Republican Debate #2 Was Dreary, Undignified, & Unwatchable. PLUS: Outlook Significantly Worsens for Ukraine (and US Taxpayers) | SYSTEM UPDATE #152
Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET: https://rumble.com/c/GGreenwald
Become part of our Locals community: https://greenwald.locals.com/
- - -
Follow Glenn:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glenn.11.greenwald/
Follow System Update:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/SystemUpdate_
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/systemupdate__/
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@systemupdate__
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/systemupdate.tv/
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/systemupdate/
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Welcome to a new episode of System Update, our live nightly show that airs every Monday through Friday at 7 p.m.
Eastern, exclusively here on Rumble, the free speech alternative to YouTube.
Tonight, the second Republican presidential debate was held last night in the Reagan Library, sacred hallowed ground for all of us.
And to say that the participants in this debate, moderators and candidates alike, failed to do justice to this glorious setting is to dramatically understate the case.
It was close to unwatchable.
At times it was literally unwatchable, by which I mean that even though I had all sorts of unique incentives to watch the debate beyond what the ordinary voter possesses, I knew I'd have to talk about the debate on tonight's program, I was scheduled to appear on other programs throughout the day to discuss the debate.
My work as a journalist kind of requires me to watch it and in general I usually like political debates and think they're important to watch.
I battled continuously against the growing temptation to just turn it off until I finally couldn't take it anymore.
I made it through the first 50 minutes or so with decreasing levels of attention until I finally just checked out and only went back this morning to watch the rest of it because I was forced to by the commitments I had made today.
Otherwise I most definitely would not have.
I don't think there was a single good or interesting point to the entire debate except for when Chris Christie said that from now on we're gonna call Donald Trump Donald Duck and then looked at the camera with an intense amount of obvious self-satisfaction after unleashing this pre-prepared insult.
Only to find that the only laughter came from a few uncomfortable audience members who made noises slightly resembling laughter, but mostly out of pity for Christie, who was standing up on the stage with silence enveloping his big joke.
And it reminded me a great deal of when liberals in 2016 genuinely believed that they had finally found the way they were going to take down Donald Trump after the HBO host John Oliver reminded everybody that his family name was actually Drumpf.
And liberals were earnestly certain that this would be so embarrassing for the Republican frontrunner that young people and working class people and older voters would all unite in contempt for Trump now that John Oliver had attached to him a difficult-to-pronounce surname.
Several of the Republican candidates unveiled brand new personalities that were directly contrary to the personality they used for the first debate.
The host from Univision asked all of the questions, almost every last one, that every Republican voter obviously and viscerally hates or doesn't care about.
The candidates spent the entire time talking over one another, where you could barely hear them and really didn't want to, and we both spent some time talking about a couple of parts of the debate in an attempt to extract meaning from them, mostly because I just feel like, I don't know, I should, rather than just ignoring the whole thing.
And then, at exactly the point when you didn't think it was possible, the war in Ukraine has gotten worse for all of those in the West who are its chief sponsors to say nothing of the Ukrainians who are actually the ones dying in this war.
You may have thought that it was impossible to surpass this week's low point, which happened on Friday in the Canadian Parliament when Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stood by the side of Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky and led a robust, enthusiastic, and prolonged standing ovation for an elderly Ukrainian gentleman they all hailed as heroic and noble in unison.
Only for it to turn out that the person they were all flamboyantly honoring was someone who was an actual soldier who, during World War II, fought in a Ukrainian SS unit that answered to German Nazis and to Adolf Hitler.
The videotape scene of Prime Minister Trudeau and President Zelensky leading one of the West's great parliaments and lavishing a standing ovation upon an actual Nazi SS soldier ended up upsetting, quite a bit it turns out, various Canadian Jewish groups.
Trudeau ended up kind of apologizing, though he somehow managed to attach his apology to some babbling warnings about the dangers of Russian disinformation.
The Speaker of the Canadian House of Commons fell on his sword and resigned his position, noting, correctly I guess, that it would be difficult to carry out his duties after having invited someone who never really hid his Nazi past to be heralded and celebrated and honoured by the Canadian Prime Minister and the Ukrainian President while all the world watched.
Notably, President Zelensky has yet to apologize for his role in allotting a fighter with the Nazi SS.
That is likely because, as the Ukrainian-American journalist Lev Golinkin explained on our show on Tuesday night, many, if not most, of the most fanatical fighters in Ukraine, on whom Zelensky is now relying themselves, have various connections to, if not outright embraces, of very similar ideologies.
And they would likely be hurt and angered to watch their leader apologize for having applauded one of their brethren.
But the worst of the news in Ukraine involves new data reported today from the New York Times in graphic form, literally in graphic form, that vividly shows that the front line in Ukraine, namely the hundreds of miles of the front line of deeply entrenched Russian troops and defensive positions that allows Moscow to now control roughly 20% of Ukrainian territory, has barely budged at all since the beginning of the year, more than nine months ago.
That means that the United States and the European Union have spent hundreds of billions of dollars this year alone, and thousands upon thousands of young Ukrainian men, including teenagers and other conscripts who are desperately trying to flee that country, finally realizing that Western psychopaths and neocons are using them as cannon fodder for their own selfish purposes, having nothing to do with the well-being of Ukrainians.
They have died over the last nine months in huge numbers for no benefit of any kind.
It's the kind of senseless and horrific trench warfare we last saw in World War I, where countries send their young citizens to certain death in battle that barely moves the line of fighting for months or even years at a time.
Things are so bad in Ukraine that the American trans woman, Sarah Ashton Cirillo, who was fired two weeks ago by the Ukrainian Defense Ministry after she made comments that were too deranged even for Kiev, was rehired quickly, only to be fired again after she got caught on video by two Russian pranksters who pretended to be a Ukrainian former president, where she admitted everything about this war that the Western press and the Western state leaders who support it have done their best to hide.
We'll show you this new data as presented by the New York Times today as well as the admissions of this Western American spokesperson for the Ukrainian military just to get a sense for how absolutely senseless and sociopathic this war and the West's feeling of it has really become.
Before we begin, a few programming notes.
First, we are encouraging our audience to download the Rumble app, which functions both on your phone or smart TV that enables you to follow this program and other programs on Rumble.
And if you turn on notifications, which we hope you will, you'll be notified the minute this program or any of those programs begins broadcasting live on Rumble, which means you don't have to wait around if we're a little bit late and you don't have to try and remember the time that these programs are on.
You'll get immediately notified.
You just click on it and can be taken to watch it, which really helps the programs and the platform.
platform.
As another reminder, System Update is also available in podcast form.
You can find it and each episode 12 hours after they first are broadcast live here on Rumble across all major podcasting platforms, including Spotify and Apple and every other.
And if you follow, rate, and review the show, it really helps boost the program's visibility.
As we do every Tuesday and Thursday night, as soon as we're done with our one-hour show, roughly speaking, live here on Rumble, we will move to Locals, which is part of the Rumble platform for our interactive after show to take your questions and comment on your feedback, your suggestions for the kinds of things we should cover, people we should invite on.
It's a show that is available exclusively for subscribers to our Locals community, so it gives you access to that show if you become a member.
It also gives you access to the daily transcripts of each program that we post there, as well as the independent journalism that we produce there, and it really helps produce and support the independent journalism that we do here on Rumble.
To sign up and become a member of our Locals community, simply click the Join button right below the video on the Rumble page, and that will take you to our Locals community.
For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update, starting right now.
Even under the best of circumstances, it is almost impossible to get the public, and even political junkies and political journalists, to care much about Republican presidential debates.
