All right, let's do the let's do the
Ross Dow debat. The original title for
this video was different. I forget what
it was, but uh now they changed it.
There's an accompanying New York Times
piece with this as well. For those of
you who don't know, Ross Doued, of
course, is a right-winger. He's a
conservative, but he is supposed to be
like, and he's not even like a
anti-Trump conservative, if I'm not
mistaken. I'm pretty sure he's like at
least like uh either Trump agnostic or
proTrump. I can't remember now. Did you
request they change it? No, I didn't.
Um, they do that all the time. They will
come out with like a crazy title and
then people will get mad at them and
then they'll change it. They did that
with the the the style section piece.
Remember MAGABody? Oh yeah, the original
title was in my in my um How radical is
the Twitch sty flirtation with violence.
Meet the online star who likes to play
with fire. I knew that it was going to
be a contentious conversation, but it
was going to be a polite one overall.
Uh, and I hope that I was able to get
some of the positions that I have across
in a somewhat hostile, somewhat
contentious, but very large platform
because the New York Times, this YouTube
video won't do like crazy numbers or
whatever, and that doesn't matter. But
the New York Times and interviews like
this do reach a lot of power brokers, a
lot of people who are in positions of
power. So, let's take a look. I think uh
conservatives have a really great way of
designing a narrative that makes sense
to as broad of an audience as possible.
>> Everyone is everyone is in the business
of crafting media narratives, right? And the
the
>> I wish Democrats were a little bit
>> Hassan Per has no filter. Or at least
that's the generous way to describe his
marathon streaming broadcasts.
>> Fascists need to go to prison permanently.
permanently.
>> Sig Hiling has one use.
>> You're a Nazi.
>> If Donald Trump is going somewhere, it
is certainly not heaven. Israel is an
illegal entity. Okay. Which cover
everything from the war in Gaza.
>> It's crazy to me that we treat Israel
like this unstoppable force. Like they
are not human beings that are making
these decisions to bomb schools,
mosques, hospitals. to his fitness regimen.
regimen.
>> Are you on creatine? Yes, I love
creatine. I love creatine.
>> He's a self-proclaimed Marxist and anti-imperialist.
anti-imperialist.
>> We here in the United States of America
live under the comfort of being a part
of the labor aristocracy
>> who's been hopefully called the left's
answer to Joe Rogan and who's compared
himself to Rush Limbbo. And he keeps
getting suspended from his platform
Twitch for language that he calls
hyperbolic and other people call
incitement. Is this person calling for
the death of a US senator? Of course
not. Hello. If you're watching this,
that means I just got banned.
>> Is he the future of the left or is he
just another example of how living on
the internet drives everyone insane.
Hassan [ __ ] welcome to interesting times.
times.
>> We are living in some interesting times
considering that uh it is you, Ross Da,
who is interviewing me for the New York
Times. Who else?
>> Who else would it be, man? This is this
is a show. This is a place for
>> um the interesting perspectives of our moment.
moment.
>> Did you hear this intro? No, I didn't
hear this intro. It was new.
>> I think I think that's what you
represent. And we're going to get we're
going to get into that. We're going to
talk about the Hassan [ __ ] worldview.
We're going to talk about debates about
political violence. But I thought we
should start because I know what you do.
I'm very techsavvy. Obviously, I'm, you
know, very online. I understand I
understand the internet, but there may
be some listeners and viewers um who
don't know what a Twitch streamer is.
So, I want you to tell me what a Twitch
streamer is.
>> Yeah. Um Twitch streamers broadly for
the most part play video games. Uh I'm a
little bit unique to the space uh
because I cover politics. I I do news
and political commentary for the most
part. I do lifestyle stuff as well, and
I do the regular things that Twitch
streamers do on the side, but that's
secondary. Twitch is basically a live
streaming platform. So, for the boomers
that read the New York Times, I would
say it's like YouTube, but it's always
live. It's like just live stream
YouTube. That's it.
>> Right? So when I make a podcast, I come
into this beautiful, wonderful studio
and I sit down and it's like a
self-contained thing, but then it's
edited and cut up and, you know, turn
turned into the product, right?
>> But when you But when you sit down, you
go for seven hours like
>> uh if you ask my audience now, they'll
say half day uh half day and they'll say
seven hours, which is a joke. But yeah,
I I used to do it for 8 to 10 hours
every day, but I've uh you've cut back.
>> I'm 34 now. Yeah.
>> So I just I lowered it to seven.
>> Okay. And are you going you're doing it
after we record this, right? >> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> So it's
>> And I go seven days a week as well.
Every Sunday. Sunday. Okay. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> And I think if someone, you know, they
can see you right now with the mic and
the background, right? But if someone
who wasn't familiar with this sort of
dropped into the stream, they'd see
other stuff on screen, >> right?
>> right?
>> Yeah. So, what would they see? What What
do you share the screen with? >> Um,
>> Um,
normally at any given moment, if you
tune in, uh, you can either see me full
screen like this, just doing direct to
camera commentary,
uh, or most likely reading an article,
criticizing it piece by piece. And also
sometimes, uh, I offer commentary over
uh, media from, uh, from TV channels as
well. And it's a it's a broad spectrum
of political ideology.
>> And you're also talking to people who
are talking to you though, right?
>> So there are
tens of thousands, sometimes hundreds of
thousands of concurrent live viewers, >> right,
>> right,
>> that are in my chat. So we broadly call
it chat. They're on the side of the
screen. You can see it as well. It's
just constantly going up and down like
it's the Matrix, right? because it's
just a constant flow of thoughts. And I
don't know exactly how I figured this
out. Maybe it's my ADHD, but uh I have
been able to somehow offer
commentary that people consider
compelling, right?
>> While simultaneously through
through
>> and you're responding, somebody writes,
>> "Why is he infantilizing you?" No, no,
no. This part is actually pretty good.
So, what he's doing here for like the
first, I would say like 15 minutes to 20
minutes is explaining what I do to an a
media executive that's like 60 years
old. Cuz you have to remember like for
you this is every day. Of course, you
know what the I do. But for a person
that reads the New York Times and is
familiar with Ross Dowid, that person
has no clue what the I do. They don't
know what Twitch is. They don't know
anything. And the reason why he's
actually giving this backstory, and it's
the right thing to do for the record,
but the reason why he's giving this
backstory here is because he's going to
then at least give me like an honest
shake because he's going to obviously
criticize me, but he wants to make sure
that it is uh contextually appropriate.
Cuz if he just like came into it and
said, "You've said this and you've said
that." Then we would have to go back and
forth on like, "Well, it's a long, you
know, it's a long uh uh the medium
requires you to talk endlessly for seven
hours with like constant feedback and a
lot gets lost in the sauce. A lot gets
lost in the messaging, all this stuff."
Instead of doing that, he's basically
explaining to people exactly what this is,
is,
>> you know,
>> but he's also belittling a little bit.
No, I don't even think so. I think
that's just the tone he takes. Because
the reality of the matter is if Ross
Daled uh wanted to belittle someone like
myself, he just wouldn't do this at all.
He would just write an article. I think
what he wanted to do instead was not to
belittle me, but to to present me as a
somewhat of a dangerous figure in
American politics because I do think he
considers me to be somewhat of a
dangerous figure in American politics.
The political side of it comes from
like, oh well, you live in a nice
mansion. like you don't want violent
revolutionary violence to come down your
doorstep like not understanding that
like yeah I I I don't want that in
general like I want I understand that
violence is a is a a constant presence
in politics but like my advocacy
revolves around reform anyway let's continue
continue
>> that's stupid Hassan because of this and
you're like no you know gremlin user 47
>> I'm brilliant you say right Well, I
wouldn't I wouldn't
>> I don't know if I would say that, but
sometimes it's complimentary information
that's coming in. So, it's almost like a
hive mind that uh can quickly extract
and find information all around the
internet and sometimes it's contentious
where people come in and they're
right-wingers or they come in and
they're liberals who disagree with me on
something and they'll be like, "This is
wrong. Here is why you're wrong." And
then there's like a very quick uh
spirited debate. Uh and sometimes it can
even get a little heated. So, the way
I've always described what I do is that
uh I'm I'm basically like Rush Limbob,
but for zoomers. So, it's almost like AM
radio in the spirit of like conservative
commentary. But obviously uh I think I
have a a higher standard for for the
veracity of the information that I'm
looking at because a big part of what I
do I think especially in this age on the
internet uh is is sift through the
misinformation. So, uh, a big part of
what I do is also just like going
through all of that and, um, in in real
time and also trying to instill some
sense of media, uh, literacy in in the
audience. So, I I explain it as I'm
holding your hand through the journey of
reading the news.
>> Do you take a bathroom break? Like,
what's your
>> I do.
>> How many bathroom breaks do you take? I
I don't know, but my um there are some
people in the community that time my
bathroom breaks and I think Okay,
>> so it
>> can range anywhere from
>> I I don't need to know how long the
bathroom breaks are actually.
>> The bathroom breaks range from 22
seconds to sometimes a minute and 10. Um >> Okay.
>> Okay. >> But
>> But
>> and I'm away from the screen for a brief
moment. Y
>> and often times I'll just have like the
video running like the live video feed
running. Um and I'll I'll stay tuned to
it so I'm not like missing anything. Uh
and uh I do I'll have my father uh who
who comes and stays with me over
extended periods of time uh make me a
meal and I'll eat that on camera as well
cuz I'm live for seven hours a day. I
eat at the same time every single day. I
have a very strict regimen. And so
regimen so like how does your body feel?
So I after I podcast this is you know
too much confession but it's like I'm
kind of exhausted in a way that is not
the case if you sit down and write a
column. I assure you right like it's a
physical experience to talk to someone
or interview them in a way that I didn't
expect before I got into this business.
Right? And most of the time you do have
guests, but most of the time you're not
doing interviews, but you are arguing
with people in real time, right? Like
are you just spent at the end of the
seven hours or do you need to do you
like go off and exercise? Like what's
what is the lifestyle?
>> Well, um the lifestyle that your paper
style section actually documented was um
>> Yeah, I read I read that I read that piece.
piece.
>> Yeah. So, I um was quite the
controversial title for that piece that
everybody everybody seemingly got mad
at, but um you're you're absolutely correct.
correct.
>> What was what was the title? What was
the title?
>> I think it was a progressive mind and a
MAGA body or something.
>> Oh, yeah. Yeah, that's right. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Um so, it depletes my social
battery on like anything else that I've
ever done. after the end of like a
seven, eight, 10 hour broadcast, I do uh
oftentimes feel the need to just like
kind of unwind and I have a hard time
just like talking to people um
>> in the immediate aftermath of that cuz
the way I see it like you're constantly
on you have to be entertaining every
single second every single second of the
eight hour broadcast like you can't have
dead air you have to be constantly uh uh
entertaining people, you uh or
constantly trying to educate people. So,
uh there are some some difficulties in
that. um you're also constantly online
and uh in order not to feel super
isolated and and super sheltered from
you know how regular people operate and
how they feel uh I I always find uh that
uh I I I ground myself basically by
being around what I like to call normies
or civilians. Uh, and I spend most of my
time offline directly outside going to
public parks, hanging out with my
friends, and also working out is a big
part of this as well, obviously. Um,
>> well, that's you can't have the MAGA
body if you aren't if you aren't if you
aren't working out, right? >> Yeah,
>> Yeah,
>> that's what that's what they tell me. I
haven't put it to the test yet, but you
know, um, what So, you you mentioned
you're 34, right? So, you're too old.
You're too old to go for 9 or 10 hours.
you have to go for seven hours.
>> Um, you don't have a family, right?
You're not you're not married. >> No.
>> No.
>> Um, like are you going to be doing this
at 50
>> at my at my age of 45? The ancient the
ancient years. I
>> I think so. Okay.
>> Yeah. The the reason why I say that is
because like I've designed everything in
my life so that uh I can continue doing
this. This is what I'm good at. This is
the only thing I'm good at. Well, you've
designed it, but like not to, you know,
not to not to play the social
conservative advice giver, right? But
like, do you want to have kids?
>> Like, I do. Yeah.
>> Okay. But you might have to redesign
your life someday. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Fit fit the kid in. I mean, fit
the kids in
>> Well, there might be an issue, but yeah.
All right. Let's let's let's
>> No, no, I meant like there is no issue
with with uh scaling back on certain
aspects of my life is what I mean,
>> right? So the weekends could free up someday.
someday. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Good. For sure.
>> All right. Let's talk about the cause
then. The what what you're fighting for.
Give me the Hassan [ __ ] worldview. What
do you believe?
>> I believe that the United States of
America is a profoundly wealthy nation.
It's the wealthiest nation on earth
right now. and therefore uh it could be
doing right by all of the people that
are in the United States of America and
it and yet it refuses to do so. And I
want to uh through a system uh of of
at first modest social democratic
reforms basically claw back autonomy for
the the everyday person and hopefully uh
give them more of a voice in their
workplace and also in the political
process as well and slowly but surely
yield more egalitarian outcomes. Um on
the global dominance side, I think that
we should uh significantly uh scale back
uh imperialism
and and the endless wars that we engage
in and focus on helping people in this
country and even focus on helping people
in other countries but in a meaningful
way. uh not in a way where we uh change
their own internal governance structures
uh aggressively and sometimes directly
through intervention and by force.
>> Okay. So situate that narrative relative
to actual democratic politicians and
activists and so on, right? Like are you
where Bernie Sanders is and Alexandria
Okasiocortez are? Or are you someone
who's saying that's a good start but fundamentally
fundamentally
you know we want to be democratic
socialists but with an emphasis on the
socialism like how how far do you want
to take the transformation of America?
>> Okay. Um so it's not just the
transformation of America. I think it's
the it's the transformation of global
politics uh in its entirety. I think
that uh capitalism was an evolution away
from feudalism and and monarchies and I
think it was uh a a fantastic evolution
away from that structure and liberal
capitalist democracies I think for a
very long time presented this this
wonderful new evolution but I think it's
time for an alternative vision uh to
take place considering that the the
tremendous amount of bloodshed that
keeps propping up the system continues
and I feel like we have an opportunity
to to move away from this especially at
a time when liberalism is demonstrabably
failing and uh we are seeing even as
Cassinstein uh recognizes uh illiberals
that are uh taking advantage of this of
this situation. Now of course he would
probably consider me to be illiberal in
some respects.
>> Well, we don't have to we don't have to
say illiberal. Let's say post liberal.
Right? So you've got people people on
the right
>> who would call themselves post-liberal.
You've got religious post-lberals.
You've got the Curtis Yarvin, you know,
we're going to have a you know a Silicon
Valley King post liberal. Right. So
you're a left post liberal. I think
that's fair.
>> But I wouldn't say I'm a liberal. Yeah.
>> Right. You're you're post right. So you
want something.
>> I agree with everything you said about
your mission, but holy wordy answer may
for newbies to the channel sound like
Hakeem Jeffrey speak. Brother, I'm
talking to the New York Times. I'm
talking to Ross Dow that I have to be
very careful with the words I'm
choosing. You will see exactly why I
have to be very careful with the words
I'm choosing. Um, liberalism was good
for a while, but it's generated too many
inequalities. It's too harsh on the
world. Um, but what is the alternative?
Is it Marxist? Is it, you know, is it
essentially deeper and more profound
government management of the economy?
What are we talking about?
I think I don't have the the perfect
solution for this and this is something
that I readily admit but I think moving
in the direction of socialism would be a
wonderful start. Uh and the reason why I
say that is because as you mentioned
like a lot of the post-liberal
conversations uh almost always revolve
around uh unifying strength in the hands
of one singular figure or one person. uh
going back to a a a neofudalist or or
like a like a >> aristocratic
>> aristocratic
>> crypto monarch structure that Curtis
Yarvin advocates for. What I'm
advocating for is more democracy um
principled democracy. Not even in the
the anarchist sense where uh everything
has to be handled with uh or all
unjustifiable hierarch hierarchies must
be abolished through uh direct
participation. but at least like having
a more democratic process and getting
people more involved uh starting at the
the point of commodity production and
then moving all the way to political participation.
participation.
Um, I want to talk in a minute about
sort of how you developed this worldview
and and your background, but I I want to
pause on that idea of sort of democratic
change, right? um
is all effective change democratic or
you know the thing that the original
post-lberal Marxists tended to believe
right was that you know there are
certain things you can accomplish
through a democratic system but there's
also revolutionary moments right to be
clear this isn't just a Marxist idea
obviously this is the United States of
America we're founded on a revolution right
right
>> um but like what is what is your view of
revolution as a
potential transformative force in the world.
world.
>> Uh all politics in my worldview revolves
around the distribution of resources and
the distribution of power. And a big
part of that component is of course
violence as well. Revolutionary violence
for example. And um it just simply means
like who gets to do the violence
>> and who gets to be on the receiving end
of that violence that we have normalized
because the systems that we exist under
are inherently violent. all political
systems are um it's just more so uh
about redirecting that and I know
violence is such a scary concept in this
uh in this when we're discussing in this
way but we're talking about it in an
academic context um but um but basically
the the idea is instead of having a
system that currently benefits the the
very few uh I I want
a system that benefits as many people as
possible that has more, like I said,
egalitarian outcomes.
>> Did it not seem like he just wanted you
arrested a little bit? I jokingly said
uh that this is Ross Det very uh gently
nudging the administration to uh arrest
me in the aftermath of this interview.
>> And the current system, as you said,
uses violence. And yeah, all political
systems are about the monopoly of force
in the end, right?
You use the phrase redirect violence.
What does it mean to say we need to
redirect violence?
>> I mean I first of all I abhore violence.
Let's just start there, right? But
violence in this uh abstract concept
would be equivalent to the the
structural violence of poverty for
example. So when I'm talking about
violence I want to make it very clear.
I'm not talking like go out take up arms
and like start shooting people right?
I'm I'm talking about the structural
violence of poverty. Redirecting that
redirect in the same way would be
>> uh the the structural structural
violence of equity because structural
eradication of unjust wealth.
>> Would that be fair?
>> That would be that would be a
>> So the socialist So the socialist society
society
>> does not go out and shoot people.
>> No. Yeah. though this has happened in
some socialist societies in the past.
>> I should just note. Um but it goes into
you live in you live in LA, right?
>> Um so it goes into you know um Beverly
Hills or something and it says today
>> the you know the city council has voted
to expropriate
>> expropriate your
>> dude I'm convinced he used a Reddit
talking points. No he didn't. He didn't
use Reddit talking points. This is
Frosted. Assan is not a revolutionary.
He just appreciates violence and he uses
a clip from Asmin when he have sourced
it from you. No, calm down. This is New
York Times. They did not source their
target. This is not the free press. All
of the snark that you are experiencing
from Ros Dow that is coming from him and
maybe one of his like producers. That's
homegrown. You guys are crazy. You You
literally don't understand it. I'm sure
he used the asthma clip cuz like someone
in his uh someone in his uh in his
payroll brought it up. But like I will
say Ross is very good at what he does
here. He knows what he's doing even
though I hate it. Yeah, he is setting
this up and you will see in a second.
He's setting this up to say your ver
your world view is violent. And I know
he's setting it up to say that. And
that's precisely why I'm starting the
conversation by describing what I mean
when we're talking about violence, like
the structural forms of violence.
Because basically, poverty is is
structural violence. Not being able to
to make rent and then being evicted is
structural violence, right? Eviction is
a violent process. And the reversal of
that process would be seemingly violent
for those with the power, those with
capital. It would be violent to force
the the landlords to no longer be able
to evict people, for example, or be
violently taking away their profit
margins, eradicating or shredding their
profit margins in its entirety. That
would be a a a different way to examine
structural violence in a hypothetical
socialist utopia. The IRS collecting
taxes, which I I think brought up in
this conversation eventually, is what
libertarians would consider to be the
state exercising or enforcing its
monopoly of violence by telling you
you're going to go to prison if you
don't pay the taxes. So when I talk
about structural violence of that sort,
even the uh reformist positions that I
have that are fairly modest, reformist
positions that I have like increasing
taxes for example, yeah, that will be
seen as something that is unimaginably
violent for those who are at the highest
percentage in the highest tax bracket.
The reason why I started this
conversation with structural violence,
however, is because I know it's going to
go back to direct violence, the type of
violence that liberals actually see as
as truly violent because no one actually
recognizes structural violence as like
another form of violence. Lavish
undeserved wealth and return your homes
to the people. And that's backed up by
police power. So, it's violent, but it's
not it's not, you know, shooting people
against the wall. But like, is that is
that what you mean? that kind of redirection.
redirection.
>> A similar Yeah, a similar structure I
think like has been attempted or or uh
was exhibited in in Cuba and and I think
it was Fidel Castro himself who
personally uh took back uh any farmland
from his own family members that that
went above and beyond what the state had
designed. Now obviously this is a
terrifying concept for a lot of people.
So this is so far in the future. Yeah,
this is so far out in the future uh for
for even someone like myself that like I
don't even see the necessity of arguing
on how this would work because I'm more
invested in especially in the short term
getting socialized medicine like getting
universal health care uh getting free
schooling uh all the way up to the
college education especially for public
universities ensuring that we have some
semblance of of government competition
if you want to call it that that
interferes with the with the regular
market to claw back housing prices for
example by by creating public housing.
