While I am highly skeptical of all voting systems that have ever been implemented in the name of democracy, I do appreciate you backing up your assertion of this historical point with the Anarchist character of Monsieur Ellul. Albeit a Christian, he seems to be of the more tolerable kind that rejects the church and Christians in general out of the principle realization that being a Christian means nothing unless you can espouse specifically what you mean by it. And although I don't agree with his evangelism, I wasn't frightened out of my mind while reading Goethe so whatever.So, Adolf got in with 44% of the free vote in an 11 party race (the communist party only received 18%) in 1933 and a whopping 98% of the free and independently monitored vote (Goebbels especially invited foreign journalists for exactly this purpose of monitoring the integrity of their free elections) in 1936 after full employment and zero inflation was achieved.
For the Huxley video, or any of these odd Wallace TV interviews, I find that their discussions of propaganda are very backwards and set up to give watchers at home the feeling that television is sophisticated and is in no way propaganda, since they are discussing it. It feels like 'Charlie Rose' or a 1950's equivalent of a mock debate show, where the party line is still very much hammered into the viewers' skulls, while pretending to be anything but official doublespeak. I think Huxley looks rather cowed, don't you? And when he seems to reply that German television wasn't adequate or existent, it seems to be because the aggressive interviewer has him repeating back what he has just been told, to not create a conflicting discussion. It is "unfortunate" but it is entertainment and cannot be seen as a real, free interview. Rod Serling admits - as Wallace persists - that his role in the world of television is difficult, is based significantly around profits and personal success, and is not (nor can it be) about serious political weighty matters, because of how television is controlled. Huxley is (or behaves as) a quiet, mild-mannered author who is easily steered and overpowered by the interviewer and can hardly look him in the eye.
So what I found funny about these interviews is how much the discussion of propaganda has been allowed in the propaganda itself. Not just now but in the 50's since the advent and rise of television. Rod Serling flat out states in 1959 here that there are certain topics you simply cannot broach because they cause "trouble". He refers to this as "pre-censorship" which he states that all television writers knowledgeably exercise because of some unspoken power that the controllers of television have. For that statement, it is pretty remarkable, today or any day. And I am not sure you would get the same admission from a respected successful TV writer today. That is, unless it was accompanied by an even more elaborate dressing of innocuous "curiosity" than Serling uses here to mask his own sense of being monitored and censored.
I don't know if Huxley can be trusted and his sheer success seems to indicate that he was easily cowed and controlled into stating the overpopulation problem (current favorite of Club of Rome and so many others) so quickly. I give credence to you when you state the possibility that he is himself an impure or full-on paid/threatened propagandist.