We flew to the first one in Milwaukee, which was mostly interesting because it was the first one, and watched begrudgingly at least as much as we could take last night.
But the part of it that is missing, and it's missing its soul and its core and its guts because of it,
is due to Donald Trump's strategic decision that as he watches his poll numbers not just maintain but continue to grow, where he has a historic lead in a contested primary for any time in modern polling history, making the strategic decision not to go to these debates, not to elevate the importance of the people who are on the stage, not to make it appear as though he's competing with them to stay above The fray only presented himself as a challenger to Joe Biden.
Whatever you think of the merits of that strategy or not, it's obviously one that makes basic political sense.
I personally wish Trump would participate in these debates.
I think just as a kind of principle, if you're seeking major political power, you should have the responsibility to at least give the voters one or two debate appearances, the same way that I think Joe Biden is making a mistake, but obviously counting on the same strategic rationale for refusing to debate or even acknowledge.
The two Democratic primary challengers, Marianne Williamson and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., even though they're polling often ahead of many or most of the other Republican candidates, they just pretend there's no primary debate.
They pretend Joe Biden is not the nominee.
I think that's disrespectful to Democratic voters who say in large numbers they want a candidate, an alternative to Joe Biden.
Although the Republican Party seems a much larger number to want Trump, so it's almost more justifiable there.
But in any event, the fact that he's just not there, Makes the debate, obviously and inherently and viscerally, way less important, of way less significance, of way less drama and tension than it would have if he's there.
So that's already a gigantic uphill battle to climb if you're, for example, Fox News and paying a lot of money for exclusive rights to host the debate, to broadcast the debate, to manufacture the debate, to make people care enough.
And in fact, the first debate The one from Milwaukee had roughly 50% of the audience that the first presidential debate in 2016 had, where Donald Trump obviously was a participant.
So you can see this huge drop-off.
My guess is there'll be a drop-off of similar, if not worse, levels for this last debate, which last night just lacked any kind of drama.
And then on top of that, again, even under the best of circumstances, it's hard to make people pay attention.
It's hard to make people watch it.
Everything that was done as part of this debate, and I'm speaking here not even as a journalist, just as a viewer trying to pay attention, was almost designed to be as poor as possible.
Starting from the people that they had participating as the moderators, who are not exactly renowned as being great journalists, who aren't particularly popular, who don't represent the views of any large numbers of people.
I suppose Dana Perino is the exception.
She hosts The Five, which is a very popular program on Fox.
But even there, she was kind of a member of the Bush White House, the Bush administration.
A spokesperson for it, not really somebody who inspires a great deal of enthusiasm even if you like that show.
They then had a British journalist who works with Fox along with a Univision journalist who was there to ask a lot of questions apparently about immigration and concerns of Latino voters and some of what she regarded as the excesses of the culture war views taken by the campaigns of the Republican Party
Candidates, and so it's just this gigantic mishmash of agendas and questions, and then on top of that, obviously the challenge for each one of these candidates is to try and make an impression, to try and show they're kind of the leader of the debate.
You had several of the candidates who last time were criticized for kind of disappearing into the woodwork, like Senator Tim Scott, who barely was visible.
I don't remember a single thing he said in that first debate.
And then you had Vivek Ramaswamy who was criticized for being too aggressive or too scornful or contemptuous of the other candidates.
And then you had Chris Christie who seemed just obsessed with insulting Donald Trump.
And so they obviously had consultants in their ear telling them to act differently.
And a lot of them showed up with just completely different personalities.
Just completely antithetical.
To the personality that they showed up with at the first debate.
Tim Scott was very relaxed and laid back and very positive, very soft-spoken, which has been part of his appeal as a politician.
And then last night, it was like he was injected with some kind of agrosteroid that made him interrupt everybody three seconds after they began speaking, trying to talk over them.
It was just very uncomfortable.
It was like watching people bicker.
You could barely hear what they were saying half the time because the moderators had no ability, no willingness, no competence to interrupt them and maintain order, some degree of order.
Obviously you want some exchanges between the candidates, but you can't just have a free for all where everyone just talks whenever they want, especially when you have candidates desperate to establish themselves as the alpha candidate on the stage.
A lot of the candidates have a obviously visceral contempt for Vivek.
That reminds me a lot of the kind of contempt that Democratic candidates in 2020 had for Pete Buttigieg, who was a very similar kind of young candidate who had this kind of Ivy League pedigree, who obviously has a great deal of confidence in his own intellect and that obviously
is something that he shows and it offends a lot of people who feel like they've been in politics for a lot of decades and shouldn't be spoken down to or condescended to by somebody who was never anything more than the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, which he became by winning about 7,000 votes.
And there was this visceral hatred that it was, at times, hilarious, but also uncomfortable to watch, coming from people like Amy Klobuchar.
Clearly, most, if not all, of the Republican candidates on that stage have the same kind of hatred For Vivek, especially Nikki Haley, Tim Scott, Chris Christie, and so to the extent you really picked up anything, it was just the fact that they all kind of despise Vivek.
I suppose if I had my pundit hat on and I'm gonna put it on for like three seconds and then rip it off and burn it and never put it on again, I guess if I had to pick who did the best, Ron DeSantis did a competent job and kind of maximizing his attributes or whatever and I think Vivek again made a strong impression But who cares?
I don't think it's gonna make the slightest difference.
There's been nothing that has dented Trump's lead and perhaps something melodramatic or unexpected might but certainly nothing that happened last night Was anything close to that in terms of being a dynamic-changing or race-transforming kind of event?
Not even for any of the candidates there, let alone for Trump himself.
Notably, Trump decided to, once again, do counter-programming the last time when there was a Republican debate on Fox News.
He sat down for an exclusive interview with Tucker Carlson live on Twitter at exactly the time that the debate aired.
Last night, Trump went to Michigan, where he decided to capitalize on what really has become a strength of his, which is speaking to people who don't have college degrees who are working class voters.
Obviously Joe Biden is making a big play for them as well.
He went and participated for about 11 minutes.
on the strike line with UAW workers and members of the union.
Trump went to Michigan to speak with other workers, non-union workers, that we spoke about the UAW strike as well.
And he basically, while these Republican candidates were bickering over things like LGBT issues, which they were asked about, but the Univision moderator and other things that I don't think are particularly high in the priority list of voters.
Trump was talking about meat and potato issues, working class issues, that I think, more than anything, was responsible for his 2016 success, both in the primary and in the general election.
So if you look at CNN's report from yesterday, there you see the headline, Trump makes play for Michigan's working class voters, as he skips the GOP debate.
And the article says the following, quote, Trump used his time at Drake Enterprises, a non-union auto parts supplier in Clinton Township, to appeal to the group of current and former union workers gathered there.
He sought to cast himself as a fighter for union workers, seeking their leader's endorsement for president as he delivered a sustained attack on Biden's electric vehicle policies.
And obviously, that is going to be a main attack that Republicans are going to use, that it is the Biden administration's obsession with or fixation on electric vehicles that has made it increasingly difficult for traditional automakers, like the kind the UAW workers are striking at, to be competitive in the world.
That is a big debate.
There's a lot of debate to be had over that claim.
But when you go and you speak to people's core concerns, I remember The first time in 2016 I was, like everybody else, feeding on the same polling data, hearing the same claims that Hillary's victory was all but certain.
I remember the first time I really believed Trump actually had a chance to win, which was when he went to West Virginia about two weeks after Hillary Clinton went to West Virginia.
