glenn Greenwald [00:30:28] And threat, talking openly about expanding NATO’s to Ukraine, you could find memos from the highest levels of the US government. Exactly do that. It’s not just Putin. It’s every political faction in Russia that will see it as a war and war. And they’ll invade. They’ll go annex Crimea and invade eastern Ukraine. Of course, the American government knew that you can show documents where it says that. But the you the EU the minute that war started. In earnest with the Russian army invading one of the very first steps they took legislatively was to ban the platforming, to criminalize the platforming of Russian media like Russia Party and Sputnik. They made it a crime and YouTube immediately pulled it off because they didn’t want their citizens hearing any information from the Russian perspective. I mean, you can hate Russia. You can think Russia is evil, you can think whatever you want about Russia. But why wouldn’t you want to hear from the other side? You know, The New York Times used to publish all the time, like the speeches of Brezhnev have, of course, and Yuri Andropov and Khrushchev. And you could read what the Russians would say. They would come to United States. They would speak openly. Now, it’s it’s practically criminalized.

Tucker [00:31:38] Putin’s speech in February of 2022 to his country, nationally televised there right before the invasion was absolutely just a remarkable speech, which I, by the way, never got around to even looking at before I got to Moscow when I was like, I can you put I think I should watch that speech. I read about it, never watched it. And I think you’re going to agree or disagree. You can hate Putin. I mean, it’s totally fine. I don’t care how people feel about Putin. But most Americans had no idea his thinking in invading Ukraine. Like no idea. Why wouldn’t people want to know.

Glenn Greenwald [00:32:13] What it was? Just the cartoon. He’s an evil Hitlerian figure who wants to reconquer Reconquest all of Europe the way Hitler did. Putin has been in office for 25 years. He has gone through six different American presidents. Every single one of them. I tell you, we’re not allowed to say it anymore. Always said you meet with Putin. He’s incredibly shrewd. He’s incredibly smart. You can trust Putin. If you do a deal with Putin, you can count on the fact that he will adhere to.

Tucker [00:32:40] Other heads of state. Still feel that way.

Glenn Greenwald [00:32:42] And yeah, American president said it all the time, starting with Bill Clinton, that he’s rational, that he acts in his self-interest, that he’s calculating in terms of and careful. And then suddenly this is what amazes me. Propagandistic glee is that overnight everybody was forced to say that Putin invaded Ukraine simply because suddenly he became this psychotic, evil Hitler type figure who just wanted out of the blue.

Tucker [00:33:04] They all believed it, though. A lot of the people screamed at me at airports for being pro-Putin, which, of course, I’m not. I’ve never been pro-Putin. I don’t have strong feelings either way. But they really had been convinced, not just by MSNBC and CNN, but by the entire oligarch controlled Internet, that, like anyone who talked about Putin, raised questions about the war, was like for Putin, like that worked the propaganda work.

Glenn Greenwald [00:33:28] Propaganda. Tucker propaganda work, especially nationalistic propaganda, because human beings evolved over thousands of years to be tribal like we we want to feel part of our group. We take pride in our group Like it’s why if you’re born in America, you say, I’m an American. This is my country, this is what I’m loyal to. It comes from these tribalistic instincts, right? It makes sense because we evolved for thousands of years where you if you got expelled from your tribe, you would you would die. You needed a tribe in order to survive. So we’re tribalistic animals. So if you appeal to people’s tribalism and say we’re the good guys, we’re the innocent victims. Our enemy are the bad guys. They’re evil. They’re you know, that appeals to people’s most visceral instincts. And the problem, of course, is the countervailing punishment, which is the minute you question it. You know, I had from the beginning, I had on my show, you know, people like John Mearsheimer and and Stephen Walt and Jeffrey Sachs, and they were all saying from the beginning. There’s no possibility that Ukraine can win this war as Naito has defined it, which means the expulsion of every Russian troop from every inch of Ukrainian soil, just simply on size grounds alone. Just. Just basic understanding of history. Every one of them, I’m sure. I think it happened to you, too. I know what happened to me were put on these official list issued by the Ukrainian government of being pro-Russian propagandist. Everywhere you went, you get accused of being a Russian propaganda ass or some sort of agent of the Kremlin simply by questioning our own government’s propagandistic views or simply trying to understand things from the Russian perspective. Like this is, you know, after 911. The big question on the minds of all Americans after they were traumatized by this extraordinary assault on our soil, designed obviously, to impose as much suffering and and killing as possible was obviously, they ask why? Why did they want to do that to us? Why would people hate us so much that they would devise a scheme as complex and deadly as hijacking planes, passenger planes with box cutters and flying them into major American buildings full of people? Why would they hate us that much? And they had to the government had to give an answer to that question because people just wanted to know the answer. And that was on David Frum and Cheney. And all the people said they hate us for our freedoms. They just can’t stand the fact that women are allowed to wear bikinis on the beach and that we have a Congress. And it’s like no one ever thought, well, there’s like dozens of countries around the world where women get to win over bikinis and have Congresses like in Japan and Korea and all throughout Latin America and like Scandinavia. Why aren’t they attacking those places? And then bin Laden wrote a letter in 2002 to the American people saying, here’s why there’s so much animosity toward the United States. And there was, of course, some appeal to religion. And I made the.