Uh things that exist in other uh fairly
robust social democracies and things
that actually a lot poorer nations have
been able to develop just good governance.
governance. >> Okay.
>> Okay.
But we're having so we're having a
debate right now about political
political violence in the US. Right. So
yes, I agree. The expropriation of the
property of wealthy Angelinos is
abstract and we can, you know, far far
in the future, right? But debates about
political violence in this moment
aren't. And your platform Twitch is
right now looks like it might be one of
the Trump administration's
targets in the aftermath of the Kirk
shooting. There's been a lot of Isi
coming at you for living in LA. It's a
not so subtle jab at like you're a a
fake revolutionary. You live in a nice
house. of course you don't want that.
But he fails to comprehend that like I
want more equitable outcomes for every
single person. The example I always use
was when people would be like socialist
but as a Porsche. And it's like if in
the future in Los Angeles if the only
way that we could achieve robust public
transit was for me to dump my car into
the ocean, I'd be the first to dump my
car into the ocean. I want these
outcomes for everyone. And yes, this is
consequential for my bottom line as
well, but I don't give a but in the
interim, the idea that like I have to
live like Dioynes is stupid about, you
know, we're going to go after
uh, you know, institutions and
organizations that support political
radicalism or incite violence. I think
Congress is calling CEOs from Discord
and Steam and Twitch and Reddit to
testify next month. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> Um,
>> Um,
why are they doing this? Why is why is
Twitch Why is Twitch a target?
>> Um I I suspect a big part of the reason
why Twitch is a target here, even though
it was not mentioned in the
investigation at all, like there's no
evidence that Tyler Robinson, the
alleged shooter of Charlie Kirk, was
ever on Twitch. He might have he might
have been, right? But there's no
evidence for it uh whatsoever. But the
reason why uh they're they're being
called in, I think, is specifically
because the administration currently is,
in my opinion, perhaps in a very cynical
manner, utilizing Charlie Kirk's uh
death, as a way to bring about significant
significant
uh clawbacks of the the First Amendment.
um free expression and and free
organization, free free organizing of
the political left. And they haven't
necessarily made this a secret either.
They've gone after Jimmy Kimmel and
numerous other
uh cultural figures that conservatives
have petty grievances around, right? And
they've done so in a in a way where uh
even the most vanilla, the most timid
assessment of events is is enough for
the administration to pull the FCC in
>> to to demand uh taking Jimmy Kimmel off
the air. And this has created tremendous
backlash from uh even Republicans, as a
matter of fact, because a lot of people
do love free speech. I love free speech.
I come from a country that does not have
free speech. I came to the United States
of America from Turkey originally, uh, a
country that actually does jail
political dissident and journalists uh,
quite frequently and I don't want that
to happen here in the United States of America,
America,
>> right? So, it's it's
>> but that is what they're going towards,
>> right? So, you have you have the Jimmy
Kimmel controversy as of
>> Yeah. Look, he's like he his position
basically is he doesn't ever fully say
it, but his position basically is,
"Yeah, it's really stupid that they went
after Jimmy Kimmel. They should have
cuz you do deserve getting arrested for
your speech. As of this conversation,
he's back on the air. But what they're
doing with calling in Twitch and so on,
like that's that's kind of about you,
right? Like you are you are a target
>> for sure,
>> right? And are you a target? Are you a
target just just because you say, you
know, you're some kind of Marxist who
wants to be post-lberal, or is it
something else?
>> I think uh conservatives have a really
great way of designing a narrative that
makes sense to as broad of an audience
as possible, even though their own
setback is is
>> uh often times uh how hard they go after
certain people. Um, but in the in the
grand design of things, if you look at
like the Antifa designation as a
domestic terror group, for example, if
you read the executive order, it makes
sense. They're they're presenting this
as a as a uh this this violent leftist
organized unit that is like responsible
for so much political violence that's
taking place. It's of course built up uh
around this hysteria that they expertly
craft as a media narrative first and
foremost, but then but then they they
want to tackle it. Notice how any time I
start cooking, he goes, "Okay." And he
has to interject. I want to talk about
some serious and he's like, "Okay, but
what about you?" He's teasing the idea
of you being violent might have more
validity than you're leading on is
snarky and gross. No, I know that. I
know that. I knew that going in. That's
why I have to keep steamrolling through
it to get to the meat of the matter
because I also know the environment that
I'm in. I'm speaking not to Ross Doubt
it. I'm speaking to New York Times
readers which also include, you know,
right-wing Republicans and conservatives
that are going to see this and be like,
"Wow, this is a dangerous guy." So, on
the one hand, that's what I'm cognizant
of. But also on the other hand, I I I
know that the the the
real thing that Ros Dowit is not
interested in talking about because he
is a Republican
is the fact that the administration is
doing that. But he wants to legitimize
the administration's actions in that
direction by simply saying, "Well, you
kind of deserve it, though. So if they
do come after you, don't you think you
deserve it?" And yes, the New York Times
readership is liberal, but Ross doubt it
is not. Or unless you mean liberal in
like the the actual political theory.
What were your objectives? Inform and
convince them. No, my object my
objectives were to talk to a right-wing
figure at the New York Times who was a a
pretty decent interviewer uh and get
across some of my fears. get across some
of my fears about the Trump
administration so that as broad an
audience of New York New York Times
readership as possible is also aware.
It's the same [ __ ] that I do here every
day. Everyone is in the business of
crafting media narratives, right? And the
the
>> I wish Democrats were a little bit
better at it to be fair. The media
narrative around Antifa, right, exists
at some level of hype, but also some
level of reality because if you lived in
Portland, Oregon in the year of our Lord
2020, you had a lot of experiences of
political protest and violence that
involved people who called themselves
Antifa. That was not fake, right? And
it's also not fake that you are a
provocator, right? like they're not, you
know, there there are plenty of people
on Twitch who
>> he also will add a second thing onto the
back end that I agree with cuz like I do
agree with being a political provocator.
I don't agree with the Antifa
designation, but I agree with being
called a political provocator. So, in
that vein, like it looks like I'm
agreeing with everything he's saying,
but I'm actually agreeing with the
second half of the statement
>> are, you know, who they're not who who
are not highlighted by conservatives,
right? I just want to give you one more
chance to describe the things about you
in your own words that people are going
after before I describe them for you.
>> Yeah. No, I I I'm sure that we'll get to
that point as well, but like I said,
>> in just a second we will.
>> The things the things that I the things
that I advocate for are pretty clear.
Um, but of course it's this is something
that conservatives have experienced and
have considered cancel culture or like
wokeness uh in particular for for quite
a bit where you can just like reframe
someone and and smear them especially in
the format that uh that I exist in. It's
quite simple to take people completely
out of context or make it seem as though
they are incapable of using metaphor or
uh incapable of being insincere or or um
hyperbolic in moments, right? And so it
it kind of goes back to the same thing
is like Antifa is a serious threat to
American stability and order and it's an
organized unit that must be tackled
because they're justifying uh violence
against uh you know,
>> and what do they think you are?
and things of that nature.
>> The equivalent of that would be
conservatives saying that you're
inciting violence, right?
>> Yes. I think that is precisely what
they're going to try to do. And not just
like inciting violence necessarily, but
uh inciting terror. >> Right.
>> Right.
>> Revolutionary terror, you might say.
>> Yes. Yes. Yes. Exactly. And I think that
is the grand design and the ways in
which uh the the conservative apparatus
is going to try and stamp out any sort
of political discontent like any sort of
political disscent really. Um because
that much has been clear to me where
it's not just about people like myself
who they can who they can single out and
target and say are like you know very
scary individuals but it's also Gavin
Newsome, right? like Gavin Newsome will
come out and and make this symbolic
gesture where he has no power over
federal agents, but he'll he'll say that
in the next year, ICE agents that are
conducting ICE operations in California
state have to be unmasked when they're
doing this, right? And this is I think
it's a fairly reasonable provision even
though it's uh it's ultimately symbolic.
Having said that, however, could the
conservative apparatus will point to
that as like Gavin Newsome wants to kill
ICE agents and docks them? Like that's
not the case, right? I mean, that's just
that's ridiculous.
>> All right, so let's let's let's make
this a little more.
>> Yeah, he hates when I he hated every
single time I compared myself. every
single time I packaged like what the
administration is actually doing, he
would just get a little annoyed and try
to get it back to just me cuz his entire
framework is like the administration
might come after you and when that
happens it's actually totally just
because you're a rabble rouser.
Now, of course, obviously, he doesn't
fully subscribe to that notion because
if he thought I was like a dangerous
terrorist, he wouldn't be having a
non-contentious conversation with or
somewhat contentious conversation with
me. But he is actively in this
conversation trying to separate me from
the likes of Jimmy Kimmel and separate
me from the likes of Gavin Newsome. But
from the administration's perspective,
there is no stopping. And that's my
point. There is no there is no stopping
at Hassan Hassan Abi [ __ ] the dangerous
radical because I'm not a dangerous
radical to begin with. I think he might
consider me that, but he's also, you
know, a pro-life Republican and someone
who's very right-wing. Like I I consider
him to be a dangerous radical, right?
So, the goal here is to to separate me
from the rest of the crop of like, you
know, high-profile liberals that the
administration is going after. But
unfortunately for him, the
administration is going after them even
harder than they're going after me. So,
that's why he keeps getting annoyed. And
it's not even that he's annoyed with me,
it's more so that he's annoyed with the
administration. Did he think you were a
[ __ ] going into this? He really
undermined his own approach by letting
you humanize and contextualize these
topics before his analysis? No. I think
that was fair of him to do so. I think I
don't think he thinks I'm a [ __ ] but I
don't but I think he thought that I
would dance around too much and I
wouldn't appear confident in my world
view. I mean, think about it this way.
He had this convers he had a similar
conversation with like Peter Theel, for
example. He talks to a lot of very
powerful people who are very confident
in their abilities even if they actually
don't have the skill to to properly
communicate their positions. Peter Theal
is one of those people and that's why he
had like a awesome moment with Peter the
where he was like are you the antichrist
and he's like uh uh or do you want
humanity to survive and he's like uh uh
I don't know. I think that's maybe what
he thought he could get out of this
potentially cuz I don't think he's like
a huge fan of mine or anything. I think
he thought like even if he even if he
was like charitable in the beginning he
would be able to cook. But the problem
there is twofold. one, while he might
consider my worldview to be radical, I
don't think it actually is. It might
come across as uh radical if you if you
look at like some edge cases or
whatever, some clips out of context. But
he's not indecent enough to go that hard
on that kind of stuff, cuz that's like
not the New York Times way.
Cuz if he were to go that hard, then I
think even the New York Times audience
would be like, "The are you doing?" Like
at a time when Donald Trump is the
president and and Donald Trump is
literally talking about killing
protesters and you're focusing on some
like random leftwing Twitch streamer
that I've never heard of the this like
it would look he would look too
insincere. He thought you would spend
all your time defending yourselves
instead of criticizing the administic
actions. That's also true that but I'm
not I'm not there to talk about myself.
Zora Mumdani does a very good job with
this as well. I haven't fought you for
long time. Am I missing something? How
they think you're violent? I assume you
share the same confusion. Don't make
sense. No, I know. I know exactly where
that uh uh animosity is coming from. Uh
there are there are clips out there of
course over the course of tens of
thousands of hours that people could
point to from many many years ago or
even recently like when uh when I talked
about how Democrats need to be cutthroat
in debates. They need to shank their
opponents. Like I'm being hyperbolic,
but Republicans would clip that to be
like he wants people to kill people.
like he wants dem he wants Nancy Pelosi
to take a knife out and like
unironically stab you know Mike Johnson
or some like there are plenty of
instances where you can do that to
someone like myself especially the way
I've come to terms with this is that it
is virtually impossible for any human
being on the planet who speaks to as
large an audience as I do for as long as
I have in a medium where there is
constant back and forth communication
with haters and whatnot it is virtually
impossible for them to remain
infallible, to look like they have never
had a moment that can be clipped out of
context. It's impossible.
>> You are telling a story where it's you
and Jimmy Kimmel and Gavin Newsome,
right? And you're all targets of the conservative.
conservative.
>> I don't want to ask him if he thinks
Alice Jones should be in prison because
I think he would say yes.
>> Paratus. Okay. But you're you're pretty
different from Jimmy Kimmel and Gavin
Newsome in part a lot for reasons we
were just discussing, right? They're
liberals. They're good milktoast
liberals, whatever they may say.
>> And you are more radical. You're
post-liberal in some way. You want a
different a different horizon, a
different future.
>> But beyond that, you are also willing to
push your rhetoric further than they do.
Certainly further than Jimmy Kimmel
does. Right. And I say this, I want to
be clear. I have a pretty high tolerance
for, let's say, vivid political
rhetoric. I came of age as a newspaper
columnist in the 2010s when my liberal
friends were all saying like, "Oh, every
time the Tea Party, you know, talks
about revolution and taking our country
back, they're inciting violence." And
now I live in a world where my
conservative friends say Gavin Newsome's
inciting violence. Anyone who calls
Trump a fascist is fighting violence. I
think this is a I think this
>> not even a Hassan [ __ ] fan. And I do
not understand how people blame him for
barely existing leftist bias. Um, you
should have gone harder for the on the
cancer of liberalism to the New York
Times audience in my opinion. No, I need
the liberals who are reading the
newspaper to be my allies when the
administration comes after me. You're
wrong. Your analysis is not even
controversial from most political
science. I do not understand why you get
so much hate. You can read books with
similar analysis to yours. Yes, because
those are books that you read in college
and they're not being blasted on the
timeline to hundreds of thousands of
young people in America. That's the
difference. Like I'll give you an
example. The the indigenous rights
professor at Cornell University who's
Jewish was uh recently suspended for
teaching a course on Palestine. Okay.
Okay, the professor is Jewish and that
professor was suspended after like, you
know, there was like a unit 8200 IDF guy
in the class. He was like filming
people. He was being disruptive,
whatever, right? But that professor
initially was targeted by Canary Mission
and Richie Torres. Why am I talking
about this professor? Because it proves
the argument that I'm presenting to you.
When Canary Mission actually targeted
this professor, I'm going to pull the
quote for you real quick. They actually
pointed to something that he talked
about in his lecture. The thing he said
only comes across as offensive to those
who are completely
not knowledgeable about the issue about
Hamas. This was it. Are you ready?
Richie Torres posting a Canary mission
uh uh tweet says, "Eric Chaffitz, who's
a Cornell professor, demonizes Israel
and lionizes Hamas, treating good and
evil as evil, good as evil, and evil is
good. He insists Hamas is morally
different from al-Qaeda and ISIS because
it does not advocate for universal
jihad. It simply seeks to wipe Israel
off the map. Chafitz is untroubled by
genocide when the target is the homeland
of the Jewish people. Poisonous
professors like Chafitz are poisoning
young minds at taxpayer expense." This
is the quote. Unlike al-Qaeda or ISIS,
Hamas does not advocate for universal
jihad. It is focused solely on the
liberation of Palestine from Zionist
fundamentalism in parentheses apartheid
and the end of the state of Israel.
November 4th, 2023. Now, nothing that
Eric Chafitz, who is Jewish himself, by
the way, said there is actually even
remotely offensive. As a matter of fact,
it's the exact opposite. It is what you
need from college professors. You need
honesty and truth from educators in
these esteemed institutes of higher
learning like Cornell. What he is saying
is factually accurate.
Okay, this is not an opinion.
This is just a fact. He is describing a
fact. But to the broader audience, that
fact is something that they don't want
to hear. That's a fact that they do not
want to hear. So what do they do? They
bastardize that fact. they chop it up or
sometimes directly present that
factually accurate statement and go,
"Can you believe this college professor
said this?" So yes, while certain things
might be completely true in an academic
context, it can be very dangerous for a
much larger audience to hear that scary
truth, at least in the eyes of those who
are very powerful and have an interest
in making sure that the broader audience
doesn't hear the truth. So, my problem
isn't that I'm engaging in like violent
rhetoric or whatever. My problem is that
I'm saying stuff like this, but often
times also using hyperbole, jokes, and
making that process as entertaining as
possible. And because of that, I'm able
to do that to a much larger audience
than a college professor could in their
own lecture. That's the fear. That's
what makes it so uh so crazy for a lot
of people because if Eric Chavis was
saying that on a Twitch stream, he'd get
yelled at all the same. As a matter of
fact, he's getting yelled at for doing
it in a lecture that is directly about
anti-colonial movements. His lecture is
about Hamas. His lecture is about other
indigenous movements that have fought
against uh previous forms of empire and
contemporary current forms of empire,
imperial power. It's the medium that I
do it and the way that I do it that
makes it uh very scary for a lot of
people because before the internet there
was a filter as Noom Chsky talks about.
There was a filter for someone to reach
a very broad audience to reach this
massive audience massive number of
people. You could only get there if you
were from an aristocratic family or you
went to the right schools. You kissed
the right asses and you chose your words
very carefully and you got elevated
through the regular process in
mainstream news. And therefore people
self-censored in order to get to that
level in order to be in front of in
order to have the privilege of being in
front of a massive audience and to be
able to influence them. Whether they
were going through that process in a
newspaper, whether they were going
through that process through a
television channel, doesn't matter. But
now that the internet exists, you can
have even larger audiences than CNN
while sitting in a hotel room or while
sitting in your own living room. And you
don't have to filter yourself in that
same way. But that's what's so scary
about what I'm doing. That's what's so
uh worrisome about what I'm doing
because you can't have people being
like, "Israel is a illegal criminal
entity that is doing genocide." Because
if there weren't more independent voices
on the internet, if there wasn't Tik
Tok, there wasn't like people on Twitter
and whatnot saying this over and over
again, you wouldn't see this level of
mass discontent. It's about controlling
flows of information. Why do why do we
think Tik Tok was sold to Larry Ellison?
Because the algorithm that was
previously controlled by a foreign
government was allowing unique thoughts
to flourish in that algorithm. allowing
thoughts that normally allowing speech
that normally would not ever be heard in
front of as broad of an audience as it
was being heard on Tik Tok. If this
wasn't so important or so scary for
those who want to control flows of
information, if it if they didn't
consider this to be dangerous, they
wouldn't have sold Tik Tok. They
wouldn't have forced Tik Tok to be sold
to someone who is one of the biggest
donors to the IDF. Right. Yes. Even
after the sale, it's still controlled by
a foreign government. I know it's Israel
instead of China. I know doesn't matter
>> the country. I think if you want to call
Donald Trump a fascist, you're free to
do so. If I want to call you a commie,
I'm free to I'm free to do so. You know,
>> people do it all the time.
>> People do it all the time. I you know,
>> but this is my reading and I'll let you
tell me why I'm wrong in a minute. I
think you push further and I think you
like to play with the rhetoric of
violence. So like you were suspended
from Twitch I think for a day. Still you
are arguing for a process of
consolidation that should be normal in a
functioning democracy not calling for
anarchy or violence. I know but his
entire purpose here is to say I am
actively calling for violence and if he
if I were to like when he initially
started asking me about like you know
what my worldview is he wanted me to say
like no through a system of violence we
will seize the means of production or
some so we could just start talking
about how dangerous of a rhetoric it is.
And for the record, there are plenty of
people who do believe that. And no,
that's not a dangerous rhetoric either.
Let's be real, that's not actually
dangerous rhetoric. Partially because
it's completely marginal and partially
because of the same exact underlying
principle that I mentioned as well,
which is structural violence being uh a
a a constant and permanent part of
people's existence. My point is uh there
are people who do believe that and they
are either marginal figures or overall
at most they're talking about like
historic examples that have existed. And
the only reason why we see that as like
a form of violence as opposed to like
World War II being a form of violence
that is like permissible is because
they're on the other side. They're on
the opposing side. We're capitalists.
It's that simple. If the entire world
was socialist and you had a bunch of
capitalists living in a socialist
government and they were fantasizing
about capitalist forms of violence, the
socialist government would look at that
and go, "This is dangerous. This is
violent rhetoric." It's that simple. We
live in a capitalist country. Of course,
any sort of redistributive policies are
are looked at with tremendous scrutiny.
Obviously, that's the reason why people
evening yell at me when I say we we want
to give socialized medicine to
Americans. like that is seen as a
dangerous prospect, a dangerous
proposition for many people.
>> It was argument you're having about
Medicare fraud, right?
>> And the GOP was going to crack down on
Medicare fraud. And you said, well, if
they really cared about Medicare fraud
or Medicaid fraud, you would kill Rick
Scott. This is the Florida Center. And
it's a reference to the fact that
Scott's company
>> uh paid some huge fines for they they
were engaged in some kind of Medicare
fraud, right? But you didn't say we
should put Rick Scott in jail for
Medicare fraud, right? You said
>> if you cared about Medicare fraud or
Medicaid fraud, you would Rick Scott,
okay? You wouldn't make Rick Scott
former governor of Florida Rick Scott.
>> This is not as gold clip. This is from
my own YouTube video chatters.
>> You wouldn't make him uh a prominent
part of the Republican party.
>> Well, this was for the record. Yeah,
>> this was a in response directly to Mike
Johnson and it is something that I take
ownership over. I did I did apologize
for the language that I use instead of
saying like, you know, just you should
jail Rick Scott, >> right?
>> right?