And when Hillary Clinton went to West Virginia, she notoriously told the people gathered, including a lot of coal workers who have worked in the coal industry for generations, that it's time for them to accept that the coal industry is dead.
Their jobs are not coming back.
We are moving to a clean energy economy.
And don't worry, this very modernized economy is going to be great for them, but they need to give up on the idea of coal.
And Trump went to West Virginia with the exact opposite message.
He said, I know you're suffering because the coal industry is dying.
The people in Washington have let it die.
And I'm going to bring it back and I'm going to bring back your jobs, your quality, high paying jobs.
And they interviewed a coal worker.
After Trump's speech and they said to the coal worker, do you actually believe Trump is going to be able to do that?
And he said, no, I don't think he is going to be able to do that.
But the mere fact that he can come here and recognize the deprivations we're facing and speak to our anger and speak to the things we're angry about and understand them and not just tell us to get over it and to move into the 21st century, but to understand that these changes that have been engineered are having a huge detrimental effect on our life.
To me makes it clear that he cares about what's happening in our lives.
And I think that is a political talent that Trump has always had going back to even what made him a TV star.
This kind of intuitive sense for how to speak to working class people in a way that Democratic Party leaders who are almost always reeking of the kind of professional managerial class, the Ivy League trajectory.
And yes, it's true that Trump has lived his life very wealthy.
He grew up in a wealthy family.
He also himself, obviously, has lived a very wealthy life, to put that mildly.
But at the same time, culturally speaking, the fact that he harbors this kind of anti-elite resentment that comes from feeling like an outer borough kid who grew up in Queens, who never really lost his Queen accent for having this resentment toward Manhattan elites, was a lot like what Richard Nixon had, this kind of inherent visceral contempt for East Coast elites and for Ivy League elites that a lot of the public shares.
And if that's something that you're able to channel authentically in a raw and visceral way like Trump is, I continue to believe that is a very potent political talent that is going to continue to resonate even more so as the society comes more and more to hate establishment institutions and to believe I continue to believe that is a very potent political talent that is going to continue to resonate even
And I think that more than anything, it's the reason why no matter how much you keep indicting Trump and even if you end up convicting him in a Manhattan courtroom or a Washington, D.C. courtroom.
Most of the people who are currently supporting him, if not all of them, are going to start to support him even more because they're going to feel like he's the victim of an illegitimate system, the same illegitimate system that is victimizing them.
Let me show you one part of the debate, and it may be the only part that I consider substantive and interesting.
There may be a couple of others, but I don't think it's worth spending time on.
It's the part of the debate where they talked about one of the true Internal divisions within the Republican Party, namely whether to support Joe Biden's policy when it comes to the war in Ukraine.
I find it incredibly notable that the majority of Republican presidential candidates on the question of this very consequential war are running on a platform of saying Joe Biden's absolutely right.
The only thing we are duty bound to do is to cheer for Joe Biden, to give him everything he's demanding, to march behind him in his noble and steadfast support for the Ukrainians as they fight against.
Russia, so if you have Nikki Haley or Chris Christie or Tim Scott or Mike Pence become the Republican nominee, you're going to have two people who don't even have to bother to debate the war in Ukraine because they already both agree that the United States needs to dig in forever and fuel and fund the war until its end no matter what.
You'll have no choice in the matter.
You can go vote for Cornel West.
As an independent candidate who will run and be against the Ukraine war, but if you want to vote for one of the major two-party candidates, the only choices you'll have, in the event that one of them is the Republican nominee, is to... you won't have a choice.
Whoever you vote for will automatically be in favor of this war, and it will continue indefinitely.
Now, there are a couple of candidates, obviously Donald Trump is one, Vivek Ramaswamy is another, who steadfastly oppose Any further U.S.
aid to the war in Ukraine?
Ron DeSantis has kind of hinted at this opposition, sometimes walked it back.
It's been a little bit hard to know exactly what he thinks, but there was some more clarity last night in terms of the exchange in which he participated on this question.
So let's take a look at that first to see what they said on the question of this war.
- The reports say President Putin has ordered assassinations across Europe, cheated on arms control treaties with the US, and seeks to work with China to force our decline.
President Reagan believed that if you want to prevent a war, you better be prepared to fight one.
Today the Republican Party is at odds over aid to you. - Now notice that the framing of that question, the premise of that question, not only tracks standard Republican, Bush-Shaney, neo-con ideology forever, Oh, we're at the Reagan War Library.
Obviously Reagan would have supported this war.
He believed that the way you fight and win is by being willing to go to war with your enemies.
Putin is a horrible guy.
He murders his opponents as though we're not supporting all kinds of countries that do the same.
But the whole framing of this question is designed to invoke Ronald Reagan.
And to say, this is the Republican Party, we're supposed to be in favor of these wars.
She's on Fox News, she's one of the people on Fox News who vehemently supports this war.
She comes out of that Bush-Cheney tradition.
And so you can see how the question is framed already, to poison the well, and she tracks perfectly the arguments recently made in this new ad by Bill Kristol, which we covered on Tuesday night, that is aimed at Republican Party voters to not emphasize any longer.
This obviously fraudulent narrative about how we're such kind and empathetic and benevolent people who love democracy so much and we're over there to save the Ukrainians.
But now it's becoming a much more self-interested argument that, look, this war is a good thing because we're not really spending much.
We're not sacrificing anything.
The people who are dying are young Ukrainian teenagers.
So let's just keep having them die because we're getting this great benefit, which is we're weakening the Russians.
And for some reason that's in our interest.
That has become the new way they're trying to repackage and sell this war because the public is turning against it.
And so Dana Perino tracked, almost read from the script of Bill Kristol, and saying exactly that.
We're getting all these great benefits, we're not spending much money, just 5% of our overall defense budget, we're not dying, the Ukrainians are the ones dying, why not continue?
Ukraine.
The price tag so far is $76 billion.
But is it in our best interest to degrade Russia's military for less than 5% of what we pay annually on defense, especially when there are no U.S.
soldiers in the fight?
It's in our interest to end this war.
And that's what I will do as president.
We are not going to have a blank check.
We will not have U.S.
troops.
And we're going to make the Europeans do what they need to do.
But they've sent money to pay bureaucrats' pensions and salaries and funding small businesses halfway around the world.
Our own country is being invaded.
We don't even have control of our own territory.
We have got to defend the American people before we even worry about all these other things.
And I watch these guys in Washington, D.C., and they don't care about the American people.
They don't care about the fentanyl deaths.
They don't care about the communities being overrun because of this border.
They don't care about the Mexican drug cartels.
So as commander-in-chief, I will defend this country's sovereignty.
So, again, I mean, I guess he was closer to the position of Donald Trump and Cornel West and Vivek Ramaswamy, but he didn't really quite say he would cut off war funding.
He said, I'll end this war diplomatically.
He said, I want NATO and European countries to pay more.
Which presumably means the war would continue, that the West would continue, and what happens if the European countries actually pay more?
Does that mean that then he'd be happy and satisfied and the United States would continue to fund the war?
And then he gave a lot of rhetoric that suggested that our focus is on the wrong place, that we're focused on this other country on the other side of the world, Ukraine, when we have all these other problems on which we should be focused instead.
But he again avoided taking a very definitive, clear position that allows me to say that Governor DeSantis favors The immediate cessation of military and financial aid, no more further aid, transfer from the U.S.
Treasury to Ukraine.
I don't think he's ever really explicitly stated that.
He kind of beats around that, he implies it, but he leaves a lot of wiggle room so that if someone can accuse him of having said that, he can have plausible deniability to say he did it.