Tucker [00:36:15] Mistake of reading part of that letter on the air at CNN at the time not to make a kind of point, but just because super interesting, you know, and 911 changed everyone’s life very much, including mine. Lost a friend that day. Like, just like every American who was an adult, a 911, it was like you felt like it was an event that you participated in or it affected you. So I felt like I had every right to read that letter, like, Hey, this is he. He’s now saying why he did it. I almost got pulled off the air for doing that.

Glenn Greenwald [00:36:40] Well, how could I just. What I just happened to forget? How could I not only doesn’t that surprise me? A lot of people have forgotten that this happens, but it’s actually quite extraordinary after 911. Obviously, Osama bin Laden was one of the most important people in the world. He had just perpetrated the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor. And a lot of people wanted to interview him or play clips of interviews, The United States government told called all the network news agencies into the White House and said to them, You should not and cannot show interview Osama bin Laden or show any interviews with him. And they invented this excuse as to why, which is that he might put some sort of code in his interviews that signal to sleeper cells just like he might, like wiggle his ear like Carol Burnett did or like, you know, raises eyebrows three times or blink. And it’s Morse code in a certain way. And and the networks all obeyed. And the most amazing thing was this letter which you could go read where he says exactly why all the different ways the United States has brought violence to that region has interfered.

Tucker [00:37:45] In your foreign policy is the bottom line.

Glenn Greenwald [00:37:47] Know we’ve been bombing that region and interfering in them, opposing dictatorships on those people for decades specifically to suppress the things they believe in. We don’t want popular opinion being prevailing in democratically in the Middle East because we don’t perceive it in our interests. So we’ve been imposing dictators on them, secular dictators. We’ve been bombing them, we’ve been sanctioning them, we’ve been invading them. Of course we support Israel, which in that region people view as this grave assault on the rights of Palestinians. But we put bases in Saudi Arabia, which is the most sacred soil to that religion. We imposed a blockade and sanction regime on Iraq, which Madeleine Albright admitted killed 500,000 children, but nonetheless said it was worth it. So we’ve been so active in that region and that’s the reason they wanted to attack back. That’s the reason al Qaeda had so much support. But they banned Osama bin Laden from being heard, just like the EU banned Russian state media from being heard because, of course, you don’t want Americans being exposed to this. And then the amazing thing is that letter, which really didn’t get much attention at the time, the only place that existed on the Internet was on The Guardian’s website. And somehow, you know, 22 year olds on Tok found that letter and they started talking about it and they were like, my God, I was never told this before. He didn’t attack us because he hates us for our freedom. He says specifically here why they’re attacking us. And in other words, they were reading a historical document and discussing it, things that you would want a free citizenry to do. But the fear that they were allowed to not only read but talk about that document with one another was so intense that in 48 hours they forced TikTok to ban every discussion of that letter to remove the hashtags, to find it, to take down any post or accounts that were talking about it. And then The Guardian, a news outlet for a move, that letter, which had been there for 20 years, which was of obvious historical and journalistic important, they removed it from their website because they were too frightened that people were going to be able to read it. Why? Because it prevents the propagandistic narrative from being unchallenged. And that’s the same with Russia and Ukraine. That shows you how we think we’re so free. We have we can we hear so much dissent because you have a Republican and Democrat bickering on a cable show about trivial things like, look, we have free debates, open debates. They don’t they don’t get to have that in Russia and China. But the minute there’s information that actually threatens the government that they fear people understanding, they clamp down on it and suppress it. And that’s what they did there.

Tucker [00:40:16] You wonder why we put up with that. You wonder why we put up with a government that continues to keep secret files about 911. It’s been 23 years. What what could possibly be the justification for not telling me information that I own and have a right to see, which is what the hell was that? And they constantly lecturing.

Glenn Greenwald [00:40:33] Even the JFK files.