>> Uh which would have been the most
inoffensive. It was a hyperbolic
statement that I made uh not with like
uh any sort of significant death threat
issued to a sitting elected
representative. Obviously,
>> I agree. I don't think I issuing a death
threat. I agree.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So, but but you're right
that is hyperbolic language for sure and
it's it's uh it's one statement in a
grand uh sea of others that that of
course gets highlighted through the same
outrage machine and then uh people
demand punishments and then those
punishments do come down and it causes
me to be even more careful with my
language. Having said that, given the
10-hour format that I have, there are
definitely going to be weak moments
where I just like say something without
even thinking about what that might come
across as. >> Yeah,
>> Yeah,
I mean, you do. Again, I I read I read through
through
you have a lot of content,
>> right? So, I'm not going to tell you
that I have read through every every
hour, every transcript. Um, >> yeah,
>> yeah,
>> but I feel like I read enough to get a
sense of sort of what you mean by
hyperbole, right? And it means it means
different things, right? It means like
you're you know you're talking about
you're talking about landlords and why
they're bad. I think you were t you know
you were talking to a landlord friend at
the time, right? But you said, you know,
let the street soak in their bleeping
red capitalist blood, dude. >> Right.
>> Right.
>> So yeah, I don't
>> and I also said in a video game, but right
right
>> to to showcase the silliness of the
statement of
>> Right. Okay. So it's like ironic or is
it Marxist revolutionary rhetoric? I I
just want to bring this to a fine point.
There's the great case of Luigi Manion,
right? Um who is charged with murdering
the CEO.
>> Unsurprising that this is presented as
some kind of advanced level tone
policing critique. Yeah, I mean that
that is what it is. Why is he talking to
you like the school principal? Because
that's what's going on. Aka he read
whatever viral conservatives think this
guy wants to genocide the wise clips.
Guys, it doesn't matter. Those clips are
out there. Ross Douet is probably one of
the I would say one of the better uh
formats and one of the better Republican
thinkers to address those clips with. No
way people are saying you lost the
debate. No. Who the [ __ ] is saying that?
The comments don't seem to think that at
all. They actually enjoy the
conversation. Dude, I coulding
absolutely eviscerate whatever
interlocator in the marketplace of ideas
and there is going to be a crop of
people online who are going to say,
"Dude, he got owned." That's just what
they do. Those are the same people who
quite literally when I made a public
statement about not going to TwitchCon
out of concern for the safety of others
around me, not even myself, but the
safety of others around me. Literally
use that as an opportunity to dunk. You
need to you need to understand like
these there's just gonna be people that
do that regardless
>> of United Healthcare in broad daylight
in New York City and you're going to
tell me that you've always said that
murder is wrong and that Luigi Banjon
should not have committed murder. Um,
but you've talked a lot about Luigi and you
you
>> I think it's one of the most
consequential it's one of the most
consequential instances of adventurism
which I always will say is
>> wrong because I think it invokes social
instability which I think is is bad in
general to to exist under. But what I
try to always do, especially with the
Luigi Manion case, is to talk about the
concept, for example, of social murder,
the notion of of our our systems that
already exist, like the the
privatization of healthcare and the
denial of care that uh that make people
infinitely less tolerant than we
normally would in a civilized society to
an adventurist act of of violence such
as the case with Luigi Manion. Who is
we? I'm interested in talking about just
pause there.
>> That make you're talking because this is
this is something you've done
>> a bunch, right? You sort of
>> you don't say I love Luigi. You're like
we people people are you know he's seen
as a positive figure for most of
America. He says I'm going to dish out
what many Americans have experienced to
the figurehead
>> of that of that pain. Right. Mhm.
>> Do you think like most Americans
sympathize with like who who is the we
who looks at shooting United Healthcare
CEO and says that's understandable.
>> I think it's the people online that are
not necessarily like card carrying DSA
members or whatnot, but just like
>> that's Democratic Socialist of America
just for
>> you know. Yeah. Yeah. not not the like
the DSA guys or the Democratic Socialism
of America or or you know Party for
Socialism and Liberation, but it's like
the the Barbers and the Deborres as I
like to call it that you know live in
the Midwest and are are uh truly
uh repulsed by the way that uh that
private healthc care operates in this
country. And for them, I think the Luigi
Mun case is really unique because
Americans do not like political
violence, right? Nobody likes it. I
mean, it's this is poll after poll that
has shown everyone thinks that obviously
murder is wrong. Uh I think murder is
wrong. Everyone thinks political
violence is wrong. And yet in the case
of Luigi Manion, a lot of people I think
had such a deep personal experience with
the way that the health care system has
harmed them in some way that the
reaction ultimately was very different
than one I had expected. From the moment
that before they even found out who the
alleged shooter was, from the moment
that people recognized that the victim
was the faceless uh uh CEO of a
healthcare company, everyone immediately
understood not faceless, right?
>> No, no. I'm saying like for
>> for most people, the healthcare company
had previously been faceless and now
there was a debt ban who had a face. >> Right.
>> Right.
>> Exactly. and and I think that was a
unique case that needed to be examined
and that's precisely the reason why the
media was covering it in the same way as
well. The only difference is that
tonally speaking they were just more so
outraged by the reaction in of itself
rather than trying to examine why people
felt this way. And I think what I try to
do in this situ I mean look at this bro
look at this
yuggov December 17th 2024
net favorability of Luigi Manion 18 to
29 year olds plus 9% 30 to 44 year olds
minus 1%. I mean that's crazy 18 to 44
either as a positive opinion or like
50/50 split on them. Yeah. If people
have more financial security, then they
have uh they they have less interest in
in this kind of like dangerously uh
unstable moment. That's it. If people
are hopeless about their future, they
end up leaning on adventurism. That is my argument. That is the point I'm
my argument. That is the point I'm making. It took people recognizing who
making. It took people recognizing who the victim's job. not who the victim
the victim's job. not who the victim was, but just what the job was of the
was, but just what the job was of the CEO or of the of the person who was shot
CEO or of the of the person who was shot for them to immediately know, oh, I know
for them to immediately know, oh, I know what happened here. If Luigi Manion went
what happened here. If Luigi Manion went out and shot a cop, they would not have
out and shot a cop, they would not have responded that way. If he went out and
responded that way. If he went out and shot a politician, even people would not
shot a politician, even people would not have responded that way. But healthc
have responded that way. But healthc care is such a universal burden on all
care is such a universal burden on all Americans that they literally understood
Americans that they literally understood exactly what the was going on and
exactly what the was going on and responded the way that they did and many
responded the way that they did and many others is to explain why people feel
others is to explain why people feel this way because for them uh when their
this way because for them uh when their grandparent has cancer and then that
grandparent has cancer and then that treatment is denied or the coverage is
treatment is denied or the coverage is denied even though they're paying these
denied even though they're paying these incredibly costly premiums to this
incredibly costly premiums to this healthcare company, they view that as
healthcare company, they view that as murder. They view that as as a a
murder. They view that as as a a tremendous wrong that was done to them.
tremendous wrong that was done to them. And I seek to address these problems so
And I seek to address these problems so that there isn't decentralized forms of
that there isn't decentralized forms of violence where people uh make up their
violence where people uh make up their own minds and assume that they have uh
own minds and assume that they have uh the the righteous vindication and
the the righteous vindication and they're going to go out and do things
they're going to go out and do things like this.
like this. >> I don't know, man. I think you're kind
>> I don't know, man. I think you're kind of a hype man.
of a hype man. >> Yeah, but that's not a good that is not
>> Yeah, but that's not a good that is not a good counter to what I just said. If
a good counter to what I just said. If we're just going banan forb on just
we're just going banan forb on just debate. Okay, we're talking about this
debate. Okay, we're talking about this from just the perspective of a debate.
from just the perspective of a debate. Okay, I laid it out exactly. I said
Okay, I laid it out exactly. I said decentralized forms of violence is a
decentralized forms of violence is a risk. It's a risk for societal collapse
risk. It's a risk for societal collapse because for many people, society is
because for many people, society is already unwinding. They understand they
already unwinding. They understand they they have have universalized this burden
they have have universalized this burden of private healthcare. for them. They're
of private healthcare. for them. They're like Brian Thompson for the perspective
like Brian Thompson for the perspective of the average person is people like
of the average person is people like Brian Thompson are responsible for a
Brian Thompson are responsible for a death of a loved one by denying them
death of a loved one by denying them coverage. I know he's a cog in the
coverage. I know he's a cog in the machine and I know he's not directly
machine and I know he's not directly responsible for it, but that's precisely
responsible for it, but that's precisely how people reflected on it. And of
how people reflected on it. And of course, I think it's worthy of of
course, I think it's worthy of of analysis. And he goes, "Yeah, I don't
analysis. And he goes, "Yeah, I don't know, man.
know, man. How is that a how how is that? That's
How is that a how how is that? That's not a counter. I don't know. I think you
not a counter. I don't know. I think you like it. Okay. Well,
like it. Okay. Well, why did I describe everything then?
why did I describe everything then? Check the comments. Everything is
Check the comments. Everything is negative and he pinned the one neutral
negative and he pinned the one neutral comment. Yeah, I have it right here. By
comment. Yeah, I have it right here. By the way, I don't know what he personally
the way, I don't know what he personally or what the New York Times personally
or what the New York Times personally pinned, but the reader picks are cooking
pinned, but the reader picks are cooking them. I'd love to have someone take the
them. I'd love to have someone take the most controversial statements that have
most controversial statements that have been espoused by Assad and contrast that
been espoused by Assad and contrast that with the inflammatory and incipit
with the inflammatory and incipit language of the mainstream media and the
language of the mainstream media and the right. I think some folks would be
right. I think some folks would be surprised that compared to some of
surprised that compared to some of Kirks, Limbball's or Carson's or Pools
Kirks, Limbball's or Carson's or Pools or Coward statements, he does not have
or Coward statements, he does not have nearly the same level of anger or ritual
nearly the same level of anger or ritual that these people speak on. Truly, we
that these people speak on. Truly, we live in some interesting times.
live in some interesting times. Especially in the end, Ross comes across
Especially in the end, Ross comes across as totally out of his depth in a
as totally out of his depth in a conversation that he's ostensibly
conversation that he's ostensibly leading. Hard to not see this whole
leading. Hard to not see this whole exchange being embleatic of the media
exchange being embleatic of the media landscape. The traditional media seems
landscape. The traditional media seems to be operating in an outdated paradigm
to be operating in an outdated paradigm that stopped in Trump's first term,
that stopped in Trump's first term, which was nearly a decade ago. Now,
which was nearly a decade ago. Now, there's no doubt in my mind that Donald
there's no doubt in my mind that Donald Trump is far more inflammatory than
Trump is far more inflammatory than anything this man Assan [ __ ] can
anything this man Assan [ __ ] can possibly say. And Donald Trump and his
possibly say. And Donald Trump and his disgraceful minions have proven that
disgraceful minions have proven that they will attempt to carry out even uh
they will attempt to carry out even uh every one of their violent and divisive
every one of their violent and divisive acts in the name of my government.
acts in the name of my government. Whatever Mr. Assan expresses, and I'm
Whatever Mr. Assan expresses, and I'm not at all familiar with him, I cannot
not at all familiar with him, I cannot express how disturbing I find the blas
express how disturbing I find the blas manner in which Mr. Doubted attempts to
manner in which Mr. Doubted attempts to associate people like me with violent
associate people like me with violent rhetoric wherever it rears ugly head,
rhetoric wherever it rears ugly head, especially while he winks away through
especially while he winks away through the disgrace of this administration. He
the disgrace of this administration. He explicitly says he doesn't endorse
explicitly says he doesn't endorse violence. So strange title. The double
violence. So strange title. The double standard that the left has to be a
standard that the left has to be a paragon of virtue while they say
paragon of virtue while they say everyone deserves healthcare, food, and
everyone deserves healthcare, food, and a roof over their head is insane.
a roof over their head is insane. Advocating for policies that end state
Advocating for policies that end state violence is far less violent than what
violence is far less violent than what the right does and says.
the right does and says. Assan has a better grasp of political
Assan has a better grasp of political working-class politics and the youth
working-class politics and the youth vote than 99.9% of elected Democrats.
vote than 99.9% of elected Democrats. Now do the version where you investigate
Now do the version where you investigate most of all political and cultural
most of all political and cultural figures on the right. You don't see
figures on the right. You don't see permission for violence in Kirk saying
permission for violence in Kirk saying that gay should be stoned to death. In
that gay should be stoned to death. In Kirk saying that he's willing to accept
Kirk saying that he's willing to accept some gun deaths to maintain American gun
some gun deaths to maintain American gun culture. and Kirk saying trans people
culture. and Kirk saying trans people should be lobbottomized. This is like
should be lobbottomized. This is like people dunking on this Patrick guy who I
people dunking on this Patrick guy who I guess said something like negative about
guess said something like negative about me. You found the original Patrick
me. You found the original Patrick comment. I'm not MAGA. Voted for Harris,
comment. I'm not MAGA. Voted for Harris, but I'll take 10,000 Charlie Kirks over
but I'll take 10,000 Charlie Kirks over 10,000 Pikers any day of the week.
10,000 Pikers any day of the week. Piker's all over the map as you'd expect
Piker's all over the map as you'd expect from someone who streams his conscious 7
from someone who streams his conscious 7 hours a day. But there's an unmistakable
hours a day. But there's an unmistakable permission for violence that runs
permission for violence that runs through his interview. Charlie Kirk
through his interview. Charlie Kirk never did that. Ezra Klein took a lot of
never did that. Ezra Klein took a lot of grief for complimenting Kirk's style,
grief for complimenting Kirk's style, but I much prefer the one-on-one logical
but I much prefer the one-on-one logical argumentative style over the run-on
argumentative style over the run-on formless dialogue with unseen and
formless dialogue with unseen and unheard viewers peppering him with cash
unheard viewers peppering him with cash dips that characterizes Piker's whole
dips that characterizes Piker's whole stick. By which I mean, [ __ ] was a
stick. By which I mean, [ __ ] was a great interview subject. Nicely done,
great interview subject. Nicely done, Mr. Doued. I'm sure that many of your
Mr. Doued. I'm sure that many of your readers/ listeners had no idea who [ __ ]
readers/ listeners had no idea who [ __ ] is or what he does or the way he offers
is or what he does or the way he offers excuses for shocking violence under the
excuses for shocking violence under the banner of socialism and progressivism.
banner of socialism and progressivism. And every one of the New York Times
And every one of the New York Times readers is like, "What the are you
readers is like, "What the are you talking about? This is ludicrously
talking about? This is ludicrously revisionist about Charlie Kirk's public
revisionist about Charlie Kirk's public stances. Things like Islam is the sword
stances. Things like Islam is the sword of the left is using to slit the throat
of the left is using to slit the throat of America. Do you think that that's a
of America. Do you think that that's a call for his followers to engage in
call for his followers to engage in reasoned, measured debate with
reasoned, measured debate with conflicting viewpoints to allow
conflicting viewpoints to allow themselves to be convinced of things?
themselves to be convinced of things? Come off it. Marxists believe in ending
Come off it. Marxists believe in ending the capitalist system just as liberals
the capitalist system just as liberals believe in ending the feudal system.
believe in ending the feudal system. Whether that process is violent or not
Whether that process is violent or not is ultimately up to the ruling class.
is ultimately up to the ruling class. Patrick, more Patrick Dunks. If you
Patrick, more Patrick Dunks. If you truly dude, they went crazy on my boy
truly dude, they went crazy on my boy Patrick. Patrick simply wanted to get
Patrick. Patrick simply wanted to get aing slam in there and be like, "This a
aing slam in there and be like, "This a song guy. Charlie Kirk is so much better
song guy. Charlie Kirk is so much better than him." And the New York Times
than him." And the New York Times readership is eating his ass alive. If
readership is eating his ass alive. If you truly believe that Kirk never
you truly believe that Kirk never flirted with permission for violence,
flirted with permission for violence, then you are very forgetful. Charlie
then you are very forgetful. Charlie Kirk was very nonchalant about excusing
Kirk was very nonchalant about excusing violence. For example, when thugs
violence. For example, when thugs assaulted store workers and destroyed uh
assaulted store workers and destroyed uh uh store property during the Pride Month
uh store property during the Pride Month in 2023, he further encouraged such
in 2023, he further encouraged such displays of violence by painting them as
displays of violence by painting them as shows of force. Literally, tonight we
shows of force. Literally, tonight we show them that they're the losers. Or
show them that they're the losers. Or when Paul Pelosi was attacked in his own
when Paul Pelosi was attacked in his own home and Kirk encouraged his fathers to
home and Kirk encouraged his fathers to bail him out while painting the attacks
bail him out while painting the attacks as karma against the Democrats. Or when
as karma against the Democrats. Or when he called the biblical passage that
he called the biblical passage that calls for the death penalty against
calls for the death penalty against homosexuals the perfect rule. Charlie
homosexuals the perfect rule. Charlie Kirk was not the calm reasonable
Kirk was not the calm reasonable debating type. You desperately pretend
debating type. You desperately pretend he was. Bro, if you get this dogpiled
he was. Bro, if you get this dogpiled this hard by a bunch of Barbara's
this hard by a bunch of Barbara's Deborah's that are New York Times
Deborah's that are New York Times readers who take the time out to comment
readers who take the time out to comment on a New York Times article, you got to
on a New York Times article, you got to unsubscribe from the New York Times. You
unsubscribe from the New York Times. You You're getting This is like getting
You're getting This is like getting dunked on in the hub's comment section.
dunked on in the hub's comment section. Doubted response to [ __ ] using the term
Doubted response to [ __ ] using the term adventurism. We already covered this
adventurism. We already covered this today on Interesting Times. Ross pushing
today on Interesting Times. Ross pushing harder on a streamer from the left than
harder on a streamer from the left than he does when he interviews people on the
he does when he interviews people on the right with actual power and incite the
right with actual power and incite the perpetuate actual violence. Peter Theal
perpetuate actual violence. Peter Theal and JD Vance. It's so obvious how we
and JD Vance. It's so obvious how we ended up here as a country and
ended up here as a country and continually discouraging that our media
continually discouraging that our media continues to hand us the shovels that we
continues to hand us the shovels that we use to dig ourselves deeper into a
use to dig ourselves deeper into a failing state.
And even people who are like somewhat neutral to me that don't know who the I
neutral to me that don't know who the I am and are basically like this is their
am and are basically like this is their first introduction to who I am. They
first introduction to who I am. They basically say this, he's he's a fringe
basically say this, he's he's a fringe figure. He can have an audience of
figure. He can have an audience of hundreds of thousands, but think about
hundreds of thousands, but think about how tame he is in compared to the
how tame he is in compared to the American extreme right or even Rush
American extreme right or even Rush Limbaugh back in the day. Per doesn't
Limbaugh back in the day. Per doesn't cons doesn't consider conservatives
cons doesn't consider conservatives unamerican. Doesn't hate them. Doesn't
unamerican. Doesn't hate them. Doesn't want to use the power of the state to
want to use the power of the state to literally exterminate them. The reverse
literally exterminate them. The reverse simply isn't true. Exactly. I want to
simply isn't true. Exactly. I want to literally exterminate their medical
literally exterminate their medical debt. Dude, that's what I want for
debt. Dude, that's what I want for conservatives.
conservatives. Conservatives want me deported. I want
Conservatives want me deported. I want conservatives health care costs to be
conservatives health care costs to be deported. That's the difference between
deported. That's the difference between me and the average conservative. Now,
me and the average conservative. Now, they can turn around and act as though
they can turn around and act as though they're not advocating for violence by
they're not advocating for violence by simply presenting the Bible. They can be
simply presenting the Bible. They can be like, "Oh, the Bible told me it's okay
like, "Oh, the Bible told me it's okay to stone the gays." That's the Bible.
to stone the gays." That's the Bible. Take it up with the Bible over and over
Take it up with the Bible over and over again. I don't sit around and go, "Look
again. I don't sit around and go, "Look at the look at Das Capatel. Dascapatel
at the look at Das Capatel. Dascapatel told me this." That's not what I'm
told me this." That's not what I'm doing. That's Bart from Idaho, by the
doing. That's Bart from Idaho, by the way. Not a Hassanabi head. He is just
way. Not a Hassanabi head. He is just fine. In case somebody bothers to
fine. In case somebody bothers to understand what he's talking about, just
understand what he's talking about, just fine. We are living in a baffling time
fine. We are living in a baffling time in which a Twitch streamer is held to a
in which a Twitch streamer is held to a higher standard of the president of the
higher standard of the president of the United States. I listened very carefully
United States. I listened very carefully to this whole interview. I couldn't help
to this whole interview. I couldn't help but notice that every time I was
but notice that every time I was especially compelled by Piker's response
especially compelled by Piker's response to something, which is to say, when I
to something, which is to say, when I thought [ __ ] was about to take down
thought [ __ ] was about to take down Douedit's assumption, thesis, argument
Douedit's assumption, thesis, argument in especially powerful and eloquent way,
in especially powerful and eloquent way, Douet would interrupt and either
Douet would interrupt and either redirect or focus on a minute point in
redirect or focus on a minute point in effect derailing the narrative. This is
effect derailing the narrative. This is a very smart tactic and one that is
a very smart tactic and one that is difficult to combat. It requires the
difficult to combat. It requires the interviewe to have 100% presence of mind
interviewe to have 100% presence of mind and not be knocked off their feet. It's
and not be knocked off their feet. It's also a cheap tactic, understandable, but
also a cheap tactic, understandable, but cheap. By grip moments overcame it by
cheap. By grip moments overcame it by talking over Douat's interruptions, but
talking over Douat's interruptions, but obviously Delta had the home team
obviously Delta had the home team advantage. To everyone's credit though,
advantage. To everyone's credit though, I thought this was a great conversation,
I thought this was a great conversation, and I would be super supportive of more
and I would be super supportive of more of this. The two sides need to keep
of this. The two sides need to keep talking to each other in this way
talking to each other in this way instead of staying in echo chambers.
instead of staying in echo chambers. Check this one. Assam [ __ ] has turned
Check this one. Assam [ __ ] has turned his reckless rhetoric into a full-time
his reckless rhetoric into a full-time job. He's the guy who once said,
job. He's the guy who once said, "America deserves 911." Compared Hamas.