He did say enough to cause a sort of uproar among the Nikki Haley's and Mike Pence's.
Let's listen to what happened after he was done.
Country sovereignty.
But it's not a territorial dispute.
It's never been a territorial dispute.
And 90% of the resources that we send over to Ukraine.
Oh, I don't know why I cut that out there, but what he said there is 90% of the resources we're sending to Ukraine is alone.
We're just loaning them the money.
Don't worry, they're going to pay back.
Zelensky, Kiev, they're world-renowned for their excellent credit.
They're very studious and diligent accounters of money.
10 cents go to Kiev, they register it properly, they pay back their debts.
So any minute now, we're going to get this check from Kiev for $113 billion to pay us back for the money that we're spending, or at least 90% of that.
So don't worry, says Tim Scott.
I don't know where he got that number from.
I don't know if he actually thinks anyone believes that this is a loan that we're gonna get paid back for.
But that was his answer.
Let's look at one other portion of the debate that involved this question.
The reality is just because Putin is an evil dictator does not mean that Ukraine is good.
This is a country that has banned 11 opposition parties.
A win for Russia is a win for China.
She actually went and tweeted that today.
A win for Russia is a win for China.
I think she thinks it's like a really good slogan.
You have like a majority of Americans saying we don't want any more money going to Ukraine.
We don't see the purpose of it.
Ukraine's not winning.
Nothing is happening in this war except people are senselessly dying and we're exhausting our own weapons stockpiles and sending huge amounts of money to Ukraine while our country is falling apart and she's just over here repeating like a parrot in an extremely irritating tone I find.
A win for Russia is a win for China and then going and tweeting this just like repeating it over and over.
I don't know if she thinks, like, just China is a word that invokes such a visceral response in Republicans that if you can just tell them that China's happy with something, they're going to want to do the opposite.
But that's basically what her argument amounts to.
And here you see, again, the kind of talking over each other.
There was, I think, Vivek had the floor.
He was supposed to be speaking for 15 seconds or 30 seconds.
None of them even bothered to pretend to I'll buy by those rules, the moderators didn't insist on it and therefore you just, you want, it was like a cacophony of just people screaming at each other like in a bar.
Just being slightly inebriated, just like talking over each other, you know, just being aggressive and in a very unpleasant way, not an interesting way, not a persuasive way.
And then here you have Vivek, who, you know, I met, I interviewed on the show, I interviewed him in person, but You know, he was the one on the stage that first night saying everyone up here is corrupt, everyone up here is bought and paid for, and then he showed up last night saying everyone up here are decent people.
He did then end up saying that they're just captured by a corrupt system, which I guess is kind of consistent, but also very much invoked this kind of Etiquette personality like oh, it's really wrong for us to interrupt each other.
We need to respect each other and let us finish we need to be Debating this substance and not insulting each other.
No one wants to hear insults.
Anyway, this was Their personality you can see just in the screen capture there Nikki Haley just very angry just and I do think she actually hates Vivek as I said and every time he spoke I mean it just was visible And then he was trying to be the opposite of what he was in that first debate, this kind of like jovial figure who really believes in etiquette.
I'm not sure that wears well on him.
Anyway, that's very punditry again.
I don't really care.
I just don't think that switching personalities this drastically is going to do anything other than make people question whether you have an authentic personality.
I think Vivek does.
I think the more he's himself, the more effective he's going to be.
Personal insults isn't helping.
China is the real enemy, and we're driving Russia further into China's arms.
We need a reasonable peace plan to end this.
Especially, this is a country whose president, just last week... Vivek, if you let Putin have Ukraine that's a green light to China, to take Taiwan, peace comes through strength.
We need a reasonable plan to peace.
Didn't it seem like there was just some, like, guy who was taken out of his mausoleum from, like, the 1940s and just thrown for, like, a moment on the end of that stage, and he was like, We got peace through strength!
It's a win for China!
It's a very kind of archaic way of speaking and thinking.
This idea that the only way we can show people that we mean business is to just constantly go around the world sending weapons everywhere and ensuring death and destruction.
This was the argument we heard for 20 years that drove the war on terror.
That if we don't prove we're willing to go around the world and just indiscriminately murder people, that it's going to send a signal of weakness to Al Qaeda, as if it's not going around killing people.
Children and wedding parties and all kinds of innocent human beings that makes people want to come and attack us, that that's actually for some reason something that's going to make them think twice about our doing it.
So anyway, that was, I guess, the only substantive part of this debate.
There was a part of the debate about immigration, about the need to go bomb Mexico or to militarize the border.
But this was the only real substantive exchange that I thought was worth looking at.
And the reason I think it's worth looking at is because you have all these Republican politicians who, I think, as Vivek correctly said in the first debate, are bought and paid for.
They're bought and paid for by this military industrial complex, by these neocon think tank groups.
Nikki Haley just came off the board of Boeing.
We examined her financial, her personal finances after she resigned very quickly as Trump's UN ambassador.
She went and made eight million dollars for herself by giving speeches at pro-war groups, by serving on the board of Boeing, and now here she is like most of them are doing.
Mike Pence went around the world enriching himself as well, speaking to all kinds of pro-war groups as well, and here they are just kind of now advocating the agenda of their masters which is to fund this war.
It's just becoming increasingly uncomfortable because this war is becoming more and more anathema within their own party and within the public opinion of the majority of the American public that wants no more money going to this war.
And when we come back right after this announcement, and again, we've been talking over the last couple of weeks about how important new sponsors are to our show, and we have one for you tonight and one way that you can support Rumble and this kind of war that is being waged against it and support our show as well is to patronize our sponsors and we have one for you tonight and one way that you can support Rumble and this kind of war that is being waged against It actually helps their business.
So we're going to show you this new sponsor, and when we come back, we're going to show you the new events that are happening in Ukraine and the reason why it's more unhinged than ever to insist that we continue our same policy, which is producing nothing of benefit except for a very few institutions like the CIA and which is producing nothing of benefit except for a very few institutions like the CIA and Raytheon and the rest of these arms dealers, and it's coming But first, here's this word from our sponsor.
Hi, everyone.
This is Glenn Greenwald.
One of the things we've been talking about is this war that is taking place against Rumble from a lot of different sectors, and a major part of it is trying to drive away a lot of advertisers to the site, which is obviously a crucial part of how we do our programming.
So we are very grateful to our old sponsors who have been sticking with us, which is all of them, and our new sponsors as well.
And we're really excited to welcome a new one tonight, which is GenuCell, which is about the fact that As you get older and as you start to age, and obviously this isn't something I know personally, but I do talk to a lot of people who are aging, who are getting older.
And one of the things I've discovered from having spoken with a lot of people who are is that there are a lot of positives that come from aging.
You get a lot wiser.
There are things that you learn that you didn't know when you were younger.
There are physical advantages.
You start realizing the importance of taking care of yourself.
There are benefits of learning how to better take care of your body.
A lot of people who are older are in some of the best shape ever.
But there can be some negative and unpleasant, even very unsightly and borderline disgusting things that can happen as well.
As you get older, there are, for example, a lot of people who start developing age spots on their skin or other unsightly dark spots, puffiness and Dark rings under the eyes.
A lot of this can happen just from poor skin care, especially if you live in a place where there's a lot of sun, or if you don't take care of your skin, or just simply from aging.
And you don't have to be some kind of a narcissist, especially these days, to be a man or a woman who wants to look your best, who doesn't want to have a bunch of things on your skin that you dislike, that other people react poorly to.