Tucker [00:40:34] Especially the JFK file. But but much more immediate. It was 23 years ago. But I mean, we’re both adults. We remember it very well.

Glenn Greenwald [00:40:41] Yeah. I mean, it was like I. I was traumatized by that. It was a horrible event. Exactly. And then a lot happened. Our country changed radically because of it. To this day, the Patriot Act exist.

Tucker [00:40:51] Well, it’s not never been the same country. And in some ways, you know, it was much more successful in its aims than than I even want to admit to myself because it’s so sad to see what it did to this country. But here’s the point. They’re constantly they meaning the media and the Intel agencies, which work together, as you know, they’re constantly attacking other people for being conspiracy theorists and crazy and desecrating the memory of the 911 victims, etc., by coming up with explanations that are not authorized. Okay, then why don’t you just tell us what actually happened? Why not just declassify it? What and what’s the answer? It’s going to jeopardize sources and methods. That’s not true. And we all know that.

Glenn Greenwald [00:41:26] And you know that this the importance of protecting those secrets, keeping those documents that may show the truth, not just about I’m a jerk.

Tucker [00:41:35] That’s the most important thing.

Glenn Greenwald [00:41:36] It’s the it’s in fact, the whole point of the second impeachment trial. Yeah. Which never made any sense. Why would you bring an impeachment trial against the president on his way out? The office was because they were petrified that Trump was going to do certain things in that transition, like, pardon Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, which came very close to doing, but especially fulfill his promise to declassify things like the JFK. Files and other national security files that have been kept hidden with no justification from the American public, even know what happened decades ago. 911 JFK. And they told him, if you do that, all the Senate Republicans are going to vote to impeach you, You’re going to be convicted and ineligible to run ever again. That was the sword of Damocles. They held over his head precisely to prevent him from bringing transparency to the government and allowing the American people to see what they have a right to know.

Tucker [00:42:23] If your greatest fear is transparency, then you’re a criminal. I mean, that’s basically proof. I can’t think of a better indicator of behavior than the crazed desire to keep that behavior secret.

Glenn Greenwald [00:42:37] Right. I wanted to see more of that, which is, if you think about what a democracy is supposed to be like, what an ideal free society is, whatever you call that, it’s supposed to be that everything that public officials do in the name of the public power is supposed to be known to the public. But very few exceptions, like if there’s a war and they’re planning troop movements, they can keep that secret.

Tucker [00:43:00] Yeah. Normandy a week before. Right.

Glenn Greenwald [00:43:02] Because they don’t have to tell everyone that they’re going to do that. But outside of those very rare exceptions, we’re supposed to know everything about what they do. Of course, because they’re doing it in our name.

Continues….

The Russians are right. 

From Tucker Carlson’s email list:

Joe Biden is doing everything he can to prolong this war.

This is not a new development. Biden has been among the conflict’s most aggressive provocateurs since its onset and even before. Think about all the times when legitimate de-escalation could have been achieved but wasn’t because of this administration’s steadfastly anti-peace behavior.

Before the war started, Vladimir Putin repeatedly decried the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO as cripplingly damaging to his country’s national security. His point had merit. Ukraine’s admittance to the West’s anti-Russia alliance would result in the stationing of hostile military forces, and possibly nuclear weapons, on Putin’s border. Any leader in their right mind would view that as unacceptable. America did when it happened in Cuba.

Knowing those facts, the United States should have scaled back, rejected the idea of a Ukraine/NATO partnership, and worked in good faith to reduce tension with the world’s most powerful nuclear country. Biden did the opposite. In February 2022, he sent his overburdened vice president to the Munich Security Conference where she threw the American government’s wholehearted support behind Ukraine and spoke glowingly about the idea of a NATO initiation. Russia invaded less than six days thereafter.

A few months later, after much blood had been shed, Russia made a surprising declaration: It was ready to end the war. 

In exchange for Ukrainian neutrality, Putin’s government told Kyiv it would withdraw its forces and cease the fighting. But that did not come to pass. According to Ukraine’s former top negotiator, Biden surrogate Boris Johnson hijacked the promising armistice talks, arriving in the war zone as negotiations were already under way to deliver a message on the American president’s behalf: Don’t sign a deal. Just keep fighting. Peace talks halted within the week.

Then this Sunday, just days after Donald Trump’s reelection introduced a real chance for peace, Biden played his most damaging card yet. By allowing Ukraine to launch U.S.-provided missiles inside Russia, the president increased this war’s potential damage from regional to planetary, risking nuclear proliferation in the name of more taxpayer-funded violence that benefits none of the parties involved.

Except permanent Washington.