"America deserves 911." Compared Hamas. Okay, this guy is a [ __ ] this has to
Okay, this guy is a [ __ ] this has to be like a sex pestiny fan, right? I
be like a sex pestiny fan, right? I don't think the average New York Times
don't think the average New York Times reader is is that tuned into, you know,
reader is is that tuned into, you know, this has got to be like a like a Ethan
this has got to be like a like a Ethan Kleiner or like a Asmin Gold fan or like
Kleiner or like a Asmin Gold fan or like a sex pad. The the lone check the
a sex pad. The the lone check the YouTube comments. He pinned the one
YouTube comments. He pinned the one neutral comment. Everyone else is
neutral comment. Everyone else is cooking him. Oh, on YouTube he pinned
cooking him. Oh, on YouTube he pinned it. Love the podcast. Quickly becoming
it. Love the podcast. Quickly becoming the best show. Ross tries to bait us on
the best show. Ross tries to bait us on and call for an act of violence. Hassan
and call for an act of violence. Hassan chuckles. How to grown up in the Middle
chuckles. How to grown up in the Middle East radicalize you. This guy's a real
East radicalize you. This guy's a real piece of work. Nice to see a successful
piece of work. Nice to see a successful journalist sitting down with an
journalist sitting down with an upandcomer like Ross.
upandcomer like Ross. This reminds me of why I stopped reading
This reminds me of why I stopped reading the New York Times in the first place.
the New York Times in the first place. It's hard to tell if Ross is
It's hard to tell if Ross is intentionally misrepresenting Kosama
intentionally misrepresenting Kosama with the explicit intent to deceptively
with the explicit intent to deceptively warp his audience's perception or his
warp his audience's perception or his worldview is so distorted that he
worldview is so distorted that he genuinely thinks what he said is true. I
genuinely thinks what he said is true. I don't know which is worse. Insane
don't know which is worse. Insane interview. Ross putting words in Assam's
interview. Ross putting words in Assam's mouth and basically saying, "I don't
mouth and basically saying, "I don't believe you when you say you don't
believe you when you say you don't advocate for violence is embarrassing."
advocate for violence is embarrassing." Assant people are being murdered by
Assant people are being murdered by health insurance companies because they
health insurance companies because they refuse to provide payment for curable
refuse to provide payment for curable illnesses, diseases, etc. That is
illnesses, diseases, etc. That is structural violence. Ross, I don't know,
structural violence. Ross, I don't know, man. I think you're hyping up the
man. I think you're hyping up the violence. That literally just happened.
violence. That literally just happened. We we just paused it right there. Like
We we just paused it right there. Like literally
literally that is verbatim a summary of the of the
that is verbatim a summary of the of the last five minutes of me like
last five minutes of me like thoughtfully trying to describe to him.
thoughtfully trying to describe to him. Dude hated you before the interview now
Dude hated you before the interview now hates you even more after reading those
hates you even more after reading those comments. No, I think like this will
comments. No, I think like this will this will work well for him because he
this will work well for him because he got his point across. I think not only
got his point across. I think not only did he get his point across, but then
did he get his point across, but then also on top of that he was able to this
also on top of that he was able to this will this will do good numbers. Like he
will this will do good numbers. Like he gets good engagement out of this. So I
gets good engagement out of this. So I don't think these guys care about that
don't think these guys care about that kind of stuff
kind of stuff >> though. Like you're Yes, I I agree.
>> though. Like you're Yes, I I agree. You're doing analysis and sometimes the
You're doing analysis and sometimes the analysis you're people would have
analysis you're people would have celebrated Luigi Manion obviously
celebrated Luigi Manion obviously without you Hassan [ __ ]
without you Hassan [ __ ] >> talking about him all the time, right?
>> talking about him all the time, right? But I listen to the way you talk about
But I listen to the way you talk about him. Like you're fascinated by him too.
him. Like you're fascinated by him too. you're participating in the fascination
you're participating in the fascination and you're doing a thing where you're
and you're doing a thing where you're like, well, you know, I'm not saying
like, well, you know, I'm not saying violence is good, but you've got to
violence is good, but you've got to understand that there's other forms of
understand that there's other forms of violence in society besides this one.
violence in society besides this one. And people who like Manion,
And people who like Manion, >> um, they're saying this violence maybe
>> um, they're saying this violence maybe isn't as bad as that kind of violence.
isn't as bad as that kind of violence. And this just seems to me like
And this just seems to me like >> you're not the guy who starts the
>> you're not the guy who starts the revolution, but you're the violence
revolution, but you're the violence appreciator. That's that's sort of how
appreciator. That's that's sort of how how I feel about your manion coverage.
how I feel about your manion coverage. You're you're out there.
You're you're out there. It's like, okay, tell me why it's not
It's like, okay, tell me why it's not fair.
fair. >> But but the reason why I'm saying I
>> But but the reason why I'm saying I wouldn't say that that's fair is because
wouldn't say that that's fair is because like I do make it obviously very clear
like I do make it obviously very clear that um and I I refer to this over and
that um and I I refer to this over and over again, adventurism
over again, adventurism and and people taking matters into their
and and people taking matters into their own hands is a mere uh reaction to the
own hands is a mere uh reaction to the social contract unwinding in real time
social contract unwinding in real time in front of us. I don't think this is a
in front of us. I don't think this is a good thing. I want to make sure that we
good thing. I want to make sure that we have a system that helps everyone and
have a system that helps everyone and and a part of that is creating the same
and a part of that is creating the same social stability that existed. Now, you
social stability that existed. Now, you can do that by force uh by stamping out
can do that by force uh by stamping out disscent and moving in the direction of
disscent and moving in the direction of the Trump administration or you can try
the Trump administration or you can try and do that by by uh addressing some of
and do that by by uh addressing some of these inequities that exist that do
these inequities that exist that do actually harm a lot of people. Right?
actually harm a lot of people. Right? because I don't think you disagree with
because I don't think you disagree with my assessment that systems are
my assessment that systems are inherently violent no matter which way
inherently violent no matter which way they go and that uh but and I assume you
they go and that uh but and I assume you understand what I mean when I say like
understand what I mean when I say like the social murder of tens of thousands
the social murder of tens of thousands of Americans in the process of of having
of Americans in the process of of having their their healthcare coverage denied.
their their healthcare coverage denied. Like it must interest you as well,
Like it must interest you as well, right? because it interests uh certainly
right? because it interests uh certainly people at CNN and many other uh
people at CNN and many other uh mainstream outlets like why people are
mainstream outlets like why people are doing this but their reflection on it is
doing this but their reflection on it is >> I I think it I think it is I think it's
>> I I think it I think it is I think it's 100% the case
100% the case >> that people had certain people
>> that people had certain people >> you want to know why this was a lost
>> you want to know why this was a lost cause for Ross
cause for Ross because I feel like even Elizabeth
because I feel like even Elizabeth Warren went on television after and
Warren went on television after and everyone was like you know everyone was
everyone was like you know everyone was like why are people celebrating ating
like why are people celebrating ating Luigi Manion. We can't understand it.
Luigi Manion. We can't understand it. And even Elizabeth Warren was like, why
And even Elizabeth Warren was like, why do you think
do you think like look at the health care system?
like look at the health care system? Like what do you think is going on in
Like what do you think is going on in the American health care system when
the American health care system when people have their their care coverage
people have their their care coverage denied? Like that's it's over at that
denied? Like that's it's over at that point. Like what do you expect? That's
point. Like what do you expect? That's Elizabeth Warren. Elizabeth Warren is
Elizabeth Warren. Elizabeth Warren is never going to say some [ __ ] like that.
never going to say some [ __ ] like that. but had terrible experiences with the
but had terrible experiences with the health insurance bureaucracy.
health insurance bureaucracy. Um,
Um, >> also apparently Ros Douad defended
>> also apparently Ros Douad defended Pinocha in his Harvard days
Pinocha in his Harvard days and I did not know that but I mean that
and I did not know that but I mean that does track. I wonder if I did I bring up
does track. I wonder if I did I bring up Pinoce at all in this conversation
Pinoce at all in this conversation because it did go into numerous
because it did go into numerous directions at times
directions at times >> you know had a re reaction to
>> you know had a re reaction to >> I didn't know that he defended Pinoch
>> I didn't know that he defended Pinoch but it does make sense that is like what
but it does make sense that is like what you described I think that's absolutely
you described I think that's absolutely real and it says something about the way
real and it says something about the way the system works in America on the other
the system works in America on the other hand I also think and again because I'm
hand I also think and again because I'm not a socialist utopian right I think
not a socialist utopian right I think that I think that there is not this
that I think that there is not this magical alternative
magical alternative where you know if we only have nasty
where you know if we only have nasty politicians who love the rich imposing
politicians who love the rich imposing austerity everyone would get all the
austerity everyone would get all the care that they want. I don't think that
care that they want. I don't think that world exists. You know I have a lot of
world exists. You know I have a lot of personally negative experiences with the
personally negative experiences with the American healthcare system. Um I had
American healthcare system. Um I had technically still have chronic Lyme
technically still have chronic Lyme disease which is a disease that
disease which is a disease that officially doesn't exist. um it
officially doesn't exist. um it definitely exists and I have known a lot
definitely exists and I have known a lot of people in that world who have a very
of people in that world who have a very specific version of the kind of anger
specific version of the kind of anger you're describing that's directed
you're describing that's directed towards the medical establishment and
towards the medical establishment and how it interacts with insurance
how it interacts with insurance companies and you know these are people
companies and you know these are people who've had their lives
who've had their lives >> ruined by this illness that the system
>> ruined by this illness that the system does not effectively cover
does not effectively cover >> or treat. Um but it's really important
>> or treat. Um but it's really important right as a society
right as a society that if one of my friends who had
that if one of my friends who had chronic Lyme disease went out and killed
chronic Lyme disease went out and killed someone who they felt was involved in
someone who they felt was involved in denying them treatment and maybe was
denying them treatment and maybe was >> right that you wouldn't do that it would
>> right that you wouldn't do that it would be irresponsible for me to do a podcast
be irresponsible for me to do a podcast and be like man that person looks
and be like man that person looks badass. I think that would be
badass. I think that would be irresponsible even if I was appreciating
irresponsible even if I was appreciating something real. And that's that's where
something real. And that's that's where I think you're it's not you saying it's
I think you're it's not you saying it's really interesting how people have this
really interesting how people have this reaction to it is is what I'm
reaction to it is is what I'm challenging or questioning. It's the
challenging or questioning. It's the extent to which again you're like oh
extent to which again you're like oh he's an adventurer. It's the propaganda
he's an adventurer. It's the propaganda of the deed.
of the deed. >> He's not an adventurer. He's an
>> He's not an adventurer. He's an adventurist.
adventurist. I think he understands what that means
I think he understands what that means by the way cuz he says propaganda of the
by the way cuz he says propaganda of the deed. So he gets it. Of course,
deed. So he gets it. Of course, propaganda of the deed would be a more
propaganda of the deed would be a more positive association with that sort of
positive association with that sort of thing. Whereas adventurism is the
thing. Whereas adventurism is the Marxist interpretation, which is a
Marxist interpretation, which is a negative association with that sort of
negative association with that sort of thing. So obviously as a Harvard
thing. So obviously as a Harvard educated guy, I think he knows I I think
educated guy, I think he knows I I think he understands that,
he understands that, >> man. Well, okay. Yeah. But a society
>> man. Well, okay. Yeah. But a society that has those adventurers is going to
that has those adventurers is going to be in a lot of trouble pretty quick.
be in a lot of trouble pretty quick. >> I agree. I I don't disagree with you on
>> I agree. I I don't disagree with you on this. I think it's a it's a reflection
this. I think it's a it's a reflection of the the very social fabric that keeps
of the the very social fabric that keeps us together and keeps us stable unwind.
us together and keeps us stable unwind. According to Ross, the proper course of
According to Ross, the proper course of action to respond to Luigi Manion is to
action to respond to Luigi Manion is to keep watching it happen and do
keep watching it happen and do absolutely nothing other than look at
absolutely nothing other than look at each instance of violence and go that's
each instance of violence and go that's bad. That's bad. That's bad. That's bad
bad. That's bad. That's bad. That's bad in perpetuity. You on the other hand can
in perpetuity. You on the other hand can go maybe we can put an end to it
go maybe we can put an end to it perhaps. Yeah. I mean it's the same with
perhaps. Yeah. I mean it's the same with like gun violence. It's the same with
like gun violence. It's the same with gun violence. I felt I I feel like I
gun violence. I felt I I feel like I lost my mind a long time ago try
lost my mind a long time ago try constantly trying to to to make sense of
constantly trying to to to make sense of the senseless violence that exists in
the senseless violence that exists in America where I was just like what are
America where I was just like what are we doing like this is insane please some
we doing like this is insane please some sensible legislation please can we have
sensible legislation please can we have some sensible legislation please nope it
some sensible legislation please nope it doesn't make any sense in real time
doesn't make any sense in real time America is a very vi violent country
America is a very vi violent country right but we have systematized this
right but we have systematized this violence and we have normalized
violence and we have normalized And inevitably that violence has also
And inevitably that violence has also come back to the domestic front where
come back to the domestic front where there's uh unlimited bloodshed happening
there's uh unlimited bloodshed happening at schools. I mean Charlie Kirk's
at schools. I mean Charlie Kirk's assassination was the 46th uh school
assassination was the 46th uh school shooting technically a shooting that
shooting technically a shooting that happened at a school and then the 47th
happened at a school and then the 47th happened uh only only an hour later in
happened uh only only an hour later in Colorado. And our our reflection on
Colorado. And our our reflection on these sorts of events is that because
these sorts of events is that because it's so normalized because the system
it's so normalized because the system must continue because there are numerous
must continue because there are numerous different interests at play here
different interests at play here specifically gun manufacturers for
specifically gun manufacturers for example a very important part of uh our
example a very important part of uh our our you know domestic manufacturing
our you know domestic manufacturing industry we
industry we >> and America is an a big part of American
>> and America is an a big part of American culture
culture >> and America is an extremely
>> and America is an extremely >> libertarian personal liberties devoted
>> libertarian personal liberties devoted society in ways that have right-wing
society in ways that have right-wing connotations like lots of gun ownership
connotations like lots of gun ownership and
and >> leftwing connotations too. But but yes,
>> leftwing connotations too. But but yes, go on.
go on. >> Certainly. And and what I'm trying to
>> Certainly. And and what I'm trying to say is that uh in the absence of any
say is that uh in the absence of any sort of of significant initiative to
sort of of significant initiative to claw back some of that to to have uh
claw back some of that to to have uh some kind of, you know, reasonable
some kind of, you know, reasonable policy that will say, "All right, guys,
policy that will say, "All right, guys, like we all like guns. I like guns. I
like we all like guns. I like guns. I like shooting guns, right? I do not have
like shooting guns, right? I do not have any sort of gun culture in my in my
any sort of gun culture in my in my development. I you began my journey of
development. I you began my journey of understanding guns because I was writing
understanding guns because I was writing about gun control and I was like I need
about gun control and I was like I need to learn about this stuff. But having
to learn about this stuff. But having said that, I still believe that there
said that, I still believe that there needs to be reasonable gun safety,
needs to be reasonable gun safety, reasonable gun control. This is not a a
reasonable gun control. This is not a a call to action to say like, oh, it's
call to action to say like, oh, it's awesome that like school shootings are
awesome that like school shootings are happening or it's awesome that political
happening or it's awesome that political assassinations are taking place left and
assassinations are taking place left and right.
right. >> No, but this is this is the difference
>> No, but this is this is the difference and I say that it's no longer just like
and I say that it's no longer just like random school children that are being
random school children that are being killed is what I mean. The only reason
killed is what I mean. The only reason why this is becoming a a more
why this is becoming a a more significant, more consequential problem
significant, more consequential problem in the eyes of many people in the media
in the eyes of many people in the media is because it's no longer uh people that
is because it's no longer uh people that we can just kind of see as collateral
we can just kind of see as collateral damage and like consider to be
damage and like consider to be invisible.
invisible. >> I don't I don't think that's right.
>> I don't I don't think that's right. First of all, I think that the media has
First of all, I think that the media has >> now we start to debate a little bit
>> now we start to debate a little bit >> a lot of coverage to school shootings. I
>> a lot of coverage to school shootings. I think it would be strange to say that
think it would be strange to say that the media has ignored that issue in any
the media has ignored that issue in any way, shape, or form. I think the lie,
way, shape, or form. I think the lie, but I but I think the lie you're like
but I but I think the lie you're like the reason people are upset in this
the reason people are upset in this case, the reason that people are upset
case, the reason that people are upset in this particular case, right, is that
in this particular case, right, is that when school shootings happen,
when school shootings happen, >> right, there is except in very online
>> right, there is except in very online communities, there is not valorization
communities, there is not valorization of the school shooters. Nobody calls a
of the school shooters. Nobody calls a school shooter an adventurer,
school shooter an adventurer, >> right? and the people people obviously
>> right? and the people people obviously we don't want to live in a world with
we don't want to live in a world with school shootings but we especially don't
school shootings but we especially don't want to live in a world where it seems
want to live in a world where it seems like people who are sort of in the
like people who are sort of in the public scrum like you right
public scrum like you right >> are are sort of appreciating violence
>> are are sort of appreciating violence like if I you know I'm pro-life I think
like if I you know I'm pro-life I think abortion abortion is a form of murder um
abortion abortion is a form of murder um I think if you know if somebody killed
I think if you know if somebody killed an abortionist
an abortionist And I went in the New York Times the
And I went in the New York Times the next day and tried to write something
next day and tried to write something that was in the vein of what you said
that was in the vein of what you said about Maniona. And I
about Maniona. And I >> Yeah. The difference is abortion is not
>> Yeah. The difference is abortion is not murder. Okay. That's the difference. And
murder. Okay. That's the difference. And he knows it's not murder.
he knows it's not murder. Whereas someone who is dying from a a
Whereas someone who is dying from a a disease that they could prevent, but
disease that they could prevent, but because it's paywalled, that is seen as
because it's paywalled, that is seen as actual murder. Having said that, there
actual murder. Having said that, there are plenty of right-wing commentators
are plenty of right-wing commentators who have unironically advocated to
who have unironically advocated to directly murder doctors. The most famous
directly murder doctors. The most famous example of this, of course, is Billing
example of this, of course, is Billing O'Reilly, which I did bring up. I don't
O'Reilly, which I did bring up. I don't know if they actually br is in the in
know if they actually br is in the in the cut here. I said Bill O'Reilly quite
the cut here. I said Bill O'Reilly quite literally did that with a doctor, Dr.
literally did that with a doctor, Dr. Tiller. He called him Tiller Tiller the
Tiller. He called him Tiller Tiller the baby killer. And then one of his fans
baby killer. And then one of his fans went to his uh went to the church that
went to his uh went to the church that he was at and shot and killed him. I
he was at and shot and killed him. I concede writing and talking are
concede writing and talking are different, right? But if I done that, it
different, right? But if I done that, it wouldn't be published and I might be
wouldn't be published and I might be fired. Not as a violation of my free
fired. Not as a violation of my free speech rights, but because I would be
speech rights, but because I would be crossing a line of again, not
crossing a line of again, not endorsement, but even just appreciation,
endorsement, but even just appreciation, like the appreciation of the violent
like the appreciation of the violent act. I think there's a taboo around that
act. I think there's a taboo around that for a reason. And you like pushing at
for a reason. And you like pushing at that taboo. I just think that's what you
that taboo. I just think that's what you like to do. I don't I don't it's not
like to do. I don't I don't it's not something that I like to do necessarily,
something that I like to do necessarily, but I want to examine the contradictions
but I want to examine the contradictions of even what you just said, right?