And so the thing about this product, GenuCell, is one of the things we've looked into is that people really swear by it.
There are a lot of people that you can be in touch with who have used this product for a long time.
They have amazing product loyalty who swear to the fact that using this product very quickly will start to produce visible benefits.
That a lot of these horrible things on your skin will start to immediately disappear.
And one of the things we look for in sponsors is obviously I have to put my name on it and I want to make sure I'm only recommending things I trust.
There's a lot of people who claim a lot of different things on the internet.
It's easy to do, but we look for the companies that stand behind those claims.
So, for example, if they make promises and they don't work out, they will give you a full refund.
And that is true for GenuCell.
They offer you things like if you don't see visible benefits immediately, they will give you a refund.
if you don't hear from other people that you look younger within the first few weeks of its use, They'll give you a refund, and in connection with being a new sponsor of our show, they're offering a discount up to 70% for all of their products.
All you have to do is go to genucel.com and use the promo code slash glenn, G-L-E-N-N, and that will automatically trigger the discount, making clear that you are somebody who came from the show, that you're sponsoring our advertisers who are under a lot of pressure these days.
They should be rewarded for sticking with Rumble programs.
And you don't have to be embarrassed anymore about these horrific things that appear on your skin.
As you get older, sometimes even if you're younger, you now have a product that you can use and you should see immediate benefit.
And if you don't, you just go and they will give you a full refund.
So we're delighted to welcome Genucel.
Again, that's genucel.com.
The hashtag is Glenn or the promo code Glenn where you get up to 70% and we hope you will sponsor this new company that is supporting Earth.
So this polling data that we've been referencing that shows that majorities of Americans have now turned against this war as is very predictable.
Well, The history of wars in the United States over the last 70 years is virtually identical, starting from Vietnam through Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya and Syria and now Ukraine, which is that propaganda is extremely intense at the start of the war.
The media unites with the political class to rain down upon the population all kinds of emotionally stirring propaganda about why this war is different than all the others.
This is really the war.
We're on the right side.
We're protecting the South Vietnamese from communist repression and we're freeing the Iraqis from the repression of Saddam Hussein and who would be possibly against bringing democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people.
And then we're doing the same for the Libyans at the hands of this dictator who wants to murder them all in Benghazi.
And why would you be against that?
We're going there to protect the Libyan people.
We're just going to go there and remove the leader and everything's going to be great.
We're going to do the same in Syria.
We're going to liberate and emancipate the Syrians from the brutal tyranny of Bashar al-Assad in the beginning.
Everyone's very excited by this.
It sounds so fun.
It sounds so purposeful and noble.
But yeah, we're going to go and use our military to help people this time.
We're going to be on the side of the good this time.
We don't have to be embarrassed and feel ashamed.
And then six months goes by, and a year goes by, or two years goes by, and every time public opinion starts eroding because people start realizing that the promises they were made end up not being realized, and the predictions that were issued end up being false.
And that's exactly what's happening in the war in Ukraine.
And so over the last year, it's not sudden, this support for the war in Ukraine that was at 65 and 70 percent across political lines at the start, Has been gradually receding, gradually eroding.
And so the standard propagandists who know how to manipulate American public opinion have come out over the last year, the same people who always do, and assured us that, yes, it seems like this war is going nowhere, but don't worry, we have this amazing thing coming.
In Iraq it was called the Surge that was going to change everything.
That was a specialty of the Kagan family.
Kimberly Kagan and Robert Kagan and all the Victoria Nuland relatives in Bill Kristol's Weekly Standard promised that the Surge was going to change the Iraq War, make you proud to have supported it, was going to finally liberate everything, end this war.
And we started hearing the same thing about this vaunted counter-offensive that all year we've been told is coming and was going to radically transform this war, allow Ukraine to seize huge portions back from the Russians of Ukrainian territory that the Russians have seized since the beginning of the war.
Here, for example, you see the Washington Post, June 9th, an article by Max Boot, the neoconservative warmonger.
And there he is promoting David Petraeus, the general who was found guilty, though didn't serve any jail time, for very serious national security crimes.
He passed the most sensitive documents the government has to his mistress to enable her to write a glowing hagiography of him.
And here he is back, assuring everybody, as the headline says, the Ukrainian offensive is beginning.
David Petraeus is optimistic.
This was in June.
So almost four months ago, and this is what we've been told all year, the Ukrainian counteroffensive is coming, they have tanks, they're gonna have fighter jets, they have more sophisticated weaponry than ever, and they're gearing up to go and crash through those Russian defensive positions and take back Ukrainian territory.
Now anyone who's been following this, and we've obviously been reporting on it a lot, knows that the counteroffensive is a gigantic failure.
Huge numbers of Ukrainians and they're basically not fighting any longer with volunteers.
They're fighting with conscripts, people who have tried fleeing the country only to find the borders are closed.
They risk their lives on very treacherous treks to get to Romania or Russia or anywhere out of Ukraine.
A lot of them die.
A lot of them are arrested.
Zelensky's repeatedly imposed greater and greater penalties on deserters because there are so many now.
These are not the trained fighters from Azov.
These are the ordinary citizens, students and teenagers who don't want to go to the front lines knowing they're being sent into these front lines of these Russian positions and to be dismantled like meat, like cannon fodder.
That's exactly what they're being used as.
And a huge number, an unspeakably tragic number of young Ukrainian men have died this year, including ones who never wanted to fight in this war, but were forced to.
And here in the New York Times today is a very useful and I have nothing but positive things to say about the reporting the New York Times did here, although it's been obvious to have the New York Times come out and say it and to illustrate it in graphic form I think is very helpful.
There you see the report from today, the Ukraine War.
Who's gaining ground in Ukraine?
This year, no one.
This year, we're in late September now, so nine full months into the war, this year alone, all those deaths, those useless deaths of young lives extinguished.
Hundreds of billions of dollars from Europe, from the US, that could have been used to improve the lives of citizens of those countries, but instead were used to fuel this war.
Not one inch of meaningful ground has been gained in Ukraine.
Who's gaining ground in Ukraine?
Says the New York Times.
Ask the New York Times.
And the answer right here, this year, no one.
Although both sides have launched ambitious offensives, the front line has barely shifted.
Front line has barely shifted.
After 18 months of war, a breakthrough looks more difficult than ever.
So what is the point at this point?
of continuing to send these young Ukrainian men to these front lines to be gunned down to be destroyed by manless drones and missiles and artillery for not even there to be a slight shift in the front line if you look at a map as we're about to do.
Here's what the New York Times says, quote, less territory changed hands in August than in any other month of the war, according to a New York Times analysis of data from the Institute for the Study of War.
When both sides' gains are added up, Russia now controls nearly 200 square miles more territory in Ukraine compared with the start of the war.
So not only didn't this counter-offensive work to gain huge amounts of ground like we were promised, the side that has gained ground on net is Russia.
Not much, nearly 200 square miles.
It's not trivial, but it's not a lot.
But still, this counteroffensive resulted in Russia gaining ground, gaining territory and control over Ukraine, not losing it.
Russia's forces outnumber Ukraine nearly three to one on the battlefield, and with a larger population to replenish its ranks, Russia could see a prolonged defense as in its interests.
Russia controls about 18% of Ukraine, a swath of land larger than Switzerland.
That includes Crimea and part of Eastern Ukraine, which it has occupied since 2014.
The slowdown comes with huge risk for Ukraine.
If it looks unlikely to recapture large areas of the country, Western support could wane, either through lack of political will or unwillingness to donate more weapons, especially given the years-long wait for deliveries of replacement equipment.
