Nationalist Uprising: Ireland REVOLTS. Will The West WIN?! | Guest: Glenn Greenwald
Watch the FULL EPISODE with Glenn Greenwald only at https://censored.tv/ promo code “OFFENSIVE” for 20% off where you get this show every Thursday night at 10PM EST + all my other shows commercial free - Keep free speech media alive!
__
DESCRIPTION: Journalist, Glenn Greenwald, joins to discuss the rise of right wing populism and nationalism in recent weeks. Javier Melei just won the presidency in Argentina and he's an outspoken libertarian, the anti-immigration party just won the majority in the Netherlands, and Trump is running again in the next year. Is this just a psy-op to make the right wing think they're winning when they have something crazy planned for next year? Or are we really winning? The Irish are revolting and teaching us what to do next. RESIST
__
⇩ FOLLOW GLENN ⇩Show more X: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald
Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/GGreenwald Show less
I mean, there seems to be somewhat of a right-wing or nationalist up Geert Wilders in the Netherlands.
There are backlashes of protests in France and in Ireland.
And I can feel the momentum as Trump is moving into his next run for the president of the United States.
But before we even jump and talk into that, do you really feel like there's a genuine, authentic populist, nationalist uprising brewing, or is this just the elites once again putting a little steam valve so that we don't fully revolt or fully resist their global takeover?
If you go back a couple of years, and I don't know if you know, but I live in Brazil and have for some time in 2018, there was this election of Jair Bolsonaro, who was a complete departure from everything that came before him.
For 16 years, Brazil had been run by the center-left, left-wing government, the Workers' Party of Lula de Silva.
And out of nowhere, Bolsonaro, who was in Congress for 30 years, considered this very far-right figure on the kind of margins, was able to parlay a lot of media appearances and then a lot of anger toward political elites into a presidential run that no one at the beginning expected would get near close to victory.
And he ended up winning rather easily.
And so you have Trump in 2016, Bolsonaro in 2018.
You have a string of victories since obviously that was preceded by Brexit, which I would put into the same populist right-wing revolt.
And now you have, as you said, Millet in Argentina, the extraordinary victory of the far right in the Netherlands.
But I think the one really important thing when you look at all of them is they actually have wildly different ideologies.
I mean, Millay in Argentina is just a classic deconstructive state, libertarian of the most dogmatic kind, whereas Trump was a kind of economic populist figure the way Maureen Le Pen is.
More benefits when you retire, ranting and railing against the evil of large corporations.
Couldn't really be more different in terms of economic philosophy.
Same with Bolsonaro, who had a lot of differences with Trump ideologically.
But what they all have in common is they're channeling a rage toward whatever you want to call it, the neoliberal elite, globalist institutions, just the prevailing status quo structure of power.
And whoever is able to do that, be kind of charismatic, be perceived as an outsider, and promise to burn down the system, which usually ends up manifesting in a populist far-right figure, is increasingly successful.
And so, this kind of steam valve that you're talking about, this sort of outlet, I think comes not from the fact that these people are trying to deceive the populace into believing they're more radical than they are.
I think, and I saw this with Bolsonaro, I certainly saw this with Trump.
They ended up kind of being weak figures, not really able to do nearly any of what they promised, because there still is a very strong establishment structure that is built around them that is designed to endure whatever elections people vote in, even when they vote the way they're not supposed to vote.
And I think that's a really important thing to understand: is that even when you elect someone who authentically wants to burn down the status quo, burn down the establishment that protects it, establishment power is very real and doesn't just disappear because they lose an election once.
Well, and I think you bring up an extremely good point, something that I want to discuss here, because you know, a lot of times the right wing, I think, has gotten so accustomed to losing and conceding ground that there's become almost this reactionary de facto arm of the right-wing media, especially on Twitter, that sort of latches onto anything that looks like it could be a win and exaggerates it to the audience.
I find it to be extremely dangerous.
So, Melee, Mealy, depending on your accent, how you pronounce it, Melee.
You know, he's an individual who ran for Argentina.
I want to play a video that went viral.
I will let you know if you're listening to this audio only on iTunes, Spotify, or Google Play.
It is going to be in, I believe, I believe it's Spanish.
Yeah, yeah, I believe Spanish does have subtitles, so you're welcome to watch.
It's about two minutes.
But let me go ahead and let me play this to show you the rhetoric.
If you're not familiar with what we're talking about, here's an interview that he gave to a news station about what he was planning to do with leftists, which is token language, important language.