of even what you just said, right? >> Um you say abortion is murder. I
>> Um you say abortion is murder. I obviously don't agree with that. I'm I'm
obviously don't agree with that. I'm I'm uh I'm pro-choice. Um I think it's it's
uh I'm pro-choice. Um I think it's it's a matter of of bodily autonomy and the
a matter of of bodily autonomy and the government shouldn't interfere in this
government shouldn't interfere in this between a medical professional and a and
between a medical professional and a and a woman. Um, having said that,
a woman. Um, having said that, you get to argue about women's bodily
you get to argue about women's bodily autonomy
autonomy being potentially removed by making the
being potentially removed by making the argument through the systematized
argument through the systematized version of violence. Because I think, as
version of violence. Because I think, as you would probably also recognize,
you would probably also recognize, abortion restrictions have come down in
abortion restrictions have come down in numerous states since the decision of
numerous states since the decision of Roie Wade was overturned. And in the
Roie Wade was overturned. And in the process, women have found themselves in
process, women have found themselves in this unique predicament where they can't
this unique predicament where they can't even get their ectopic pregnancies dealt
even get their ectopic pregnancies dealt with uh because their medical
with uh because their medical professionals are worried about
professionals are worried about potential prosecution. This has led to a
potential prosecution. This has led to a lot of pain and a lot of torment and
lot of pain and a lot of torment and maybe even in some instances death. When
maybe even in some instances death. When you argue on behalf of the pro-life
you argue on behalf of the pro-life position, you can you don't have to say
position, you can you don't have to say like uh Bill O'Reilly did uh tiller
like uh Bill O'Reilly did uh tiller tiller the baby killer and then someone
tiller the baby killer and then someone goes out and actually shoots a doctor.
goes out and actually shoots a doctor. You can simply say
You can simply say this is this. I'm not putting words in
this is this. I'm not putting words in your mouth. I don't know what your
your mouth. I don't know what your position is on on or your advocacy
position is on on or your advocacy around abortion, but someone of this
around abortion, but someone of this mindset can easily just advocate for the
mindset can easily just advocate for the harm that is done to millions of
harm that is done to millions of Americans potentially
Americans potentially without uttering a single word that
without uttering a single word that could be considered remotely violent by
could be considered remotely violent by most by the broadest subsets of American
most by the broadest subsets of American society.
society. >> Right. So, you're right. You know, I
That is the reason why I wanted to have this conversation.
this conversation. The asymmetry that exists with the ways
The asymmetry that exists with the ways in which the right get to dominate the
in which the right get to dominate the narrative dominate violent rhetoric and
narrative dominate violent rhetoric and say violent with regular frequency.
say violent with regular frequency. Charlie Kirk was a great example of
Charlie Kirk was a great example of this.
this. I even brought up Ben Shapiro earlier on
I even brought up Ben Shapiro earlier on in the conversation. They did cut that
in the conversation. They did cut that part out, I'm pretty sure, because I
part out, I'm pretty sure, because I said, "This is how Ben Shapiro gets away
said, "This is how Ben Shapiro gets away with being violent." He never says, "Go
with being violent." He never says, "Go out and kill black people." He says, "In
out and kill black people." He says, "In a system where there is disproportionate
a system where there is disproportionate targeting of black people in the hands
targeting of black people in the hands of the police, where the state has a
of the police, where the state has a monopoly on violence." He says, "I want
monopoly on violence." He says, "I want more targeting. I want more police
more targeting. I want more police targeting in black communities because
targeting in black communities because they're poor and because they're violent
they're poor and because they're violent communities that need to be targeted."
communities that need to be targeted." He doesn't have to say that these are
He doesn't have to say that these are violent thugs, even though he does from
violent thugs, even though he does from time to time. Or he doesn't have to
time to time. Or he doesn't have to directly do a call to action in the same
directly do a call to action in the same vein that like a clansman does. He can
vein that like a clansman does. He can just lean on the pre-existing violent
just lean on the pre-existing violent constructs. That's what I said about Ben
constructs. That's what I said about Ben Shapiro in this uh in this conversation.
Shapiro in this uh in this conversation. I don't know if they kept it cuz that
I don't know if they kept it cuz that was the main point that I was trying to
was the main point that I was trying to put forward.
put forward. That is my main proposition. My argument
That is my main proposition. My argument is right-wingers of course can sit
is right-wingers of course can sit around and say I abhore political
around and say I abhore political violence while they demand a metric ton
violence while they demand a metric ton of it. And when people respond to that
of it. And when people respond to that now and say that's fascist because that
now and say that's fascist because that is the most like understandable like
is the most like understandable like most understood form of uh serialized
most understood form of uh serialized systematized violence is fascism. It's
systematized violence is fascism. It's the type of violent systems that we here
the type of violent systems that we here in America luckily right now we're still
in America luckily right now we're still anti-fascist somewhat. look at and say
anti-fascist somewhat. look at and say that's violent. Okay, we look at that
that's violent. Okay, we look at that and we say that's violent. That's
and we say that's violent. That's fascist. And Republicans now want to
fascist. And Republicans now want to make it illegal to even say that. And
make it illegal to even say that. And when Ross Dow comes after people like
when Ross Dow comes after people like myself, he's actually leaning into that
myself, he's actually leaning into that censorship agenda as well. The uneven
censorship agenda as well. The uneven dynamic is what I'm trying to
dynamic is what I'm trying to >> I understand your argument but your
>> I understand your argument but your strategy your argument is that
strategy your argument is that effectively
effectively >> advocacy for policies that cause harm
>> advocacy for policies that cause harm economic harm or physical harm
economic harm or physical harm >> could itself in this case right but we
>> could itself in this case right but we were talking about economic harm earlier
were talking about economic harm earlier so both both
so both both >> economic harm also leads to physical
>> economic harm also leads to physical harm as well but
harm as well but >> that that constitutes a form of could be
>> that that constitutes a form of could be argued to constitute a form of
argued to constitute a form of incitement
incitement Right.
Right. >> Yes. That's precisely what I'm saying.
>> Yes. That's precisely what I'm saying. Right.
Right. >> Yeah. And and that's actually the
>> Yeah. And and that's actually the argument with like policing,
argument with like policing, >> right? But
>> right? But >> policing is a necessary institution.
>> policing is a necessary institution. People can just point to it and demand
People can just point to it and demand more of it, but that in that demand,
more of it, but that in that demand, they're technically demanding more of
they're technically demanding more of the the unreasonable outcomes and
the the unreasonable outcomes and unjustifiable outcomes of policing that
unjustifiable outcomes of policing that lead to, for example, the death of
lead to, for example, the death of George Floyd. Right. Right. Or numerous
George Floyd. Right. Right. Or numerous other cases. But this analogy is itself
other cases. But this analogy is itself part of why people think you are
part of why people think you are normalizing
normalizing the things that are taboo which would be
the things that are taboo which would be which again would include right-wing
which again would include right-wing forms of violence. But if you say if
forms of violence. But if you say if your theory is all of these things are
your theory is all of these things are incitement if you support
incitement if you support >> He's about to say you're a hypocrite but
>> He's about to say you're a hypocrite but he doesn't understand you have your own
he doesn't understand you have your own moral compass. Yeah. I mean I think he's
moral compass. Yeah. I mean I think he's like gearing up to be like well that's
like gearing up to be like well that's what you do. like you're saying that uh
what you do. like you're saying that uh you know right-wingers are doing this
you know right-wingers are doing this that's what you do and I'm saying yeah
that's what you do and I'm saying yeah my job is to describe that that is wrong
my job is to describe that that is wrong that's what I'm doing that's why I think
that's what I'm doing that's why I think it was important that I laid out
it was important that I laid out initially that like politics is about
initially that like politics is about the distribution of resources and power
the distribution of resources and power and one of the key components of the
and one of the key components of the distribution of power is a distribution
distribution of power is a distribution of violence like who gets to do it who
of violence like who gets to do it who gets to be on the receiving end of
gets to be on the receiving end of violence so like in that sense it is a
violence so like in that sense it is a constant
constant Yeah, right-wingers do that for police
Yeah, right-wingers do that for police brutality. I say it is unacceptable.
brutality. I say it is unacceptable. Those systems of violence are
Those systems of violence are unacceptable. And one of the undesirable
unacceptable. And one of the undesirable yet inevitable outcomes of such a
yet inevitable outcomes of such a violent structure is going to be violent
violent structure is going to be violent resistance. Sometimes that violent
resistance. Sometimes that violent resistance is going to be just.
resistance is going to be just. Sometimes that violent resistance is
Sometimes that violent resistance is going to be unjust. But the very fact
going to be unjust. But the very fact that it's not always just in terms of
that it's not always just in terms of retaliatory violence is the reason why
retaliatory violence is the reason why we must solve these issues at the
we must solve these issues at the legislative level. That's it. Or at
legislative level. That's it. Or at least deal with it in a more organized
least deal with it in a more organized fashion, in a more directional fashion.
fashion, in a more directional fashion. That's my argument.
That's my argument. >> Putting more people in jail, that's
>> Putting more people in jail, that's incitement. If you support uh you know
incitement. If you support uh you know uh border security, that's incitement.
uh border security, that's incitement. It's incitement all the way down. Like
It's incitement all the way down. Like you're you're basically saying the
you're you're basically saying the person who incites violence against a
person who incites violence against a politician is in the same position as
politician is in the same position as the person who supports border border
the person who supports border border security. And that seems like an
security. And that seems like an argument that lends itself to
argument that lends itself to encouraging people to commit political
encouraging people to commit political violence because you're saying, "Oh,
violence because you're saying, "Oh, it's all normal already. What's a little
it's all normal already. What's a little more? What's one more act of incitement
more? What's one more act of incitement in a world of incitement?" You're just
in a world of incitement?" You're just normalizing it when you make that
normalizing it when you make that argument.
argument. >> Yeah. My argument is that I'm not
>> Yeah. My argument is that I'm not normalizing it. It's already normal. I
normalizing it. It's already normal. I don't want it to be normal. I want it to
don't want it to be normal. I want it to be abnormal. I want people to to
be abnormal. I want people to to actually take a serious look at the
actually take a serious look at the violent structures that already exist
violent structures that already exist that from the point of the recipient is
that from the point of the recipient is already experienced as like a direct
already experienced as like a direct form of violence. But do but do you
form of violence. But do but do you understand the broader point that I
understand the broader point that I tried to arrive at in these
tried to arrive at in these conversations for the record which of
conversations for the record which of course lend themselves so perfectly to
course lend themselves so perfectly to uh quippy clips to just make it seem as
uh quippy clips to just make it seem as though you know this is a this is a
though you know this is a this is a person that is uh uh very clearly
person that is uh uh very clearly inciting a certain thing or do you think
inciting a certain thing or do you think I'm just like do you think I'm just like
I'm just like do you think I'm just like uh dancing around the issue? You can be
uh dancing around the issue? You can be honest.
honest. >> I think I think that there's a I'll be
>> I think I think that there's a I'll be honest. I think there's a reason that um
honest. I think there's a reason that um certain kinds of Marxism and socialist
certain kinds of Marxism and socialist radicalism when they
radicalism when they >> you ain't challenging me. Come on live.
>> you ain't challenging me. Come on live. It will be what the [ __ ]
It will be what the [ __ ] are you trying to go meat for meat?
are you trying to go meat for meat? What's this? Are you trying to go sword
What's this? Are you trying to go sword fighting with our penises?
fighting with our penises? Take power or trying to come to power
Take power or trying to come to power tend to resort to violence. And it is
tend to resort to violence. And it is inherent in the argument that you've
inherent in the argument that you've made. I'm not saying it's an an argument
made. I'm not saying it's an an argument that doesn't have a certain power. If it
that doesn't have a certain power. If it didn't have a certain power, lots of
didn't have a certain power, lots of people wouldn't have believed in it.
people wouldn't have believed in it. Right? There is an inherent violence in
Right? There is an inherent violence in the use of state power. There is an
the use of state power. There is an inherent coercion in all kinds of
inherent coercion in all kinds of policies, including policies that I
policies, including policies that I support,
support, >> right? You know, I support I support
>> right? You know, I support I support restrictions on drugs, right? That I'm
restrictions on drugs, right? That I'm probably you do not that absolutely
probably you do not that absolutely involve coercion. I believe in
involve coercion. I believe in restrictions on bodily autonomy enforced
restrictions on bodily autonomy enforced by state power that uses violence. I
by state power that uses violence. I believe in that.
believe in that. >> Yeah,
>> Yeah, >> I understand that someone can say as,
>> I understand that someone can say as, you know, a as as a radical on the left,
you know, a as as a radical on the left, this violence exists and we want to
this violence exists and we want to redirect the violence. And do I think
redirect the violence. And do I think that you, Hassan [ __ ] you know,
that you, Hassan [ __ ] you know, prosperous, prosperous media personality
prosperous, prosperous media personality in Los Angeles, are enthusiastic about,
in Los Angeles, are enthusiastic about, you know, the expropriation of wealth
you know, the expropriation of wealth and punitive violence by communist death
and punitive violence by communist death squads? I don't think you are. Um but I
squads? I don't think you are. Um but I but I but I think that the reason I
but I but I think that the reason I think that the reason you have strong
think that the reason you have strong taboss against sort of you know about
taboss against sort of you know about >> I will say what I'm saying
>> I will say what I'm saying >> is to prevent is to prevent that that
>> is to prevent is to prevent that that slope that slope from
slope that slope from >> from slipping in that way. Um,
>> from slipping in that way. Um, >> okay. So, I am enthusiastic about the
>> okay. So, I am enthusiastic about the expropriation of wealth for people such
expropriation of wealth for people such as myself as well in the form of
as myself as well in the form of taxation though. And that's basically
taxation though. And that's basically the grand design that I have. Right now
the grand design that I have. Right now though, no one's going to deplatform
though, no one's going to deplatform you, right? You know, Twi Twitch is not
you, right? You know, Twi Twitch is not going to suspend you for saying that you
going to suspend you for saying that you want to raise taxes on the rich and use
want to raise taxes on the rich and use >> the the force of the state to take. But
>> the the force of the state to take. But what do you think like do you think it
what do you think like do you think it do you think it was reasonable for
do you think it was reasonable for Twitch to suspend you for a day for
Twitch to suspend you for a day for talking about killing Rick Scott? Like
talking about killing Rick Scott? Like what are what are the obligations I
what are what are the obligations I guess is I'm asking of what's so crazy
guess is I'm asking of what's so crazy about this also is like he plays fast
about this also is like he plays fast and loose with the killing of Rick Scott
and loose with the killing of Rick Scott thing because he also like early on
thing because he also like early on recognizes that it's not a death threat,
recognizes that it's not a death threat, right? Like he very quickly starts
right? Like he very quickly starts conversation by being like it's not a
conversation by being like it's not a death threat. We both know it. And then
death threat. We both know it. And then he just still kind of brings that back
he just still kind of brings that back in a way in this way where it's like
in a way in this way where it's like what am I supposed to do like literally
what am I supposed to do like literally talk about that endlessly? I can't I
talk about that endlessly? I can't I have to move on
have to move on >> of platforms with this stuff.
>> of platforms with this stuff. >> Yeah. No, I think I think it's
>> Yeah. No, I think I think it's understandable that uh Twitch did that
understandable that uh Twitch did that which is why I apologize for the the use
which is why I apologize for the the use of my language as well. Like I said,
of my language as well. Like I said, there are certainly instances where uh
there are certainly instances where uh it's an emotionally charged conversation
it's an emotionally charged conversation or I'm being careless and it comes
or I'm being careless and it comes across
across uh it it it it reaches an unintended
uh it it it it reaches an unintended audience that that sees it as uh in this
audience that that sees it as uh in this like super short format in a very
like super short format in a very negative way. Um it's unfortunately a
negative way. Um it's unfortunately a byproduct of the the medium that I'm in
byproduct of the the medium that I'm in real time discourse happening with
real time discourse happening with random anonymous accounts.
random anonymous accounts. >> But you're okay with some kind of some
>> But you're okay with some kind of some kind of taboo maintenance here. Oh, for
kind of taboo maintenance here. Oh, for sure.
sure. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> In order for for normal discourse to
>> In order for for normal discourse to flourish, obviously, uh some kind of
flourish, obviously, uh some kind of terms of service need to be implemented.
terms of service need to be implemented. You know, like a direct call to violence
You know, like a direct call to violence is of course going to be considered
is of course going to be considered unacceptable. I totally understand that.
unacceptable. I totally understand that. Even if it's a even if it's like being
Even if it's a even if it's like being made in or even if it's like being
made in or even if it's like being misunderstood in that moment without the
misunderstood in that moment without the without the appropriate context. Yeah.
without the appropriate context. Yeah. Having said that, however, if we're
Having said that, however, if we're talking about like broader things, um
talking about like broader things, um like uh and and we didn't really get to
like uh and and we didn't really get to talk about this a lot, but um a
talk about this a lot, but um a deplatforming initiative has taken place
deplatforming initiative has taken place on Twitch and on numerous other
on Twitch and on numerous other platforms uh mostly championed by the
platforms uh mostly championed by the ADL and some other actors as well uh
ADL and some other actors as well uh because of my anti-Zionist advocacy. I
because of my anti-Zionist advocacy. I am an avowed anti-ionist. I openly say
am an avowed anti-ionist. I openly say it. I have also spent all of my
it. I have also spent all of my professional career uh combating
professional career uh combating anti-semitism which has grown in this
anti-semitism which has grown in this country as well and and yet uh a lot of
country as well and and yet uh a lot of these organizations I think and a lot of
these organizations I think and a lot of people have falsely maligned and smeared
people have falsely maligned and smeared me as an anti-semite despite my advocacy
me as an anti-semite despite my advocacy against anti-semitism.
against anti-semitism. >> So this this is this brings us to the
>> So this this is this brings us to the last area I want to talk about. You've
last area I want to talk about. You've mentioned you've mentioned a few times
mentioned you've mentioned a few times growing up in Turkey. Mhm.
growing up in Turkey. Mhm. >> Just talk about for a minute your your
>> Just talk about for a minute your your background in the Middle East and how it
background in the Middle East and how it shaped your politics. How it even how it
shaped your politics. How it even how it radicalized you might be a good way of
radicalized you might be a good way of putting it.
putting it. >> Yeah. I mean I have I think a very
>> Yeah. I mean I have I think a very different opinion about American foreign
different opinion about American foreign policy than the average American has due
policy than the average American has due to the fact that I didn't grow up in
to the fact that I didn't grow up in America. I had more proximity or a
America. I had more proximity or a closeness to uh I guess the the
closeness to uh I guess the the recipient of American violence and
recipient of American violence and American intervention. uh being uh
American intervention. uh being uh someone who who uh grew up in Turkey and
someone who who uh grew up in Turkey and yes, bro, Middle East is is like is a
yes, bro, Middle East is is like is a wild way to talk about it, but it is
wild way to talk about it, but it is what it is. Come on, just move.
what it is. Come on, just move. Therefore, my starting position is very
Therefore, my starting position is very different uh to uh to the way that like
different uh to uh to the way that like the American world police narrative was
the American world police narrative was designed in the United States of
designed in the United States of America, admonishing its enemies, making
America, admonishing its enemies, making them seem as though they're uh you know,
them seem as though they're uh you know, barbaric uh and and deserving of like
barbaric uh and and deserving of like some kind of direct military
some kind of direct military intervention. These are things that I
intervention. These are things that I obviously consider to be not only wrong,
obviously consider to be not only wrong, but also uh uh incredibly consequential.
but also uh uh incredibly consequential. This kind of sentiment was incredibly
This kind of sentiment was incredibly consequential for people who had to live
consequential for people who had to live in these countries and had to be victims
in these countries and had to be victims to uh boots on the ground military
to uh boots on the ground military warfare and and even like the drone wars
warfare and and even like the drone wars that uh greatly escalated under Obama.
that uh greatly escalated under Obama. >> What what do you think about the
>> What what do you think about the government of Turkey?
government of Turkey? I
I I am not a fan of the government of
I am not a fan of the government of Turkey and uh I've written uh
Turkey and uh I've written uh extensively about uh my criticisms of
extensively about uh my criticisms of the government of Turkey. uh and uh
the government of Turkey. uh and uh there it's part of the reason why I
there it's part of the reason why I can't really go back to Turkey even
can't really go back to Turkey even though my whole family lives there uh
though my whole family lives there uh out of fear that uh I might be uh I
out of fear that uh I might be uh I might be jailed
might be jailed and I don't think the Trump
and I don't think the Trump administration would demand my return as
administration would demand my return as an American citizen.
an American citizen. I I'm curious how you think about how
I I'm curious how you think about how left-wing politics and Middle Eastern
left-wing politics and Middle Eastern culture and Islamic politics fit
culture and Islamic politics fit together. And I understand you're not
together. And I understand you're not you're not you're not a Muslim. You
you're not you're not a Muslim. You don't consider yourself a Muslim and so
don't consider yourself a Muslim and so on, right? But you culturally I'm
on, right? But you culturally I'm cultally Muslim in the same way many
cultally Muslim in the same way many secular Jews are Jewish or many American
secular Jews are Jewish or many American Protestants say that they're Christian
Protestants say that they're Christian but they're not really.
but they're not really. >> Right. So I'm going to ask you for a
>> Right. So I'm going to ask you for a take and you know based based on that
take and you know based based on that background cuz I'm really interested in
background cuz I'm really interested in the ways that sort of
the ways that sort of >> he's going to say Islamociism.
>> he's going to say Islamociism. Dude, the mind of an American
Dude, the mind of an American right-winger that is like an
right-winger that is like an intellectual version is so funny because
intellectual version is so funny because the intellectual version of of the
the intellectual version of of the American right is Ross Dowid, right? And
American right is Ross Dowid, right? And that is literally the perspective that
that is literally the perspective that he's about to describe here is like the
he's about to describe here is like the average racist in France, okay, down the
average racist in France, okay, down the street because he is trying to
street because he is trying to intellectualize islamogism,
intellectualize islamogism, okay? Islamo Marxism, Islamo leftism.
okay? Islamo Marxism, Islamo leftism. This is like the the hot European uh
This is like the the hot European uh bigoted sentiment. In America, we look
bigoted sentiment. In America, we look at that as like an advanced version, an
at that as like an advanced version, an intellectual version, an intellectual
intellectual version, an intellectual man, a thinking man's uh way of saying
man, a thinking man's uh way of saying Muhammadan.