And here you see the graphic.
And it is graphic in both senses of the term.
So, this pink here, is Ukrainian land held by Russia and this is all starting on January 1st of 2023.
So nine months ago this is the swath of territory of Ukraine, all of eastern Ukraine and southern Ukraine and then into Crimea that the Russians have been holding since January 2023 and still hold.
The only land that Ukraine has gained In the last nine months of fighting with hundreds of billions of dollars from the West and thousands and thousands of lives lost is represented by these tiny little blue dots.
So here, here, here.
Barely anything.
A completely trivial amount.
Just to show you here, so you see a little bit of gain here, a little bit of gain here, a little bit of gain here, a tiny bit of gain here, just talking about feet and yards.
Here is the Russian front line and it's barely moved since the start of the war.
It's been hundreds of miles of deeply entrenched Russian positions.
Layers and layers of defensive entrenched positions.
Trenches and dragon's teeth and all sorts of things that just eats up Ukrainians and Ukrainian military equipment and Western military equipment.
And the red parts here, which are slightly bigger, though again, they're not very large, are the parts that Russia has gained.
So you can see the swaths of territory Russia has gained since January of 2023 is bigger than the land that Ukraine has gained on that.
But in general, it's been nine months of nothingness.
This front line, not moving, and as the New York Times says, if anyone has an advantage, it's the Russians, because the Ukrainians have this gigantic disadvantage that is built in to the two countries that has been there from the start of the war, which is Russia is just a much bigger country, a much bigger population, therefore can, has a much bigger source of young men to replenish the troops than Ukraine has.
Ukraine's gonna run out of soldiers.
President Zelensky, that's the reason, issued a plea at the start of the war for young Western men who support the Ukrainian cause to please come to Ukraine.
Don't sit on Twitter and online posting emojis of our flag.
Come and help us fight.
We'll give you free weapons.
We need men.
We need bodies to fight.
He knew that would be the problem.
And yet, most Western people, Western men, including all the ones who have spent the last 18 months beating their chest and feeling powerful and strong because they're cheerleaders for the war, decided it was nowhere near worth risking their own lives for this war.
They wanted to risk the lives of other people, of Ukrainians, so that they could sit on line and feel powerful and strong and accuse other people who didn't think this war was going to produce anything good of being weaklings and traitors.
That's the point of this war.
It gives purpose and meaning to people who cheerlead for it from a safe distance.
And now you're at the point where the people who are fighting and dying in this war are no longer the gung-ho volunteers, but are the people in Ukraine who just aren't fighters.
And so the question becomes, what do you do?
And the answer is obvious.
You sit down at the table with diplomats from around the world and you create A solution, because no matter what you want to happen, no matter how much you wish that this swath of territory here that the Russians control would be back in the hands of Ukraine, it's not happening.
It's a fantasy.
You have to live in reality.
And this swath of land is not going anywhere.
If anything, it's likely to expand inward the longer this war goes on.
So even though you might be angry and feel it's so unjust that the Russians now control 20% or 18% of Ukrainian territory, it's the reality.
Russia is a much bigger and more powerful country than Ukraine is.
And for as long as the West continues to be unwilling to fight in this war, my guess is that will continue to be the case for good reason.
Not even the deranged fanatics in the West, outside of people like Timothy Snyder at Yale, think it's worth pursuing a nuclear war with Russia over who governs this part of eastern Ukraine.
Putin, or warlords in eastern Ukraine, or Zelensky in Kiev.
As long as the West isn't willing to go fight in this war, this war is lost from the perspective of Ukraine.
That's the reality.
And for all the talk now, knowing that the only way to convince Americans is to say, oh, we're getting all these benefits.
We're degrading the Russian army for a tiny price.
We're just sending a bunch of Ukrainians to die.
Who cares about them?
Just let them keep dying.
We're getting the benefits.
We're degrading the Russian military.
Hear from... First of all, does it look like the Russian military is degraded to you, having looked at that map?
Because to me, it looks like they've been strengthened.
They've learned from their mistakes.
They understand how to fight.
They have all the artillery they need.
They're getting weapons from Iran and North Korea and everywhere else they need it from.
They're manufacturing weapons and ammunition at a gigantic rate, far greater than we're capable of matching them.
They have advantages on every level.
Here from Le Monde, you see the headline, Russia plans to increase its military budget by 70% in 2024.
The classified government spending, which also covers the exceptional compensations paid out to the families of dead soldiers, could also double.
To tell you about a Russian military that is not weakening at all, that is a lie.
It's a pleasant lie.
It's nice to believe.
Feels good to believe it.
That we at least got something.
But it's not true.
The Russian military is stronger and more powerful.
than it was at the start of the war.
That's what happens when countries militarize in a war that they regard as existential.
They're willing to send their own soldiers to die in this war because they regard ensuring that Eastern Ukraine is free of NATO troops and NATO presence and Western operatives existential to their security.
And they're willing to do anything to fight that war and we're not.
Because this war has never been of a vital interest to the West, which is why we should never have been fueling it and fighting it in the first place, just making it prolonged, making it worse, instead of trying to diplomatically pursue it.
And to now admit that the reason we're doing it is because we get all the benefits is grotesque.
But at least there's finally candor.
But the purpose of this war is not to defend Ukraine and protect Ukrainians.
It's to sacrifice Ukraine and Ukrainians at the altar of our geostrategic interests that for whatever reason we've decided we have of destroying the Russian army.
And that's not even working.
Even though it's a sociopathic rationale for a war to send people to die.
Yeah, we're going to send the Ukrainians to die in their country to get destroyed.
At some point, we'll send in JP Morgan and BlackRock to rebuild it and profiteer off it.
But until then, we'll just keep sending young Ukrainian men to die because we want to weaken the Russian army more, when in fact, the Russian army is strengthening.
We talked the other night about the incredibly humiliating, but also not coincidental, quite meaningful event in the Canadian Parliament, where Prime Minister Trudeau and President Zelensky stood up and applauded, gave a standing ovation for a prolonged, enthusiastic standing ovation for someone, an old Ukrainian gentleman they heralded as a hero who turned out to be a fighter for the SS Nazi troop, the Ukrainian Nazi SS.
That answered to and fought for the German Nazis against not just Russia, but also Canada in World War II.
And we had Lev Golonkin on and we talked about how the reason this keeps happening.
Remember after Mark Hamill from Star Wars?
I was like, hey, it's me, Mark Hamill.
Remember me?
I was in Star Wars where I fought for the forces of good against the evil empire.
And now the same thing is happening.
My friends in Ukraine are fighting the forces of good and fighting the evil empire in Russia.
And I just had a chat with my good friends in the Azov Battalion.
And I want to show it to you.
We had a fantastic chat.
Look at me and my new friends.
And it turned out, when you watch the video, the Azov fighters that are such good friends of Mark Hamill happened to be planted, planting themselves in front of a Nazi flag.
Because Nazism, as the West has long warned, is a dominant ideology among especially Ukrainian fighters.
And over and over we're seeing this.
So we're not just arming a country and drowning them in weaponry that's causing the deaths of their citizens for no good reason.
We're actually creating a huge danger for ourselves in arming some of the most ideologically extreme people on the planet, actual Nazis.
Not the kind that wear MAGA hats, but the actual kind that wear swastika tattoos and SS insignia.
Now, if you want to watch that episode where we covered that, that's from Tuesday night.
We interviewed that Ukrainian-American reporter who was from Ukraine and he gave a lot of insight into that dynamic.