And we're going to discuss right after this with Glenn, whether or not that this is genuinely something that will translate into policy, or if this is just behavior, like he said, to enrage people or to capitalize on their anger against wokeism.
unidentified
this.
Al zurdo de mierda no le podés dar ni un milímetro.
¿Pero me podés definir zurdo de mierda?
Todos los colectivistas, los que ponen esa idea.
¿Qué le ponés de mierda?
Porque son una mierda.
O sea, no, pero si pensás distinto te van a aniquilar.
Ese es el punto.
Es decir, vos al zurdo no le podés dar un milímetro porque le das un milímetro y lo tomas para destrozarte.
Es decir, vos no podés negociar con el zurdo.
No se negotiates.
No se negotiations, without negotiations, because they have a piador that we can do, and we have to.
Indeed, put the pañolitis, and all you can control neoliberalism, the cultanity.
Mendelsida repente engia otherists that all the culture of the culture.
Ah, sibos estás del otrolado, havos te van estropiar, teban la batar, teban ador con lo que sea, no important because porque no pensa como eso.
Y sabe que lo bueno de todo esto, ah algo bueno dodo esto porque como le rode humano, como todo nos podemos que vocar, seque no sobia, nos vína cert mejores, y cómo estamos fiendo tam mejores code, como los estamos platando la vata cultural, lo estamos pasando de riba porque no leganamos el productivo, somos superior moralment, somos superior esceticamente, somos mejores sento, y le duele, due.
Entonces como no pueden penir con la servamienta nequitimas, la xapar xa palanca en el la parato represción estado, poniendo todo receiguita para sabuno hierda.
Ya una sin no pueding, no puede entu viedo un que vajar la nota.
So, uh, let's talk about this, uh, particularly, Glenn.
I mean, right here, he's he's coming off and he's basically saying, It sounds like I'm reading a right-wing person's uh X, formerly known as Twitter feed, right?
They they hate us with their architecture.
We're smarter, we're better, we're gonna come back, we're gonna take these shit leftists, these left tards.
Um, very inflammatory language.
I love it, man.
I'm really, I'm really into it.
I'm ostensibly a right-wing individual, uh, but I'm not into bullshit.
And I feel like I've been let down more times than not, especially in Trump's sec, uh, his term and with the election of kind of figuring out what's going on.
Is this authenticity, do you believe, from what we're seeing, or is this just going to be another, you know, the election America was stolen, donate, and we're all left with less money, exhausted from our energy, and we've gained no ground in the political spectrum.
So, clearly, what he's doing is politically popular, and I think that is important because the amount of contempt and even hatred he's spouting,
spewing for the journalist who's questioning him as a representative of journalism generally, mainstream journalism generally, but also the kind of ruling class is the fact that it is politically popular to express that level of contempt and hatred for the ruling elite is a very important commentary on where things are going.
Because when the population feels such a breach with the ruling class, I mean, it's sort of like French Revolution territory where the aristocrats have themselves walled off in Versailles and they feel very secure and very safe.
And out of the gates, there's these hordes and masses who want their heads on a pike, and oftentimes they don't realize it.
And what he's channeling there is that sentiment that is very real.
And I don't think that should just be written off as theater or political bullshit because that is a sentiment that is widespread in multiple countries.
I don't know if you saw, there was a viral video recently in Canada with the Canadian leftist, Pierre Polivray, who was being questioned by a very typical kind of, I think she was from the CBC, and he was just kind of eating an apple and he didn't stop eating this apple during the interview.
And he was just like very, he was so contemptuous of her questions that he was practically yawning, but like also making clear how much kind of contempt he had for her.
And that went viral because this is the sort of thing that people feel and that is important.
The problem is, if you aren't prepared to really do the work to dismantle establishment power, and Jair Bolsonaro was exactly the sort of figure that you just saw in Brazil, and he got almost nothing done because he was very ill-prepared to stand up up to the oligarch class, the big Brazilian media, the judiciary.
He almost ended up in prison at the end of his term.
He is now actually barred from running again, and he very well white very well may end up in jail and a lot of his allies went to prison.
He lost the war.
Same with Trump.
Trump ended up indicted in four jurisdictions.
A lot of what he promised to do, lock her up with Hillary, build the wall, make Mexico pay for it.
None of that happened.
And I think what you need is not just somebody who is connected to these popular sentiments and is willing to express them and feels them themselves, but somebody who's shrewd enough and smart enough to have a respect for this establishment power that they hate, enough to understand why it's powerful and have real strategies for trying to subvert and undermine it.