Conservative forms of Islam and the culture of the progressive left right
culture of the progressive left right now fit together both in Europe and the
now fit together both in Europe and the United States because in a in a way
United States because in a in a way these are
these are >> some of the most different groups you
>> some of the most different groups you can imagine, right? sort of forms of
can imagine, right? sort of forms of Islamic cultural traditionalism are
Islamic cultural traditionalism are pretty distant from
pretty distant from >> the norms and mores of like the secular
>> the norms and mores of like the secular western left right
western left right >> at the same time including on some of
>> at the same time including on some of the issues that you've been talking
the issues that you've been talking about opposition to US foreign policy uh
about opposition to US foreign policy uh Israel Palestine and so on there's a
Israel Palestine and so on there's a very strong alliance often um between
very strong alliance often um between >> it's like the classic thing it's like
>> it's like the classic thing it's like yeah these guys are barbaric they don't
yeah these guys are barbaric they don't abide by your worldview. Uh why do you
abide by your worldview. Uh why do you not want them to be genocided? And I do
not want them to be genocided? And I do this thing where I was explaining to him
this thing where I was explaining to him like a worldview that I find morally
like a worldview that I find morally repugnant or abhorrent that is not
repugnant or abhorrent that is not morally equivalent. I I will use the KKK
morally equivalent. I I will use the KKK example here instead of Hamas. And then
example here instead of Hamas. And then I also explained like but this isn't
I also explained like but this isn't obviously a perfect example. I'm just
obviously a perfect example. I'm just using the KKK as a as the most extreme
using the KKK as a as the most extreme position that I completely disagree
position that I completely disagree with. Right? even even those people I
with. Right? even even those people I don't think should be firebombed and and
don't think should be firebombed and and killed and uh you know genocided or
killed and uh you know genocided or whatever but anyway let's keep going
whatever but anyway let's keep going >> of Muslims who feel the US is too
>> of Muslims who feel the US is too imperialist or too too pro-Israel right
imperialist or too too pro-Israel right and these these groups and it's a very
and these these groups and it's a very this is a pretty important force in
this is a pretty important force in European politics and you see it I think
European politics and you see it I think you see it more in progressive politics
you see it more in progressive politics in the US right now as sort of
in the US right now as sort of opposition to Israeli military
opposition to Israeli military operations
operations >> also dismissing the progressive aspects
>> also dismissing the progressive aspects of Muslims while calling them evil
of Muslims while calling them evil because of Islam Goism. Yeah.
because of Islam Goism. Yeah. Uh if you're Muslim, automatically
Uh if you're Muslim, automatically you're barbaric and evil and right-wing
you're barbaric and evil and right-wing and backwards. Also, often times the
and backwards. Also, often times the people that say that are literally evil
people that say that are literally evil and backwards and right-wing, which is
and backwards and right-wing, which is really funny. Uh it's it's something
really funny. Uh it's it's something that I joke about all the time. Like
that I joke about all the time. Like conservatives hate the conservatism of
conservatives hate the conservatism of brown conservatives. Like how many times
brown conservatives. Like how many times have you heard like Ben Shapiro or even
have you heard like Ben Shapiro or even like Asmagall will do this sometimes?
like Asmagall will do this sometimes? He'll be like, "Oh, they hate trans
He'll be like, "Oh, they hate trans people over there." Right? And it's
people over there." Right? And it's like, but but don't you also kind of
like, but but don't you also kind of hate trans people? Like, I don't
hate trans people? Like, I don't understand. You don't want them in your
understand. You don't want them in your video games? You make a big deal out of
video games? You make a big deal out of it all the time. Or not even Asiggo.
it all the time. Or not even Asiggo. Grums. Grums is a great example of this.
Grums. Grums is a great example of this. He was celebrating that Saudi Arabia
He was celebrating that Saudi Arabia bought Electronic Arts. And he was like,
bought Electronic Arts. And he was like, "Finally, no more gays in video games."
"Finally, no more gays in video games." I'm like, "Dog,
I'm like, "Dog, hello. Do you hear yourself? You're
hello. Do you hear yourself? You're saying like awesome. Now, it's like the
saying like awesome. Now, it's like the the Saudi kingdom, which is perhaps the
the Saudi kingdom, which is perhaps the most like fundamentalist long-standing
most like fundamentalist long-standing form of monarchy, will now control the
form of monarchy, will now control the the cultural output of this uh formerly
the cultural output of this uh formerly beloved, not really, but you know, this
beloved, not really, but you know, this this otherwise like western enterprise,
this otherwise like western enterprise, and you think it's like awesome. You're
and you think it's like awesome. You're basically saying like, "Oh, no, it's
basically saying like, "Oh, no, it's cool. Like, I I want the the the Taliban
cool. Like, I I want the the the Taliban to own EA Sports." like that's or EA in
to own EA Sports." like that's or EA in general cuz like that I hate the the gay
general cuz like that I hate the the gay people in the same way that like I think
people in the same way that like I think the Saudi government hates gay people.
the Saudi government hates gay people. Is that the argument like that's what
Is that the argument like that's what you're honestly saying? Okay, cool.
you're honestly saying? Okay, cool. Thank you for being honest. I guess
Thank you for being honest. I guess >> has become more and more of a litmus
>> has become more and more of a litmus test.
test. >> I'm by the way, no one is going to Saudi
>> I'm by the way, no one is going to Saudi Arabia is not going to make is not going
Arabia is not going to make is not going to do an anti-woke initiative for EA.
to do an anti-woke initiative for EA. They don't give a they just want to
They don't give a they just want to diversify their portfolio. People are so
diversify their portfolio. People are so stupid.
stupid. >> Yeah. I'm just curious if you have
>> Yeah. I'm just curious if you have thoughts on like how that how that fits
thoughts on like how that how that fits together. These two very different very
together. These two very different very culturally different groups having a
culturally different groups having a kind of alliance of is it alliance of
kind of alliance of is it alliance of convenience? Is it something more? What
convenience? Is it something more? What do you think about that?
do you think about that? >> Super easy to explain. I disagree
>> Super easy to explain. I disagree vehemently with the clan. I don't want
vehemently with the clan. I don't want Arkansas to be firebombed
Arkansas to be firebombed into oblivion. I don't want the children
into oblivion. I don't want the children of clans members to be killed at their
of clans members to be killed at their schools. I don't want the hospitals that
schools. I don't want the hospitals that clans members go to to be bombed as
clans members go to to be bombed as well. And I'm not even making an
well. And I'm not even making an equivocation between the clan and for
equivocation between the clan and for example Hamas, which I consider to be a
example Hamas, which I consider to be a resistance group. They they have a
resistance group. They they have a emancipatory movement ultimately. I
emancipatory movement ultimately. I don't agree with their internal
don't agree with their internal politics, their domestic affairs. I
politics, their domestic affairs. I don't agree with uh a lot of the things
don't agree with uh a lot of the things that they represent or a lot of the
that they represent or a lot of the things that they say, but these are
things that they say, but these are utterly inconsequential in the grand
utterly inconsequential in the grand scheme of things in the overarching
scheme of things in the overarching hierarchy. Uh where the the number one
hierarchy. Uh where the the number one most consequential wrong that's taking
most consequential wrong that's taking place is not only um 78 plus years of of
place is not only um 78 plus years of of brutal occupation and apartheid, but
brutal occupation and apartheid, but then also the ongoing genocide for the
then also the ongoing genocide for the past 2 years. I feel like that is far
past 2 years. I feel like that is far more important to address than any
more important to address than any number of of different like civil
number of of different like civil liberty initiatives that Muslim
liberty initiatives that Muslim countries could engage in. And I think a
countries could engage in. And I think a lot of people see it that way as well
lot of people see it that way as well where they're just like I don't think
where they're just like I don't think this should be happening. I don't think
this should be happening. I don't think that this violence should be happening
that this violence should be happening and we need to solve that first and
and we need to solve that first and foremost. It's not necessarily that uh
foremost. It's not necessarily that uh leftists in the west are like uh uh firm
leftists in the west are like uh uh firm and committed believers in I don't know
and committed believers in I don't know whatever kind of like stereotype version
whatever kind of like stereotype version of of uh Islamic fundamentalism.
of of uh Islamic fundamentalism. >> No, I don't Oh, I don't think they are
>> No, I don't Oh, I don't think they are at all that people present.
at all that people present. >> No, I I completely agree. That's that's
>> No, I I completely agree. That's that's I think a big part of why it's
I think a big part of why it's >> an interesting an interesting political
>> an interesting an interesting political formation. Right.
formation. Right. >> I'm going to run with the clan analogy
>> I'm going to run with the clan analogy just because you offered it to me,
just because you offered it to me, right? like if there was a war against a
right? like if there was a war against a small political state controlled by the
small political state controlled by the KKK that followed in the aftermath of
KKK that followed in the aftermath of the KKK going out and killing a lot of
the KKK going out and killing a lot of African-Americans, black women and
African-Americans, black women and children. Um
children. Um >> and the larger region consisted of a
>> and the larger region consisted of a bunch of regimes that even if they
bunch of regimes that even if they weren't fully KKK, had some sort of
weren't fully KKK, had some sort of white supremacist.
white supremacist. >> He thinks this is a gotcha, but it's
>> He thinks this is a gotcha, but it's not. And you'll see why.
not. And you'll see why. you know, elements uh at all. We're
you know, elements uh at all. We're authoritarian and so on, right? Like
authoritarian and so on, right? Like >> I feel like a lot of people would see a
>> I feel like a lot of people would see a little more complexity in that drama
little more complexity in that drama than your than you do in the way you
than your than you do in the way you talk about Israel and Zionism.
talk about Israel and Zionism. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> And I should say I think I think
>> And I should say I think I think opposition to and skepticism of the
opposition to and skepticism of the Israeli strategy in Gaza is totally
Israeli strategy in Gaza is totally understandable and I've expressed it
understandable and I've expressed it myself. Right. But you're something
myself. Right. But you're something more. again, you are you're an you're an
more. again, you are you're an you're an anti-ionist.
anti-ionist. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> You've in fact you've said as long as
>> You've in fact you've said as long as we're doing KKK things in one of your
we're doing KKK things in one of your one of your arguments. You've said sort
one of your arguments. You've said sort of, you know, uh a certain kind of
of, you know, uh a certain kind of Zionist tendency should be treated the
Zionist tendency should be treated the same way we treat neo-Nazi tendencies,
same way we treat neo-Nazi tendencies, right? And and that kind of rhetoric
right? And and that kind of rhetoric shows up around around on the left.
shows up around around on the left. >> These are my favorite moments. I know
>> These are my favorite moments. I know like in the New York Times circles see
like in the New York Times circles see the other stuff like Luigi Manion
the other stuff like Luigi Manion whatever like not Luigi Manion but like
whatever like not Luigi Manion but like landlord stuff like those sorts of
landlord stuff like those sorts of things the New York Times readers are
things the New York Times readers are going to be like oo that's kind of scary
going to be like oo that's kind of scary actually but many of them are adults and
actually but many of them are adults and they're obviously completely aware of
they're obviously completely aware of like what is taking place here because
like what is taking place here because they're tuned into the goddamn New York
they're tuned into the goddamn New York Times they know what the Trump is up to
Times they know what the Trump is up to but these guys think that those
but these guys think that those statements are actually reflected on
statements are actually reflected on poorly by the audience. When the
poorly by the audience. When the audience hears me say those things, his
audience hears me say those things, his audience,
audience, New York Times readers, when they hear
New York Times readers, when they hear me say those things, they're going to be
me say those things, they're going to be like, "Oh, I agree with everything that
like, "Oh, I agree with everything that you just presented as like violent and
you just presented as like violent and and negative commentary." Cuz the
and negative commentary." Cuz the reality of the matter is when he tries
reality of the matter is when he tries to present this as like, "Well, you
to present this as like, "Well, you know, Zionists are should be treated
know, Zionists are should be treated like the KKK." It's like, "Yeah, I
like the KKK." It's like, "Yeah, I agree." Cuz they are.
agree." Cuz they are. >> Yeah. Isn't there something a little bit
>> Yeah. Isn't there something a little bit strange from a left-wing perspective
strange from a left-wing perspective about the that kind of focus on the
about the that kind of focus on the crimes of one country?
crimes of one country? >> He's doing the why do you care so much
>> He's doing the why do you care so much about the Jewish state?
about the Jewish state? >> God, I got to actually do like a
>> God, I got to actually do like a full-blown debate with someone on Israel
full-blown debate with someone on Israel cuz honestly I I think like I've dealt
cuz honestly I I think like I've dealt with all of this so many times that it's
with all of this so many times that it's just like I really I really want to do
just like I really I really want to do it. Maybe Ben Shapiro. It could happen
it. Maybe Ben Shapiro. It could happen maybe in the month of January. It could
maybe in the month of January. It could happen
happen >> that you've just yourself analogized to
>> that you've just yourself analogized to to the KKK.
to the KKK. >> So, great question. Um, the reason why I
>> So, great question. Um, the reason why I made certain to mention that I find the
made certain to mention that I find the clan's political opinions to be
clan's political opinions to be repugnant, but I still would not
repugnant, but I still would not advocate to firebomb them. then also
advocate to firebomb them. then also made a distinction between Hamas as an
made a distinction between Hamas as an emancipatory movement that is that has
emancipatory movement that is that has evolved over the years to fight back in
evolved over the years to fight back in ways that I might even personally find
ways that I might even personally find to be uh uh inappropriate or morally
to be uh uh inappropriate or morally repugnant. Um ultimately
repugnant. Um ultimately >> one or the other
>> one or the other >> there is more more of more inappropriate
>> there is more more of more inappropriate or more morally repugnant. I think that
or more morally repugnant. I think that as as someone who believes in human
as as someone who believes in human rights, I think like targeting civilians
rights, I think like targeting civilians is the major reason why I criticize
is the major reason why I criticize Israel. It would be very hypocritical if
Israel. It would be very hypocritical if I consider targeting civilians to be
I consider targeting civilians to be appropriate if it was uh done during an
appropriate if it was uh done during an emancipatory struggle. Having said that,
emancipatory struggle. Having said that, I do have uh the same understanding or
I do have uh the same understanding or the same uh uh the the same
the same uh uh the the same conceptualization of that kind of
conceptualization of that kind of resistance uh as I do with the ANC or as
resistance uh as I do with the ANC or as I do with the IRA or even uh with with
I do with the IRA or even uh with with the abolition of slavery in this
the abolition of slavery in this country. Right? The reason why I don't
country. Right? The reason why I don't think it's an apt analogy to compare the
think it's an apt analogy to compare the KKK to Hamas beyond like disagreements
KKK to Hamas beyond like disagreements and and and enforcement is because the
and and and enforcement is because the clan has not been dominated or or the
clan has not been dominated or or the the clan itself has not existed under a
the clan itself has not existed under a a brutal structure of like black
a brutal structure of like black supremacy uh that uh that wiped them
supremacy uh that uh that wiped them out. This is the reason why I don't
out. This is the reason why I don't think the comparison is apt in that
think the comparison is apt in that regard because I I do agree with
regard because I I do agree with Palestinian liberation as as a concept.
Palestinian liberation as as a concept. Whereas I would liken the clans
Whereas I would liken the clans operations or their worldview uh to the
operations or their worldview uh to the same kind of ethnoreigious supremacy
same kind of ethnoreigious supremacy that is baked into Zionism as well and
that is baked into Zionism as well and the exterminationist policies I think
the exterminationist policies I think that also exists within Zionism as well.
that also exists within Zionism as well. So the clan is a closer analogy uh when
So the clan is a closer analogy uh when when it formalizes and it turns into a
when it formalizes and it turns into a system of violence to what Israel is
system of violence to what Israel is doing. This is why I'm also not shy
doing. This is why I'm also not shy about making comparisons to even Nazi
about making comparisons to even Nazi Germany which a lot of people I think
Germany which a lot of people I think maybe a couple years ago even myself uh
maybe a couple years ago even myself uh would cons would would shy away from
would cons would would shy away from doing.
doing. >> Yeah. I mean, I think those comparisons
>> Yeah. I mean, I think those comparisons are are, you know, not really persuasive
are are, you know, not really persuasive at all if you actually read about the
at all if you actually read about the things that the Nazis
things that the Nazis >> I have.
>> I have. This is where it gets a little bit more
This is where it gets a little bit more heated cuz this is where he like he goes
heated cuz this is where he like he goes into New York Times mode, okay, where
into New York Times mode, okay, where he's like, "Okay, burp must defend
he's like, "Okay, burp must defend Israel did on the Eastern Front and
Israel did on the Eastern Front and compare them to, you know, whatever war
compare them to, you know, whatever war crimes you accuse Israel of." Th those
crimes you accuse Israel of." Th those comparisons seem pretty faulty to me.
comparisons seem pretty faulty to me. And they seem faulty in a way that again
And they seem faulty in a way that again I think yields a kind of unique
I think yields a kind of unique scapegoating of the Zionist state within
scapegoating of the Zionist state within the wider range of there's fundamentally
the wider range of there's fundamentally no difference to a clan crossing in a
no difference to a clan crossing in a black family's yard versus settler spray
black family's yard versus settler spray painting Jewish star in a Palestinian
painting Jewish star in a Palestinian home. Straight the up of course and
home. Straight the up of course and that's just the that's just the settler
that's just the that's just the settler violence which is again backed by the
violence which is again backed by the state in the same way that the clan was
state in the same way that the clan was backed by the state as well or at least
backed by the state as well or at least the state was turning a blind eye to. I
the state was turning a blind eye to. I would go so far as to say that like um I
would go so far as to say that like um I mean no actually it's a great comparison
mean no actually it's a great comparison but we're not even talking about when
but we're not even talking about when we're talking about Gaza obviously then
we're talking about Gaza obviously then the comparison goes away from the clan
the comparison goes away from the clan to Nazi Germany anyway let's see what he
to Nazi Germany anyway let's see what he had he said accuse you accuse Israel of
had he said accuse you accuse Israel of war crimes
war crimes >> middle eastern states especially right
>> middle eastern states especially right so like you know it's if you look at the
so like you know it's if you look at the history of the Middle East over the last
history of the Middle East over the last 80 years
80 years >> most of the crimes that you're accusing
>> most of the crimes that you're accusing the Israeli government of committing ha
the Israeli government of committing ha you know I mean if you look at the
you know I mean if you look at the history of Iraq if you look at what
history of Iraq if you look at what happened to the Jews in Arab countries
happened to the Jews in Arab countries after 1947 and 1948 if you're looking
after 1947 and 1948 if you're looking for you know ruthless oppression you can
for you know ruthless oppression you can look next door
look next door >> to Egypt right like
>> to Egypt right like >> it seems like there are many many
>> it seems like there are many many potential targets of a leftist utopian
potential targets of a leftist utopian form of moral
form of moral >> I've heard this so many times
>> I've heard this so many times >> I wish this entire thing was about
>> I wish this entire thing was about Israel dude I I would have I God I could
Israel dude I I would have I God I could talk about that foring hours. Also, this
talk about that foring hours. Also, this was like um I think we talked for 2
was like um I think we talked for 2 hours and this is an hour long. So, hour
hours and this is an hour long. So, hour and 14. So,
and 14. So, >> right now Israel is conducting a brutal
>> right now Israel is conducting a brutal war. And so, I'm not saying I'm not
war. And so, I'm not saying I'm not going to be a genocide.
going to be a genocide. >> I agree. I agree with you that like
>> I agree. I agree with you that like right now it would be weird for you to
right now it would be weird for you to go on your stream and say,
go on your stream and say, >> "Let's not talk about Gaza, you know,
>> "Let's not talk about Gaza, you know, let's talk about how the corruption of
let's talk about how the corruption of the Saudi monarchy." I I agree with
the Saudi monarchy." I I agree with that. at the same
that. at the same >> which by the way I do I do talk about
>> which by the way I do I do talk about the the Saudi monarchy quite a bit or
the the Saudi monarchy quite a bit or numerous other uh collaborative states
numerous other uh collaborative states uh far before even the Abraham Accords
uh far before even the Abraham Accords were implemented. I mean
were implemented. I mean >> but you wouldn't describe yourself right
>> but you wouldn't describe yourself right as an I don't I don't know what the
as an I don't I don't know what the right term is but you wouldn't say like
right term is but you wouldn't say like it's you know it's wrong for Saudi
it's you know it's wrong for Saudi Arabia to exist because it was you know
Arabia to exist because it was you know founded in some acts of violence, right?
founded in some acts of violence, right? >> Well, can I can I elaborate on that?