Now, earlier this week, after this incident with Zelensky and Trudeau cheerleading for this SS fighter, this organization called Superhuman Center that exists to herald and support Ukrainian troops who are injured in battle, and it seems like they're serious about this mission, posted this video that was very moving, they thought.
There you see the title.
When your dad and husband is a Ukrainian war hero, there is an unstoppable urge to shower him with kisses every second, minute, and hour.
Glory to our heroes.
Hashtag love.
Hashtag superhuman center.
Now, I would show you the video.
The problem is they deleted the video, and the reason they deleted the video is because the gentleman who was the hero, this person here, he had this little problem, which is he was wearing a shirt that had a classic Nazi symbol on it.
The eagle with the spread wings, and right here is generally where the swastika goes.
And so people reacted and they said, wow, this is a really nice video.
This man returning to from combat.
He had lost both of his legs.
He was sitting on the stairs and he was being kissed and caressed by his two young, beautiful blonde daughters.
And people noted, yeah, it's like a really inspiring video, except like he's wearing a Nazi shirt.
Doesn't that kind of bother you?
And as a result, the center had to come out and issue the following apology.
You know, I was saying, when this happened, when that video was released, I was like, get this guy to the Canadian Parliament.
Have a big ovation for him.
He's the kind of people they like to cheer for.
And it took them a couple days, but they finally came out and said the following, quote, we sincerely apologize for any confusion or misrepresentation from the video posted earlier.
The designer's use of an unacceptable symbol on the hero's attire aimed to critique extremist labels, not endorse them.
We regret any distress caused and assured this was never our intention.
I don't really understand exactly how wearing a Nazi symbol on your shirt is designed to critique extremist labels.
Like if I walk around with a gigantic swastika on my shirt and a big picture of Adolf Hitler and like a 1488 on the back and people are like, hey, wait a minute, you're wearing like a Nazi shirt.
Like you're a bunch of Nazi symbols are draping your clothing.
Why are you doing that?
I'd be like, oh no, I'm, No, this is my designer.
My designer is critiquing these labels, not promoting them.
Like, why would you be upset by that?
Just wearing a swastika, but like every other Nazi symbol, but I'm doing it to critique that, not to promote it.
Even though there's nothing on my clothing that indicates in any way that I'm critiquing it, I seem to be wearing a swastika all over my clothing.
But no, don't worry, that's not my intention.
That generally would not be accepted.
And so this group had to delete their tweet and again, isn't it notable how often people go to praise Ukrainians and Ukrainian fighters only to find over and over and over again that the people they're praising have swastika tattoos or SS insignia or a history of fighting for the SS.
At some point this should tell us something, shouldn't it?
About what we heard for a decade until February 24, 2022, when it became verboten to say it, which is that Ukraine has a gigantic problem with neo-Nazism, especially in its hardcore fighting force, the nationalists of that country.
Now, speaking of deranged, fanatic ideologues, Last week we showed you this individual whose name is Sarah Ashton Cirillo and she's an American but she became a spokesperson for the Ukrainian military, the English spokesperson, and she's been since the beginning of the war in Ukraine making insane videos.
I cannot emphasize enough How deranged this person is.
I guess the Ukrainians think because she's trans, people in the West are going to be like, oh my god, we probably should support Ukraine.
They love trans people.
They like have trans people there.
What an enlightened country.
Of course we should support them.
I think it's probably that cynical.
Because this is like the worst spokesperson you could possibly imagine.
She's out of her mind.
And she barely hides it.
So she had this video where she was talking like a James Bond villain and she was like, the blood of the Russian invaders will come dripping off their monstrous demonic teeth.
I mean, it was too much even for Kiev.
They announced they were firing her.
But the next day they rehired her.
I guess because a lot of people are fans of her in the West and were like, yeah, she's a little crazy, but that's called for.
What happened was, though, earlier this week, a couple days ago, a Russian prankster called her and convinced her that he was actually a former Ukrainian president.
Poroshenko, yeah, former Ukrainian president Poroshenko.
And she, as a result, believed it and started speaking quite candidly to him about the reality of the war.
I ended up saying a bunch of things that are exactly the sort of things that you're not allowed to say.
So let's watch her and her series of confessions.
The situation with my unit currently, I'm still part of them, is very bad in Bach moves.
And I think they're going to be disbanded soon.
We're down to only 14 people.
So that's kind of bad news that the unit she's in is down to 14 people.
the entire battalion and brigade were friendly.
I can't speak to what the new command structure will be like after the situation takes place when they either get moved or they have to bring new people in.
And so what do you feel?
So that's kind of bad news that the unit she's in is down to 14 people.
And she's saying, yeah, things on the ground are really bad.
Now, I have no idea.
Oh, I guess they're speaking English or he doesn't speak Ukrainian.
So this guy with like a comically Russian accent convinced her that he was Ukrainian and here's what he got her to say next.
What do you feel about Russians orcs now?
So I think that it is part of Mongoloidans.
Sir, you have a European party and the reality is the Russians are not European.
Russians, as Mr. Danilov was clear to say, Russians have a different culture.
Russians are Asian and ultimately they do come from the Mongols.
They do come from a grouping, Mr. President, Mr. Deputy, of people who are wanting to be slaves and want to be led just as it was from the days of Kangas Khan.
And so I wish the rest of Europe and the Western world understood that Europe ends at Ukraine.
We are protecting European values and Western values.
I don't know, it's kind of racist, isn't it?
The Russians aren't really Europeans, they're mongrels.
And they come from a genetic gene pool that wants to be enslaved.
Going back to like the primitive mongrels of Genghis Khan.
And in contrast to the Ukrainians who are European and who have elevated values.
Now I'm sure she fits right in with the Azov battalion.
And the kind of people who fought for the SS that the Canadian Parliament just got done applauding, they would agree with that completely.
It's like, nice racial eugenic theory.
Well, she'd probably fit in with the Aesop battalion other than for the fact that she's trans, but let's leave that to the side.
That's just an unpleasantry that could be worked out later, but...
For her to just kind of like come out and say this, that that's her belief, that the reason she's in Ukraine is because she believes she's fighting against a mongrel race, an inferior Asian non-European mongrel race, and that the point of this war is to vanquish these inferior racial gene pools so that elevated superior European gene pools prevail.
Again, it's the kind of thing that probably is driving a lot of this war, but it's not the kind of thing you're supposed to admit when you're a Western spokesperson trying to pretend that Ukraine is this enlightened place, which is why they love you even though you're trans.
It's the kind of thing that Westerners are supposed to recoil over, given that it's like classic, kind of very blatant racist theory.
way those did hundreds and hundreds and thousands of years ago when the Mongols were coming in.
I don't know every Russian.
I will say that what's happening in the Kremlin and what's happening to every Russian that supports Vladimir Putin's decisions are not human.
These people are not human.
They are enemies of humanity, in fact.
So just to clarify, to summarize that view, what she's essentially saying is that the Russians are not human.
They're subhuman.
I think that was an ideology that prevailed in that part of the world where she is not all that long ago.
I think it was the ideology for which the guy in the Canadian Parliament who just got applauded so vigorously was defending when he was fighting for the German Nazi SS against Russia.
That they were mongrels, that this was not a real Caucasian race, that they were subhumans, And that this war is about protecting the gene pool of the real humans, the overlord against the Übermensch, the Übermenschen in Russia, the Mongrels, that she's fighting against.
Now, again, she didn't think this was going to be public.
She thought she was talking to the former president of Ukraine.
But she wasn't.
And so now it is public.