Because if you don't have that, it'll be cathartic.
People will feel happy for a few days, like a sugar rush that like, hey, one of us won.
And there'll be interviews like that, but not much will change.
Whether Javier Malay is an example of somebody, I think he is kind of more substantive than, say, Trump and Bolsonaro.
He's an economist.
He's studied his libertarianism.
He's a true believer in it.
He understands it.
But whether he's politically capable of dismantling the kind of prongs of establishment power, I think remains to be seen.
But so far, as you suggest, a lot of this is more catharsis than it is a real confrontation with institutional authority.
Well, and I want to touch on this later in the show when we get a little more into the Israel-Gaza stuff.
Maybe one of the things that raises a red flag for me, and I don't want to be a black pillar, but it's just the fact that a lot of these guys are not just pro-Israel, which I don't think there's any problem with being pro-Israel.
It's not just that they are Zionist, because obviously a lot of my family is evangelical Christian and they're very staunch to Zionist, but politically motivated, meaning like you find with Mealy is that he says that one of his main goals is to move the embassy to Jerusalem for Argentina.
Now, that seems pretty innocuous and not that complicated for any Westerner or even someone in South America.
But I always wonder, like with some of these other alternative motives, do you think people like this are so Zionist, right?
He's talking about the Torah, but he specifically doesn't say Talmud.
He studies under a rabbi, says it's strictly religious.
Is this like, again, similar virtue signaling?
Because like AI PAC in the U.S. says that 98% of their races, they win.
He's doing this for a political advantage.
Or are these people in the West really just psyops like they're, you know, brought out to be by some on the more fringes of the right, that their Zionism is what allowed them to be in these positions?
And this Zionism is an existential threat to right-wing nationalism because it brings dual allegiance.
Like, where do you find that falling on the spectrum?
The fact, as we're going to transition to after this question, into talking about the Netherlands, their election, and the similar right-wing nationalist uprising, where does the Zionism fit in the fact that all these leaders seem to believe allegiance to the state of Israel is something fundamental to their political ideology?
And like all of these right-wing figures that we've been talking about have this extreme allegiance to Israel.
The very first thing Bolsonaro did, the very first thing after he won in 2018, I mean, Brazil, which is a huge country.
It's the sixth most populous country in the world, plagued with more problems than I can describe, even if I had five hours to do it.
The first thing he did after winning was he got on the plane and he flew to Tel Aviv, met with Israeli security officials, got baptized in the Jordan River, spent, I think, like six, seven days in Israel, came back and was singing its praises.
Trump had a little bit of kind of heterodoxy at the beginning when he was saying, I think we're too pro-Israel.
As a result, we've lost the ability to try and forge a peace deal between the Palestinians and the Israelis because we have no credibility to do that.
And this peace deal is crucial to our national security because the lack of a peace deal is what causes there to be so much anti-American sentiment in the region.
It's the reason why so many people hate us and want to come and attack us.
We just have this instance where the bin Laden letter from 2002 explaining 9-11 was censored in part because it talked about how the people in that region hate the United States for many reasons, including interference and bombing of their countries.
But one major reason was decades of support for Israel and their empowering the Israelis to bomb the Palestinians.
And a lot of American generals have talked about how American national security is undermined by our support for Israel.
And then Trump, after a little bit of kind of heterodoxy and heresy on Israel, got right back into line, became one of the most pro-Israel presidents in history.
His son, Jared Kushner, is a religious Jew who has a lot of ties to Israel.
And then you see this repeating itself over and over.
Geert Wilders, who just had this shock victory in the Netherlands, who's talking about the de-Islamization of the Netherlands, in his office has a flag of Holland, his country, right next to the Israeli flag.
He too is married to a religious woman who's a religious Jew who has a lot of ties to Israel.
And then here you have Javier Malay, who just a couple of weeks ago in the middle of a campaign rally for himself, draped himself in the Israeli flag.
Now, and Maureen Le Pen is doing that as well.
So I think part of this is kind of understandable in the sense that Israel has become, this never used to be the case, but Israel has become a country that is very right-wing.
Its government is far more right-wing than before.
And it has sort of the attributes of a kind of right-wing nationalism that I think a lot of right-wing nationalists around the world admire.
They are an ethno-state.
They say, you know, only people like us, Jews, can be in power in Israel.
It's a state for people who share our religion.
They have a wall up.
They're very militarized.
They obviously have no problem bombing anyone they perceive to be their enemy, bombing Muslims.
And kind of hostility toward Islam, hostility toward Muslims has become an important cause in the international right.