>> Well, can I can I elaborate on that? Yeah,
Yeah, >> I would say that it is utterly
>> I would say that it is utterly inappropriate and wrong if there were
inappropriate and wrong if there were exclusionary practices and some of this
exclusionary practices and some of this does exist in in the Muslim states that
does exist in in the Muslim states that we're talking about where uh there was
we're talking about where uh there was no uh no allowance for for example Jews
no uh no allowance for for example Jews to come and live in these countries,
to come and live in these countries, right? And and as a matter of fact,
right? And and as a matter of fact, >> oh no, this is like recent. So yeah, he
>> oh no, this is like recent. So yeah, he still doesn't call it a genocide even
still doesn't call it a genocide even after the UN called it a genocide.
after the UN called it a genocide. pretty sure speaking I'm pretty sure
pretty sure speaking I'm pretty sure speaking as a Christian that there are
speaking as a Christian that there are some pretty exclusivist rules in more
some pretty exclusivist rules in more than a few Middle Eastern countries.
than a few Middle Eastern countries. Right. So absolutely and I see that as a
Right. So absolutely and I see that as a as a uh as a byproduct of the rampant
as a uh as a byproduct of the rampant destabilization that has existed in this
destabilization that has existed in this resourcerich region and I my criticism
resourcerich region and I my criticism against these countries not having the
against these countries not having the allowance or not having any moment of of
allowance or not having any moment of of respit to be able to evolve. Um, I see
respit to be able to evolve. Um, I see that as a byproduct of American
that as a byproduct of American imperialism and Western imperialism as
imperialism and Western imperialism as well because it makes it a lot more
well because it makes it a lot more difficult for people to have uh any sort
difficult for people to have uh any sort of civil rights struggle when they're so
of civil rights struggle when they're so predisposed with uh being bombed or
predisposed with uh being bombed or being destabilized in one way, shape or
being destabilized in one way, shape or form other uh either in the hands of
form other uh either in the hands of Israel as as a destabilizing factor in
Israel as as a destabilizing factor in the region or directly through American
the region or directly through American intervention, British intervention and
intervention, British intervention and the like for for coups and whatnot to
the like for for coups and whatnot to take place in these countries. makes it
take place in these countries. makes it quite difficult for for uh the the
quite difficult for for uh the the regime change to take place in a
regime change to take place in a revolutionary manner. And the Iranian
revolutionary manner. And the Iranian revolution also is a is a great example
revolution also is a is a great example of this as well. When you put a puppet
of this as well. When you put a puppet state in charge that is western aligned,
state in charge that is western aligned, a lot of people and that puppet state
a lot of people and that puppet state must enforce its dominance over and over
must enforce its dominance over and over again through brutal practices of
again through brutal practices of torture and and mass incarceration.
torture and and mass incarceration. People are inevitably going to revolt
People are inevitably going to revolt against that. And what I have seen in my
against that. And what I have seen in my experience as someone growing up in
experience as someone growing up in Turkey, more often than not, the people
Turkey, more often than not, the people that actually find themselves the most
that actually find themselves the most earnest anti-western figures, the people
earnest anti-western figures, the people that that uh that these uh resentful
that that uh that these uh resentful populations can unite behind, often
populations can unite behind, often times actually wear fundamentalism as as
times actually wear fundamentalism as as a as a way to show how anti-western they
a as a way to show how anti-western they are. And this is the reason why some of
are. And this is the reason why some of these like despotic regimes actually end
these like despotic regimes actually end up uh taking power.
up uh taking power. >> But you wouldn't you wouldn't extend it
>> But you wouldn't you wouldn't extend it seems to me like you wouldn't extend
seems to me like you wouldn't extend that kind of structural argument and
that kind of structural argument and narrative to the Israelis, right? You're
narrative to the Israelis, right? You're like, well, to a certain degree I do,
like, well, to a certain degree I do, but Israel is a colonial power in this
but Israel is a colonial power in this situation. So yes, there's a difference
situation. So yes, there's a difference between victims of settler colonialism
between victims of settler colonialism versus those who are doing settler
versus those who are doing settler colonialism. And there's certainly a
colonialism. And there's certainly a difference between people who have
difference between people who have experienced colonialism or war and the
experienced colonialism or war and the destabilizing nature of war itself or
destabilizing nature of war itself or even CIA intervention like in the case
even CIA intervention like in the case with Iran are obviously going to have
with Iran are obviously going to have revolutionary movements that are going
revolutionary movements that are going to have fundamentalist leaders because
to have fundamentalist leaders because those are the earnest anti-western
those are the earnest anti-western figures. Israel is not a comparison that
figures. Israel is not a comparison that you can make with Iran because Israel's
you can make with Iran because Israel's fundamentalism is similar to America's
fundamentalism is similar to America's fundamentalism, which I think I brought
fundamentalism, which I think I brought up here as well, where I talk about
up here as well, where I talk about Israel uh uh growing in its hate because
Israel uh uh growing in its hate because of its refusal to examine the inherent
of its refusal to examine the inherent contradiction of the humanity of
contradiction of the humanity of Palestinians that they always have to
Palestinians that they always have to dehumanize and then forcibly exise from
dehumanize and then forcibly exise from the land.
the land. >> You know, there's so much there's
>> You know, there's so much there's Western imperialism, you know, there's
Western imperialism, you know, there's war, there's violence. This is this is
war, there's violence. This is this is how the Middle East, you know, ends up
how the Middle East, you know, ends up with dictators and theocrats. Okay. The
with dictators and theocrats. Okay. The state of Israel has been surrounded by
state of Israel has been surrounded by countries that deny its right to exist,
countries that deny its right to exist, have invaded it repeatedly. And
have invaded it repeatedly. And >> you said Israel is too busy killing
>> you said Israel is too busy killing Palestinians to have a civil rights
Palestinians to have a civil rights evolution to respect Palestinians. I
evolution to respect Palestinians. I know that's nuts.
know that's nuts. >> I don't think and and yet that narrative
>> I don't think and and yet that narrative to you
to you >> does not inspire any sympathy for
>> does not inspire any sympathy for >> cringe lord. Thank you for the 50
>> cringe lord. Thank you for the 50 >> because because they're because they're
>> because because they're because they're currently winning.
currently winning. >> It's incorrect to say that my analysis
>> It's incorrect to say that my analysis does not factor in uh like externalities
does not factor in uh like externalities or or resistance against like uh
or or resistance against like uh Israel's incursions, for example.
Israel's incursions, for example. Ultimately, it goes back to did the
Ultimately, it goes back to did the Palestinians have good reason to say we
Palestinians have good reason to say we oppose this. The war wouldn't have
oppose this. The war wouldn't have happened if Hamas committed mass murder.
happened if Hamas committed mass murder. Hamas are ISIS. Can you not see that?
Hamas are ISIS. Can you not see that? And Ben Shapiro wouldn't waste his time
And Ben Shapiro wouldn't waste his time on you knowing your brainwashed to think
on you knowing your brainwashed to think Palestine are the divine. Well, I I
Palestine are the divine. Well, I I mentioned Ben Shapiro on purpose because
mentioned Ben Shapiro on purpose because he is going to waste his time on me. Exo
he is going to waste his time on me. Exo Sophie. Exo. You can go back hundreds of
Sophie. Exo. You can go back hundreds of years and they always started their own
years and they always started their own wars with five Jewish countries. You
wars with five Jewish countries. You know what's really funny about this, by
know what's really funny about this, by the way? This is a damn near verbatim
the way? This is a damn near verbatim identical argument against like Muslims
identical argument against like Muslims that Nazis used against the Jews. Dude,
that Nazis used against the Jews. Dude, that's what's so crazy to me. Jewish
that's what's so crazy to me. Jewish Nazis straight up took what anti-Jewish
Nazis straight up took what anti-Jewish Nazis were saying about Jews and made it
Nazis were saying about Jews and made it their own thing. This is literally
their own thing. This is literally verbatim the 109 countries narrative bar
verbatim the 109 countries narrative bar forbar. When you hear Nazis go it's got
forbar. When you hear Nazis go it's got to be a reason why Jews were kicked out
to be a reason why Jews were kicked out of 109 countries. That's what these
of 109 countries. That's what these stupid Zionist Nazi morons are doing.
stupid Zionist Nazi morons are doing. They don't even realize it. There's not
They don't even realize it. There's not even a shred of irony in this situation.
even a shred of irony in this situation. Not even a little bit of an irony. Like,
Not even a little bit of an irony. Like, you don't even understand it. You don't
you don't even understand it. You don't understand that you are literally a
understand that you are literally a neo-Nazi. Okay? You are a Jewish
neo-Nazi. Okay? You are a Jewish neo-Nazi. How is this so difficult to
neo-Nazi. How is this so difficult to comprehend? You're saying that about
comprehend? You're saying that about Muslims.
Muslims. All of the Oh, there's a reason why
All of the Oh, there's a reason why nobody wants the Palestinians.
nobody wants the Palestinians. I feel like half of the people that were
I feel like half of the people that were sitting in like Holocaust studies were
sitting in like Holocaust studies were taking notes to be like, "This is the
taking notes to be like, "This is the most scary I've ever heard. We got to
most scary I've ever heard. We got to make sure this never happens again." And
make sure this never happens again." And then the other half was sitting there
then the other half was sitting there being like, "Well, that's pretty good. I
being like, "Well, that's pretty good. I think we can use this one. Wow, they
think we can use this one. Wow, they really cooked on this one. Okay, maybe
really cooked on this one. Okay, maybe not the oven thing, but we can just use
not the oven thing, but we can just use conventional munitions." Like, what the
conventional munitions." Like, what the is this? It literally feels like you
is this? It literally feels like you were taking nose when during Holocaust
were taking nose when during Holocaust studies. They'd be like, "This is what
studies. They'd be like, "This is what we should do to the Palestinians. This
we should do to the Palestinians. This is what we should say about the the
is what we should say about the the Muslims as a whole and the Palestinians
Muslims as a whole and the Palestinians as a whole. What the happened
as a whole. What the happened Israeli state? Was it born out of
Israeli state? Was it born out of ancient anti-semitism?" Check her reply
ancient anti-semitism?" Check her reply bar for bar. What' she say? What' that
bar for bar. What' she say? What' that dumbass say?
dumbass say? It's facts. Nothing Nazi about it. Yes.
It's facts. Nothing Nazi about it. Yes. Nazis say that about Jews, dumbass. And
Nazis say that about Jews, dumbass. And when they're called out for it, they
when they're called out for it, they turn around and say the exact same
turn around and say the exact same thing.
thing. You're so stupid.
You're so stupid. God damn. That's literally That's just
God damn. That's literally That's just fascism. That's just fascism. There's no
fascism. That's just fascism. There's no better description that this is a a a
better description that this is a a a fascist ideology than this exact
fascist ideology than this exact conversation that just took place.
conversation that just took place. >> Or was it born out of an emancipatory
>> Or was it born out of an emancipatory need that all indigenous people have,
need that all indigenous people have, all peoples of the world have in terms
all peoples of the world have in terms of developing autonomy
of developing autonomy that Israel makes for its own Jewish
that Israel makes for its own Jewish determination, right? a Jewish state's
determination, right? a Jewish state's self-determination, which
self-determination, which >> but surely it could be both, right? You
>> but surely it could be both, right? You could say, of course, there's, you know,
could say, of course, there's, you know, there's an admirable, understandable
there's an admirable, understandable desire for emancipation, a desire to
desire for emancipation, a desire to have your home own homeland. Um,
have your home own homeland. Um, >> and but at the same time, at a certain
>> and but at the same time, at a certain point, when it hits,
point, when it hits, >> you know, certain a certain level of uh,
>> you know, certain a certain level of uh, you know, KKK style hatred, you would
you know, KKK style hatred, you would say even if the original motivation is
say even if the original motivation is correct, even if they're understandable
correct, even if they're understandable motivations here, something hatred is
motivations here, something hatred is correct. That's precisely the reason why
correct. That's precisely the reason why it invokes a violent resist or re
it invokes a violent resist or re reaction though. But ultimately
reaction though. But ultimately >> that is what Zionism ends up becoming.
>> that is what Zionism ends up becoming. And like he doesn't understand. I think
And like he doesn't understand. I think he's talking about KKK style and talking
he's talking about KKK style and talking about Hamas and I'm talking about
about Hamas and I'm talking about Israel.
Israel. Like that's why I was like yeah you're
Like that's why I was like yeah you're right. Of course the KKK style hatred is
right. Of course the KKK style hatred is going to invoke some kind of violent
going to invoke some kind of violent resistance. And I'm like, no, that's why
resistance. And I'm like, no, that's why Hamas is resisting violently.
Hamas is resisting violently. >> If left unressed, this inherent
>> If left unressed, this inherent contradiction, this this notion that uh
contradiction, this this notion that uh of
of >> he doesn't understand that the
>> he doesn't understand that the comparison is more apt when we're
comparison is more apt when we're talking about like KKK versus Israel,
talking about like KKK versus Israel, the comparison is more apt for Israel
the comparison is more apt for Israel instead of Hamas. Self-determination is
instead of Hamas. Self-determination is presented as like a totally normal
presented as like a totally normal thing. Everybody has self-determination.
thing. Everybody has self-determination. People have a right to to develop their
People have a right to to develop their own nation state. But this one
own nation state. But this one specifically has demographic concerns.
specifically has demographic concerns. demographic concerns that require the
demographic concerns that require the eradication or the mass displacement of
eradication or the mass displacement of the indigenous population that do not
the indigenous population that do not fit the the inroup, the demographic
fit the the inroup, the demographic inroup.
inroup. Come on, tell me that's not a cooking
Come on, tell me that's not a cooking though for like liberals. I mean, yeah,
though for like liberals. I mean, yeah, everybody has a right to
everybody has a right to self-determination, but you can't do
self-determination, but you can't do that by being like, "My right, my
that by being like, "My right, my self-determination requires me to be an
self-determination requires me to be an ethnostate. Sorry." That's a cooking.
ethnostate. Sorry." That's a cooking. All right? And that is at the heart of
All right? And that is at the heart of this this uh problem of of of how
this this uh problem of of of how certain societies
certain societies >> get more and more comfortable with
>> get more and more comfortable with fascist violence. And I see this as a as
fascist violence. And I see this as a as a dual problem in America as well as
a dual problem in America as well as Israel.
Israel. >> So let's take let's just take that
>> So let's take let's just take that because I know you have to go stream.
because I know you have to go stream. This is this is the last
This is this is the last >> I mean I could talk about this all day
>> I mean I could talk about this all day by the way especially on the New York
by the way especially on the New York Times. I mean this
Times. I mean this >> but you I'm sure you will be talking
>> but you I'm sure you will be talking about it all day. Some of us
about it all day. Some of us >> I told the facts the history of be
>> I told the facts the history of be thinking is facts do check it. You and
thinking is facts do check it. You and your followers are in a woke world that
your followers are in a woke world that will make you see. What? What are you
will make you see. What? What are you talking about? Like, what are you
talking about? Like, what are you talking about? What are you talking
talking about? What are you talking about, dude? You literally said
about, dude? You literally said Palestinians are getting kicked out all
Palestinians are getting kicked out all the time. Arabs are the ones who always
the time. Arabs are the ones who always start the wars. And you're straight up
start the wars. And you're straight up using Nazi rhetoric when talking about
using Nazi rhetoric when talking about Jews. Like, this is what Nazis say about
Jews. Like, this is what Nazis say about Jews. If that's not enough for you, I
Jews. If that's not enough for you, I don't know what else to say. You're
don't know what else to say. You're wrong. You're wrong. You're just
wrong. You're wrong. You're just straight up wrong. Jewish people were
straight up wrong. Jewish people were not or Jewish people were there. 2% of
not or Jewish people were there. 2% of the population in Palestine was Jewish,
the population in Palestine was Jewish, but Jewish people did not like
but Jewish people did not like materialize there and then all of a
materialize there and then all of a sudden everyone was like, "Whoa, what
sudden everyone was like, "Whoa, what the like we have to purge the Jews
the like we have to purge the Jews because we're anti-Semitic." Like that's
because we're anti-Semitic." Like that's not how this happened, okay? It was a
not how this happened, okay? It was a settler colonial occupation deliberately
settler colonial occupation deliberately designed to slowly but surely through a
designed to slowly but surely through a process of aliyah through a process of
process of aliyah through a process of immigration initially pilgrimages in the
immigration initially pilgrimages in the same way that like the early colonists
same way that like the early colonists did in the United States of America came
did in the United States of America came in and caused a lot of chaos. The
in and caused a lot of chaos. The indigenous population understandably
indigenous population understandably resisted against it. There were riots
resisted against it. There were riots and protests and whatnot. Some of that
and protests and whatnot. Some of that even turned bloody and deadly. But
even turned bloody and deadly. But ultimately the colonial power pulled
ultimately the colonial power pulled back and the Zionist brigades took over
back and the Zionist brigades took over and mass slaughtered and then ethnically
and mass slaughtered and then ethnically cleansed the Palestinians. Oh god, I
cleansed the Palestinians. Oh god, I can't believe we're doing this. Too
can't believe we're doing this. Too scared to read the whole thing. 99% of
scared to read the whole thing. 99% of the population think the way I do. Dude,
the population think the way I do. Dude, you are literally skitso.
you are literally skitso. Straight up. No one agrees with you. The
Straight up. No one agrees with you. The overwhelming majority of the population
overwhelming majority of the population is anti-Israel. And a scary percentage
is anti-Israel. And a scary percentage of the population is now also
of the population is now also anti-Semitic as well. They're not even
anti-Semitic as well. They're not even just anti-Israel. They are unimaginably
just anti-Israel. They are unimaginably anti-semitic, too. And a lot of dumb I
anti-semitic, too. And a lot of dumb I don't even know where they exist, but
don't even know where they exist, but they just straight up think that that's
they just straight up think that that's not the case. She's defo in Israel, and
not the case. She's defo in Israel, and in that case, she's right. Yeah. The
in that case, she's right. Yeah. The only place on the planet where that
only place on the planet where that position is the majority position is
position is the majority position is Israel. That's it. Most
Israel. That's it. Most >> of us though don't have the same
>> of us though don't have the same stamina. So, I'm just going to ask a
stamina. So, I'm just going to ask a last question off that point. Right.
last question off that point. Right. You're talking about parallels between
You're talking about parallels between the Israeli situation and the US
the Israeli situation and the US situation. You know, you're talking
situation. You know, you're talking about, you know, the idea that the
about, you know, the idea that the Israeli situation represents fascism
Israeli situation represents fascism facing facing resistance. The US
facing facing resistance. The US situation, obviously, lots of people on
situation, obviously, lots of people on the left consider Trump a fascist.
the left consider Trump a fascist. >> This is a very dark narrative. And one
>> This is a very dark narrative. And one of my recurring sort of themes over the
of my recurring sort of themes over the last month has been watching the left as
last month has been watching the left as an outsider and seeing it go dark in
an outsider and seeing it go dark in effect get really really pessimistic. So
effect get really really pessimistic. So I want to ask you about that about
I want to ask you about that about nihilism and despair. You have a
nihilism and despair. You have a worldview you know that has a very bleak
worldview you know that has a very bleak >> bro hit the NVE talking points by the
>> bro hit the NVE talking points by the way. Like even the nihilism,
way. Like even the nihilism, the last point is like even the
the last point is like even the nihilism. Like if I was transgender,
nihilism. Like if I was transgender, he'd be calling the authorities. You
he'd be calling the authorities. You know what I mean?
It's like uh dangerous violent rhetoric uh rhetoric, anti- capitalist sentiment,
uh rhetoric, anti- capitalist sentiment, anti-American sentiment, anti-Israel
anti-American sentiment, anti-Israel sentiment. Um, like
sentiment. Um, like this is this is straight up like the the
this is this is straight up like the the last thing that I I don't have, which we
last thing that I I don't have, which we didn't get into was like the dangerous
didn't get into was like the dangerous gender rhetoric, extremist rhetoric
gender rhetoric, extremist rhetoric around gender. And if he had hit that
around gender. And if he had hit that one, too, cuz nihilism he's talking
one, too, cuz nihilism he's talking about too. Wait, he dead ass thinks you
about too. Wait, he dead ass thinks you have a nihilistic worldview. No, I I
have a nihilistic worldview. No, I I don't think he he thinks I'm a n I don't
don't think he he thinks I'm a n I don't think he thinks that. I think he's just
think he thinks that. I think he's just asking that question because there is a
asking that question because there is a lot of nihilism out there. been of the
lot of nihilism out there. been of the US empire as a global force.