And we're getting a glimpse into who these people really are.
Oh, we have some difficulties.
So what is your opinion about counter-offensive now?
For well over a year.
We've been asking our Western partners since the days of your presidency, sir, to make certain that they understood the threat of these nonhumans and they didn't want to understand it.
They don't understand that we can only win by winning.
And so, they're being cautious based on what they know.
The Kyiv Independent, sir, stated that there was allegations that 100,000 Russians were gathering in Kupyansk and Lomon directions.
And to me, this showed a very big problem.
If our own media calls it allegations, even though two of our generals, who are not political people, said this was the case, imagine what we must be fighting in the Western media.
I have a video coming out very soon where Crimea announced that they had 30% less visitors for poisonous jellyfish.
And yet the Daily Telegraph ran a story that people were still visiting Crimea.
So we're losing We're having struggles on the information warfare front, and then we have the morale issue, sir, where I'm at the hospital right now, and I'm seeing soldiers who are talking to me, very frustrated, because they didn't feel like they were being heard in certain areas.
And so, we are dealing with the reality that until we win the information war, our Western partners won't feel the pressure.
But we must win the information war, both here on the streets of Ukraine, And in the newsrooms in New York and London and elsewhere.
This is why I also had the controversy but felt I needed to do it when CNN called our fighters Western mercenaries.
I had to call for the boycott of CNN and risk my position simply because Russia would have used that as propaganda if CNN didn't change the wording.
Luckily it worked and I received the apology on behalf of all of the foreign soldiers and they changed their wording to foreign fighters.
But every time there's a slip-up by our partners, the slip-ups aren't coming from... Oh, a little slip-up.
CNN pointed out that the people who are going to Ukraine are mercenaries.
Because they are.
That's primarily who's going to Ukraine, the foreign fighters, or people who are being paid to fight.
Those are mercenaries.
It's just that you're not supposed to tell the truth.
There was recently an award given by the Ukrainian president, I think it might have been several months ago, to a bunch of very prominent reporters.
I know Jake Tapper at CNN got one.
A bunch of other prominent journalists on television for, what's that?
It was 2022.
It was an award by President Zelensky for services while rendered, meaning propaganda services to Ukraine.
And so what she did there was to tell CNN, You can't call them foreign mercenaries even though they are.
And then they changed what they said because this racist maniac complained and changed it to foreign fighters.
You and the other leaders here in Ukraine, as much as it is, almost never, as much as it is coming from our Western partners who don't understand that... By Western partners, she means Western media outlets.
That's what she's saying.
She's like, oh, we had mess ups by our Western partners like CNN.
Who delivered the wrong message.
They were off script.
And we called them.
We said, look, you're off script.
And, of course, they immediately got back on script.
These are people, after all, who got formal awards from the Ukrainian government.
But you're not supposed to describe people pretending to be independent journalists and independent media outlets as your partners, even though, of course, that's what they are.
Russia's main success in this invasion was on the information front, but their propaganda efforts are the best in the world.
Their propaganda, they should not be able to hide behind just because they're given a television show, doesn't stop them from being war criminals.
then how can we attack Russian fascists with all of our weapons?
And our weapons include DRGs.
Our weapons include diversions.
Our weapons include saying this is not free speech.
You know, Solivov and Skabeva and all of them are committing crimes against humanity.
So we saw what the truth was with Dugan's daughter.
They put out a book.
Oh, wait.
So that part there, she was arguing that the war criminals are not just the people who come to Ukraine and use violence.
it's also the journalists who opposed the Ukrainian Because if these are people who are basically war criminals, they should be put on trial for war crimes.
Journalists and media who aren't their partners, who don't get the awards from Zelensky, who get put on the list, the blacklist, like I have, like Tucker Carlson did, like a bunch of other people did, Rand Paul, Tulsa Gabbard, Russian propagandists in the eyes of the Ukrainian intelligence agencies.
But you see here, again, that there's a fanaticism at work behind this agenda.
They want to put journalists on trial who aren't perfectly on script.
Now here she talks a little bit about something I think we should really listen to.
...against humanity.
So we saw what the truth was with Dugan's daughter.
They put out a book on the one year anniversary of her death.
That goes to show that who she was in their eyes.
It wasn't some woman who was accidentally killed.
This was an evil, this was an evil creature.
She's talking there about Dugin, who is a famous blogger and journalist in Russia who was a supporter of the invasion, and they tried to kill him using a terrorist act.
They planted a bomb in his car and the car exploded.
Unfortunately for her, it wasn't he who was in the car, but his daughter.
This is true.
It doesn't mean that we don't have to target Maria Zakharova too.
She was a subhuman.
And they're, I guess, acknowledging as well that they were the terrorists who planted the car bomb in Russia to kill a journalist who they thought was saying things that they disliked.
This is true.
It doesn't mean that we don't have to target Maria Zakharovatu.
Of course.
She was the first person to attack me.
It was April of 2022, and she attacked me before anyone even knew my name outside of USA, outside of Nevada.
And she called me a creature who only hung around with gangsters, meaning our soldiers.
The worst part with her is she gets accepted in the same way that a State Department spokesperson would be accepted.
To me, there's nobody that should be off-limits, Mr. Deputy, over the course of being able to How they dare that?
How it could happen?
I was on a trip, but when I got that news, it was terrible.
I think it is not fair.
It is extremely bad for our reputation to do that.
All right, there she is in all of her glory, Sarah Ashton Cirillo, who got fired just a couple weeks ago for saying things in public that were even too much for Zelensky in Kiev.
Imagine what you have to do to get fired for saying too much.
And here she is being not just evil and racist, but also stupid, believing that the person she's talking to with this comical accent is actually the former Ukrainian president and saying all sorts of things about the war, about her views of Russians, about the real purpose of the war, about the real about the real purpose of the war, about the real state of the war that are very valuable in terms of listening to the Russians who tricked her into saying this, did a great service.
I think she really is, in this video, the true face of the war in Ukraine, the true face of the people who are fighting, the true face of the people who don't want the diplomatic resolution.
They believe they're fighting a war against mongrels and subhumans, the kind of ideology that has long been predominant in World War in that part of Europe that drove a large part of World War II.
And it just continues to be bizarre to me that Liberal institutions of authority in the United States claim that this is the ideology they're most dedicated to fighting, to Nazism, white supremacy, fascism, which they think is proven every time someone is found in a Trump t-shirt or a MAGA hat or at a Trump rally.
And then they encounter the real deal, the actual Nazis, the people who talk about Russians as being Asian races and mongrels and primitive subhumans.
And who fought for the SS and who have Nazi flags planted behind them when they talk to Mark Hamill and they meet the real deal Nazis and they don't want to suppress them off the internet or censor them off the internet or put them in jail or have the FBI and the NSA spy on them.
They want to fund them!
And armed them, and revered them.
It's the craziest thing.
But thank you, Sarah Ashton Cirillo, for your important service.
We genuinely appreciate it.
it.
We think you provided one of the most important insights yet into this war.
So that concludes our show for this evening.
As a reminder, System Update is also available in podcast form, or you can find us on Spotify, Apple, and every other major podcasting platform.
12 hours after the episode first is broadcast live here on Rumble.
It will appear and be posted to those podcasting platforms, and if you rate and review and follow our program, it helps spread the visibility of the show.
Because it is Thursday night, we will now move to Locals, which is part of Rumble for our subscribers only for our live after show where we take your questions, comment on your feedback, hear your suggestions for the kinds of things we should cover.
So if you want to join the Locals community, which helps support the show and gives you access to all of those