And so a lot of people look at Israel and kind of say, wow, there's some nationalism.
They're building a wall.
They don't take shit from their enemies and from Islam.
And that seems admirable.
The problem I think people should have with this is that support for Israel is completely conventional and central to the sort of left liberal hegemonic institutions that these people claim they want to combat.
All of the EU is behind Israel.
Joe Biden is one of the most staunchly pro-Israel politicians on the planet.
When Donald Trump moved the embassy to Jerusalem and it was going to be controversial, the reason it wasn't was because Chuck Schumer stood up and defended Trump and said, I agree with Trump's decision to move the embassy to Israel.
So if you're being so pro-Israel, so, and again, it's not that these people just are saying, here's my foreign policy list, one of which is I support the state of Israel.
It's central to their identity.
They're draping themselves literally with the Israeli flag while running as a nationalist to put their country first.
What you're really saying is, I intend to uphold and to be a part of the international order.
While I say I'm going to put my country first and the citizens of my country first, I seem to have a huge focus on this other country on the other side of the world that doesn't seem to have a lot to do with the people of my country or its various problems.
And I do think it started there's grounds for suspicion about what this means in terms of how much of a kind of dissident the person really is when it comes to the global structure, the global elite, the kind of standard foreign policy that the West has insisted upon and imposed for so long.
It seems a quite paradoxical stance to take for someone who's simultaneously saying, my driving identity is nationalism.
To prioritize and so venerate this foreign country right, and it does seem weird to me though, that people can't distinguish this, because from the outside looking in, i'm not as blackpilled Glenn, as some people.
You know, there's always those reactionaries on every political spectrum right, that are just like they hear one word, and it's these trigger words right, you know especially um, I always talk about this sort of like people who don't believe in faith right they they, you know, hear somebody.
It's like, oh well, you know you, you're not, you know you can't change, you'll never change.
It's like well, people can change and you shouldn't necessarily be brought on by trigger words, because sometimes, you know, people grow in their ideology.
But I, but I hear these words, and they're all staunch Zionists, and it's not that i'm really alarmed because of just, you know, the support for Israel.
But, like you said, it's that support for Israel seems to be a part of a larger international cabal or global effort and no, not just of some like evil Jews.
It's also, I mean, we're talking about every race, every religion of people across countries.
We're talking about cartels, from oil cartels to banking cartels, to the military industrial cartels.
I mean, these individuals all seem to be set on one thing, which is securing the state of Israel and making sure that it remains in its current hostile state to its neighbors around them.
And at the result of that, you know someone like myself who maybe wasn't even so much politically active due to being a child during these formative years, you know, i've seen the destabilization of the entire Middle East and North Africa, unnecessarily destabilized, at behest of foreign policy that some might say is Pro-Zionist, others may say is Pro-American.
And I might say there's no distinction between pro-Zionism and pro-American imperialism in that region today, although I wish it was different.
You know, I want to bring up this other individual who ran, and I want to talk about the comparisons between Argentina and between the Netherlands.
The Netherlands anti-immigration party, I believe now, are we at 37 seats, do you know?
So I don't know if it's different in Brazil, but in a lot of countries, there's not a two-party scheme.
And it's really about getting the dominance.
So sometimes when you get that many seats, that would be the equivalent of basically gaining like 70% of U.S. political seats of one party because there's these factions and divisions.
And if they can court other parties as well to vote alongside them or to give them support, then they're even more of a danger and a threat.
Now, similarly, I'm going to bring up this video here of this man who is named Geert Wilders, and this is his party is anti-immigration.
And this is in English, so you can track along with me.
But here's his take on immigrants, immigration.
And you can tell me for yourself what you think about this.
Is this theatrics?
Is this performance?
Or are we really seeing an authentic and organic rise of right-wing populism and nationalism?
Check this out.
unidentified
Moroccans are overrepresented enormously in the Dutch crime statistics.
More than 60% of the Moroccan youth under the age of 23 has been arrested by the Dutch police.
They are in general, when it comes to violent street crimes, 20 times more often been arrested on many crimes.
If a given society has a problem with members of one particular group, is it wise for a politician to ostracize the whole group?
Well, you know, it's wise to tell the truth.
I did not invent that people from Morocco are overrepresented in the statistics.
You know, I think I want to bring up this before I go to you, an important stat here.
This is going around the internet currently, which is the Netherlands had done a crime stat research on who's committing the majority of violent crime.
And Netherland or Dutch, I should say, natural born citizens, particularly Caucasian, rank number 57 out of 100, or I don't think it's out of 100.
I think it's out of 75.
They don't even make the top 20.
You see here, there's Angola, Somalia, Sierra Leone, Dominican Republic, Morocco, Congo, Algeria, Tunisia, Cape Verde, Suriname, Sudan, Guyana, Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, Egypt, Colombia, Lebanon, Ghana, and Bulgaria making up the top crime suspect rates.
And so, you know, this idea that, you know, there's basically, is this authentic?
People are saying the Dutch noticed this, saw there was a problem in the country, and have now voted accordingly to change that.
Is that what's going on?
Or is this just more of the same theatrics of left versus right, populist versus, you know, authoritarian or, you know, central, you know, communist?
Or do you really feel like the tides might be turning in Europe and South America and the United States?
You know, I think on these statistics, we do have to be a little bit careful in the sense that in general, it's the case that when you have an immigrant population to a new country, that immigrant population tends to be poor, especially for the first generation, for obvious reasons.
They're not educated in that country.
They don't have the same professional opportunities.
And then there's obviously a correlation between poverty and crime as well.
People who are poor are more likely to steal because there's a greater need to steal.
So if you look at American crime statistics, there's an obvious correlation between poverty and between crime.
And a lot of times that's people who are poor who have been in the United States for several generations who aren't immigrants.
And I was just in Amsterdam and spent a few days there, maybe three weeks ago and a little bit in Holland as well.
And it's striking what a safe place it is compared to American cities.
I mean, if you walk around at night, you don't barely see the police.
You don't see people on the streets.
So a lot of it is relative.
So it's very hard for me to say, having just visited Holland, to be able to say to what extent people are voting based on a perception that they're endangered from crime by immigrants.
I mean, one of the parts of the campaign that Geert Wilders ran on was a refusal to provide any more funds to Ukraine.
He's very much a politician who believes that the Europeans should be much more, much friendlier with the Russians and stop viewing them in an antagonistic way, stop sending their resources to a war in Ukraine that the Ukrainians can't win.
Just a couple of months ago in Slovakia, which has been one of the most pro-Ukrainian countries in all of Europe, it's a neighbor of Ukraine.
A politician who used to be the prime minister of Slovakia ran almost entirely on a platform of stopping sending money to Ukraine, and he won against the political establishment.
So I think part of it is a little bit of kind of, you know, the same thing that drove Brexit, this sort of anger in general with the entire political elite, the EU elite that's based in Brussels.
And one of their defining policies ends immigration.
Another is sending money to Ukraine.
Another is now sending money to Israel.
And so how much of this is just kind of a generalized anger toward the political establishment that hates people like Victor Orban in Hungary, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands.
They're going to do everything possible to ensure he doesn't become prime minister of the Netherlands despite that getting the most seats for his party.
I think it's hard to say.
I personally think it's a more kind of generalized anger with the establishment, but that's an example.
You know, Geert Wilders is saying we want the de-Islamization of the Netherlands.
We want to close mosques.
Basically talking about mass deportation.
I can't imagine that happening in Western Europe for quite a while because the Netherlands is part of the EU.
You have a very powerful EU that's largely run by France and Germany.
Germany, of course, under Angela Merkel took in almost a million Syrian refugees.
That became very unpopular.
And they've limited what Orban can do.
At the end of the day, this is what I guess the point I keep going back to is you can put in people like Geert Wilders.
You can put in people like Javier Malay in Argentina.
But if they don't have the means to escape dependence upon the EU, and part of Geert Wilder's platform is to leave the EU the way the UK did, because he knows that if they're part of the EU, they're very, very limited in what they can do.
All these EU countries have given up a lot of their sovereignty to Brussels.
That unless you're prepared to not just vent and say shocking things that, you know, horrify liberals in the media, but have a plan to really carry through with these policies, I do think people are going to end up disappointed more so than they are going to be excited.
Well, yeah, and I think so too, because there's a really important thing that happened just the other day in Ireland.
Ireland, of course, is a great example for what replacement migration could look like.
And even saying replacement migration is somewhat controversial today for reasons I'm still unsure because even Biden himself in 2015 discussed the idea of replacement and bringing in and making white populations minorities.
So these things are discussed by current world leaders, current global decision makers.
But of course, that term replacement, I know, is extremely sensitive.
Glenn, do you think that that's an accurate representation to call this replacement ideology, replacement migration, or as media matters, right-wing watch and these other Soros and NGO funded groups correct that this is a dog whistle for white supremacy, anti-black violence, et cetera?