US empire as a global force. >> I wouldn't say that. Okay. So, tell me
>> I wouldn't say that. Okay. So, tell me tell me why tell me why you're
tell me why tell me why you're optimistic. Let's end there.
optimistic. Let's end there. >> Yes. So, what I constantly and I see
>> Yes. So, what I constantly and I see this as well. I think nihilism is a
this as well. I think nihilism is a major problem in in the increasingly
major problem in in the increasingly alienated, increasingly isolated uh
alienated, increasingly isolated uh permanently online generations that are
permanently online generations that are born into a universe where they just
born into a universe where they just have an iPad in front of them from the
have an iPad in front of them from the start, right?
start, right? and and that nihilism is born out of uh
and and that nihilism is born out of uh our lack of our inability to make
our lack of our inability to make changes, meaningful changes in the
changes, meaningful changes in the system. One example I will use is like
system. One example I will use is like the Black Lives Matter protest that took
the Black Lives Matter protest that took place. Black Lives Matter protest took
place. Black Lives Matter protest took place. A lot of people in the aftermath
place. A lot of people in the aftermath of these lockdowns were very frustrated.
of these lockdowns were very frustrated. They they they saw something that was so
They they they saw something that was so patently unjust and they wanted to make
patently unjust and they wanted to make demands. They did all of the right
demands. They did all of the right things. They protested some of those
things. They protested some of those protests actually with uh police
protests actually with uh police intervention. in some instances turned
intervention. in some instances turned even violent, right? Many people were
even violent, right? Many people were arrested as a consequence of this, but
arrested as a consequence of this, but the broad majority of the protests were
the broad majority of the protests were were started off peacefully and the the
were started off peacefully and the the argument was perfectly reasonable. We
argument was perfectly reasonable. We have to do something about uh the the
have to do something about uh the the unfair practice of policing in black and
unfair practice of policing in black and brown neighborhoods and and uh the
brown neighborhoods and and uh the systemic racism that exists within the
systemic racism that exists within the criminal justice system. And it's an
criminal justice system. And it's an argument that I also of course agree
argument that I also of course agree with. Now after that they also then
with. Now after that they also then turned around and voted. They voted for
turned around and voted. They voted for the Democratic party. Joe Biden won over
the Democratic party. Joe Biden won over Donald Trump. There was uh a period of
Donald Trump. There was uh a period of celebration but no change actually came.
celebration but no change actually came. The same structures of oppression
The same structures of oppression existed and the Democrats actually
existed and the Democrats actually presented an alternative. They spent
presented an alternative. They spent most of their time criticizing uh the
most of their time criticizing uh the the activist born defund the police
the activist born defund the police movement uh without trying to understand
movement uh without trying to understand exactly what that meant. Basically for
exactly what that meant. Basically for the political normie they did everything
the political normie they did everything by the book and Blake Nef this doubt
by the book and Blake Nef this doubt that Hassan [ __ ] interview is deranged.
that Hassan [ __ ] interview is deranged. Look look I'll just summarize it. The
Look look I'll just summarize it. The structural violence of equity. Yeah
structural violence of equity. Yeah that's the kind of term you hear 10
that's the kind of term you hear 10 minutes before a commasar shoots you in
minutes before a commasar shoots you in the head. Okay dude keep fantasizing.
the head. Okay dude keep fantasizing. Okay producer for the Charlie Kirk show.
Okay producer for the Charlie Kirk show. What am I supposed to do with this?
What am I supposed to do with this? Like, that's just your fantasy. You have
Like, that's just your fantasy. You have derived a fantastical narrative, a
derived a fantastical narrative, a hysterical narrative off of this
hysterical narrative off of this conversation. That's not my fault. How
conversation. That's not my fault. How am I supposed to literally be like,
am I supposed to literally be like, "Well, I guess you have a sincere fear
"Well, I guess you have a sincere fear here.
here. Go ahead, sir. Lock me up." Like, what
Go ahead, sir. Lock me up." Like, what do you mean? Change came. What do you
do you mean? Change came. What do you expect in the aftermath of that but
expect in the aftermath of that but nihilism? But my solution to that always
nihilism? But my solution to that always been uh has always been to maintain
been uh has always been to maintain revolutionary optimism. I tell people
revolutionary optimism. I tell people not to succumb to nihilism all the time.
not to succumb to nihilism all the time. I tell people to maintain revolutionary
I tell people to maintain revolutionary optimism. And the reason why I say that
optimism. And the reason why I say that is because I I myself understand how
is because I I myself understand how change takes place, how long it takes
change takes place, how long it takes for actual systemic change, seismic
for actual systemic change, seismic shifts uh to take place in society, even
shifts uh to take place in society, even in a democratic one that maybe is a
in a democratic one that maybe is a theoretical democracy but doesn't
theoretical democracy but doesn't actually abide by the democratic wishes
actually abide by the democratic wishes of the majority. I know that these
of the majority. I know that these things take time and one thing that I
things take time and one thing that I have seen that has given me tremendous
have seen that has given me tremendous confidence has been the attitude the
confidence has been the attitude the societal attitude on on the issue of
societal attitude on on the issue of Israel. I think the sheer brutality of
Israel. I think the sheer brutality of Israel's conquest over the Palestinians,
Israel's conquest over the Palestinians, what I uh and and the international
what I uh and and the international community now recognizes as a genocide
community now recognizes as a genocide has, I think, made people in spite of
has, I think, made people in spite of the the media sanitation, made people
the the media sanitation, made people reflect on that and made people
reflect on that and made people recognize the truth. So that actually
recognize the truth. So that actually gives me a little bit of hope that I
gives me a little bit of hope that I think people do have the capacity to see
think people do have the capacity to see uh exactly what's going on and and and
uh exactly what's going on and and and have uh have the capacity to recognize
have uh have the capacity to recognize right from wrong and to demand change no
right from wrong and to demand change no matter how uh impossible said change
matter how uh impossible said change feels.
feels. >> Hassan [ __ ] thanks so much for joining
>> Hassan [ __ ] thanks so much for joining me.
me. >> Thank you for having me.
>> Thank you for having me. >> You're very welcome.
>> You're very welcome. >> I got to I got to I got to talk to Ezra,
>> I got to I got to I got to talk to Ezra, bro. That's what I got to do. I got to
bro. That's what I got to do. I got to talk to Ezra. Give me Ezra. I'm going
talk to Ezra. Give me Ezra. I'm going after I'm going after all the New York
after I'm going after all the New York Times guys one by one. I thought I think
Times guys one by one. I thought I think Assan actually walked an impressive line
Assan actually walked an impressive line in this interview. No rage bay but
in this interview. No rage bay but politically advantageous considering the
politically advantageous considering the audience here. You can see the exact
audience here. You can see the exact moment Ross finds out you can't throw
moment Ross finds out you can't throw Hassan around like a chunky Reese
Hassan around like a chunky Reese Witherspoon. Wait, what? Insane
Witherspoon. Wait, what? Insane interview. Ross putting words in Han's
interview. Ross putting words in Han's mouth and basically I don't believe you
mouth and basically I don't believe you when you say you don't advocate for
when you say you don't advocate for violence is embarrassing. For those who
violence is embarrassing. For those who are not aware, the guy on the right is
are not aware, the guy on the right is 45 years old, only 10 years older than
45 years old, only 10 years older than Hassan Lamau. The hilarious way with
Hassan Lamau. The hilarious way with Hassan will describe his worldview in
Hassan will describe his worldview in this New York Time dude tries to reframe
this New York Time dude tries to reframe Assange Thurman by inserting as many
Assange Thurman by inserting as many violent semantics as possible and then
violent semantics as possible and then just ask Hassan if he agrees with it.
just ask Hassan if he agrees with it. This isn't the debate's agonizing series
This isn't the debate's agonizing series of attempted gotchas. The US is
of attempted gotchas. The US is literally in the middle of a farright
literally in the middle of a farright coup that will probably never be undone
coup that will probably never be undone and the centrist intellectuals think the
and the centrist intellectuals think the problem is socialist same as it ever
problem is socialist same as it ever was.
was. That's why the the right-wing worldview
That's why the the right-wing worldview is so funny because I mean this guy per
is so funny because I mean this guy per this guy perfectly describes it. The
this guy perfectly describes it. The audacity of that interview call the left
audacity of that interview call the left dark after saying he's okay with
dark after saying he's okay with systematic violence on women and denying
systematic violence on women and denying the genocide is actually wild. This is
the genocide is actually wild. This is why I have hope because there are so
why I have hope because there are so many liberals themselves who look at
many liberals themselves who look at what's going on right now and are
what's going on right now and are understandably disturbed, understandably
understandably disturbed, understandably terrified about the future and therefore
terrified about the future and therefore they're trying to make this a thing.
they're trying to make this a thing. Yeah. there. This is the takeaway. The
Yeah. there. This is the takeaway. The main takeaway from the New York Times
main takeaway from the New York Times thing is like the right-wingers are
thing is like the right-wingers are trying to use only this clip to to be
trying to use only this clip to to be like, well,
like, well, you know, there's a lot of liberals that
you know, there's a lot of liberals that are being shifted by this. I hope so.
are being shifted by this. I hope so. Ross, I think you lack the understanding
Ross, I think you lack the understanding of the term adventurous and it's meaning
of the term adventurous and it's meaning on left circles. You keep saying
on left circles. You keep saying adventurous if it's on the hunt meant as
adventurous if it's on the hunt meant as a compliment. Adventurism is frowned
a compliment. Adventurism is frowned upon by most marks seen as lack of
upon by most marks seen as lack of understanding of theory and discipline.
understanding of theory and discipline. Chatter said they showed their mom and
Chatter said they showed their mom and they were surprised that their mom liked
they were surprised that their mom liked you, Lamount. No, I think like liberals
you, Lamount. No, I think like liberals will uh look at that interview and not
will uh look at that interview and not they they won't leave that interview
they they won't leave that interview with like a very negative approach or a
with like a very negative approach or a negative taste in their mouth about like
negative taste in their mouth about like what I'm uh what I'm talking about. Mic
what I'm uh what I'm talking about. Mic drop. I want people to actually take a
drop. I want people to actually take a serious look at the violent structures
serious look at the violent structures that already exist from the point of the
that already exist from the point of the recipient is already experienced as a
recipient is already experienced as a direct form of violence. Pike is an
direct form of violence. Pike is an interesting guy, but he's pretty clearly
interesting guy, but he's pretty clearly trying to have his cake and eat it too.
trying to have his cake and eat it too. saying inflammatory radical things while
saying inflammatory radical things while trying to sidestep the culture these
trying to sidestep the culture these things produce by saying it was always
things produce by saying it was always there or some such thing seems to me to
there or some such thing seems to me to be an enormous copout. Frankly, in an
be an enormous copout. Frankly, in an era of such profound inertia, who hasn't
era of such profound inertia, who hasn't entertained the thought? What leverage
entertained the thought? What leverage is required to affect meaningful change?
is required to affect meaningful change? We acknowledge that violence is not
We acknowledge that violence is not merely a social construct, but a
merely a social construct, but a fundamental observable element of
fundamental observable element of nature, a force capable of unimaginable
nature, a force capable of unimaginable cruelty. Yet, as a society, we are bound
cruelty. Yet, as a society, we are bound by principle, and we rightly denounce
by principle, and we rightly denounce it. The irony is that the true
it. The irony is that the true glorification of force often comes from
glorification of force often comes from those in power. After all, Trump has
those in power. After all, Trump has explicitly equated fear as the ultimate
explicitly equated fear as the ultimate source of power. While figures like a
source of power. While figures like a samper may occasionally push boundaries
samper may occasionally push boundaries in their rhetoric, their honesty is a
in their rhetoric, their honesty is a vital counterpoint to the political
vital counterpoint to the political hypocrisy. Let us remember that
hypocrisy. Let us remember that revolution, which need not be violent,
revolution, which need not be violent, is sometimes a necessary catalyst. The
is sometimes a necessary catalyst. The collective task of discerning that
collective task of discerning that moment falls to all of us. This got to
moment falls to all of us. This got to be chatbt, right? I feel like it's a
be chatbt, right? I feel like it's a it's a chatbt moment, maybe. I like
it's a chatbt moment, maybe. I like Parker, though. I think he has a
Parker, though. I think he has a responsibility to be more careful with
responsibility to be more careful with his rhetoric. I think the foolishness
his rhetoric. I think the foolishness that he occasionally exhibits sometimes
that he occasionally exhibits sometimes with live stream reform. I'm not sure it
with live stream reform. I'm not sure it brings out the best in anyone. Whatever
brings out the best in anyone. Whatever his faults, I think [ __ ] bears witness
his faults, I think [ __ ] bears witness to the lack of a coherent sense of
to the lack of a coherent sense of community in our society. That is
community in our society. That is something the far left is attempting to
something the far left is attempting to address. While the center seems to
address. While the center seems to satisfy with the same old, same old
satisfy with the same old, same old liberalism. They don't see that is what
liberalism. They don't see that is what brought us Trump, but [ __ ] does. He's
brought us Trump, but [ __ ] does. He's ahead of the game in most aspects.
ahead of the game in most aspects. Narcissistic young influencers who
Narcissistic young influencers who believe that every instantly conceived
believe that every instantly conceived opinion is worth the attention of
opinion is worth the attention of thousands of the products of our poor
thousands of the products of our poor discourse platforms. Interesting how we
discourse platforms. Interesting how we can't have a similar discussion about
can't have a similar discussion about Charlie Kirk's views. And not just
Charlie Kirk's views. And not just because of his murder, but because the
because of his murder, but because the right in his Russia canonized Kirk has
right in his Russia canonized Kirk has to ignore the major racism and sexism
to ignore the major racism and sexism advocated. Why is a liberal even a
advocated. Why is a liberal even a Marxist revolution to be feared, but
Marxist revolution to be feared, but beliefs that have held women back for
beliefs that have held women back for thousand years left minorities in fear
thousand years left minorities in fear or celebrated? God forbid we advocate
or celebrated? God forbid we advocate for a living wage or reasonable
for a living wage or reasonable apartment rents. But if you want to
apartment rents. But if you want to promote lynching or celebrate women
promote lynching or celebrate women being forced back in the kitchen, why
being forced back in the kitchen, why you're a hero worthy of comparison to
you're a hero worthy of comparison to Jesus himself? Let's pause and reflect
Jesus himself? Let's pause and reflect on the fact that Jesus was pretty much
on the fact that Jesus was pretty much to the left of Pike here. Pike
to the left of Pike here. Pike proclaiming the need to feed the hungry,
proclaiming the need to feed the hungry, house the homeless, and forgive our
house the homeless, and forgive our enemies. But sure, clearly all of our
enemies. But sure, clearly all of our problems are uh due to the excess of
problems are uh due to the excess of liberals, right? Jesus would want mass
liberals, right? Jesus would want mass ice stormtroopers in our neighborhoods.
ice stormtroopers in our neighborhoods. Or maybe the real hypocrites are those
Or maybe the real hypocrites are those who pretend to be Christians. Maybe the
who pretend to be Christians. Maybe the real messengers are those pretend to be
real messengers are those pretend to be secular Marxists. Maybe the rich aren't
secular Marxists. Maybe the rich aren't supposed to be our models. What the
supposed to be our models. What the brother, the New York Times comment
brother, the New York Times comment section is writing revolutionary pros.
section is writing revolutionary pros. It's like, I didn't realize. Amazing.
It's like, I didn't realize. Amazing. This is the first time I've seen an
This is the first time I've seen an actual Marxist be given even a second of
actual Marxist be given even a second of time in a newspaper that lately seems to
time in a newspaper that lately seems to spend more and more time in articles
spend more and more time in articles that make fascism seem normal. If people
that make fascism seem normal. If people heard what actual Marxists and
heard what actual Marxists and anti-imperialists had to say, they might
anti-imperialists had to say, they might actually find themselves agreeing with
actually find themselves agreeing with us, which I have to assume is why we are
us, which I have to assume is why we are so rarely allowed to speak in this
so rarely allowed to speak in this space. I sincerely appreciate doubt that
space. I sincerely appreciate doubt that allowing this rare glimpse of a
allowing this rare glimpse of a different world. People like this guy
different world. People like this guy cracks me up. Free schools, free
cracks me up. Free schools, free healthcare, free everything sounds
healthcare, free everything sounds fantastic. Problem is, someone has to
fantastic. Problem is, someone has to pay. Pay the teachers, pay the doctors.
pay. Pay the teachers, pay the doctors. I guess this is what you get when you
I guess this is what you get when you sit in front of a computer for seven
sit in front of a computer for seven hours a day. Yeah, Don didn't like it.
hours a day. Yeah, Don didn't like it. Keep this level of announcement of
Keep this level of announcement of Charlie Kirk, Donald Trump, Pete Hexit,
Charlie Kirk, Donald Trump, Pete Hexit, JD Vance, Steven Crowder, Nick Fuentes,
JD Vance, Steven Crowder, Nick Fuentes, Matt Walsh, Candace Owens, Stucker Ross
Matt Walsh, Candace Owens, Stucker Ross and Rush Limbbo, Jesse Waters, and Greg
and Rush Limbbo, Jesse Waters, and Greg Gutfeld. Why does the New York Times
Gutfeld. Why does the New York Times insist on such an inflammatory title of
insist on such an inflammatory title of the thoughtful informed discussion by
the thoughtful informed discussion by Assan? The implication is that he's
Assan? The implication is that he's inciting violence when he's talking
inciting violence when he's talking about the violence of our current system
about the violence of our current system and why people are so upset and that
and why people are so upset and that there is way out the weaponization of
there is way out the weaponization of the government and the media by the
the government and the media by the Trump administration is real and
Trump administration is real and threatening and we need 100s more picars
threatening and we need 100s more picars who clearly say individual violence is
who clearly say individual violence is wrong and collective action is needed to
wrong and collective action is needed to move forward move towards fairer
move forward move towards fairer society. What is going on? Asan [ __ ]
society. What is going on? Asan [ __ ] speaks word salad. He appears to be
speaks word salad. He appears to be making a very good living by doing so.
making a very good living by doing so. He's just another guy on the web making
He's just another guy on the web making a living by talking and talking and
a living by talking and talking and talking.
talking. That's my favorite type of guy who's
That's my favorite type of guy who's like, "Man, this guy's a real yapper."
like, "Man, this guy's a real yapper." Okay, that's all he does. It's like,
Okay, that's all he does. It's like, okay, who the do you think Ross Doubt
okay, who the do you think Ross Doubt is? That that he's doing the same I've
is? That that he's doing the same I've been doing.
been doing. What is this? To be a socialist, to
What is this? To be a socialist, to understand how hollow those symbols are
understand how hollow those symbols are without a commitment to those empowered
without a commitment to those empowered little represent too much wealth is
little represent too much wealth is conscious and too few hands. And now
conscious and too few hands. And now those hands are pulling the strings of a
those hands are pulling the strings of a fascist administration. Our democracies
fascist administration. Our democracies dying while they get rich. They are the
dying while they get rich. They are the enemy. The sooner you accept that, the
enemy. The sooner you accept that, the sooner we can start fighting in earnest.
sooner we can start fighting in earnest. Oh my god.
What is happening? New York Times comment section being
New York Times comment section being like we must do a we must
like we must do a we must we must engage in agitative propaganda
we must engage in agitative propaganda in our lives in order to ferment a
in our lives in order to ferment a revolutionary sentiment in the in the
revolutionary sentiment in the in the proletarian now not tomorrow but now. We
proletarian now not tomorrow but now. We must not wait.
must not wait. I am taking action immediately.
I am taking action immediately. This pen lecture is full of himself.
This pen lecture is full of himself. I listened to the first 20 minutes or so
I listened to the first 20 minutes or so Ross Doued stopping at the point where
Ross Doued stopping at the point where he becomes clear he has no understanding
he becomes clear he has no understanding of politics at all. Senior lecturer in
of politics at all. Senior lecturer in political science at pen. And to be
political science at pen. And to be clear, it's not that Doued was really
clear, it's not that Doued was really tough, let alone unfair in the
tough, let alone unfair in the interview. You just let [ __ ] talk and
interview. You just let [ __ ] talk and in talking he has no understanding of
in talking he has no understanding of politics at all. Yeah. I mean, yeah,
politics at all. Yeah. I mean, yeah, you're gonna if you have
you're gonna if you have no Oh. Barry Wise to be named
no Oh. Barry Wise to be named editor-inchief of CBS News. So, not just
editor-inchief of CBS News. So, not just a boss, the boss. H
Oh, this is my favorite type of Oh. Oh, he hates Trump because of populism.
he hates Trump because of populism. These guys love talking about populism.
These guys love talking about populism. That's the real That's the real issue is
That's the real That's the real issue is the is the populism. That way you can
the is the populism. That way you can say the extreme left is populist and
say the extreme left is populist and they're wrong and the extreme right is
they're wrong and the extreme right is populist and they're wrong. Notes from
populist and they're wrong. Notes from the middle ground. Exactly.
the middle ground. Exactly. Oh, these guys are these guys are
Oh, these guys are these guys are awesome because their ideology has been
awesome because their ideology has been such a spectacular failure and it has
such a spectacular failure and it has unironically led to the development of a
unironically led to the development of a a fascist movement not only in this
a fascist movement not only in this country but all around the world. Like
country but all around the world. Like these guys have created an environment
these guys have created an environment for fascism to thrive in and now they
for fascism to thrive in and now they just have to sit there and still yell at
just have to sit there and still yell at the left and be like, "Well, the left is
the left and be like, "Well, the left is the left is radical, too." They're also
the left is radical, too." They're also radical, too. I promise this is what
radical, too. I promise this is what you're doing to the New York Times
you're doing to the New York Times audience. I know exactly what this clip
audience. I know exactly what this clip is. I knew
is. I knew >> you will be brainwashed.
>> you will be brainwashed. >> Me, America's son. H That will be a
>> Me, America's son. H That will be a challenge.
challenge. >> You bet.
>> You bet. >> I knew this was
>> I knew this was >> Are all those in league with
>> Are all those in league with imperialism? the bureaucrats, the big
imperialism? the bureaucrats, the big landlord class and the reactionary
landlord class and the reactionary section of the intelligencia attached to
section of the intelligencia attached to them.
them. New York Times New York Times comment
New York Times New York Times comment section is is the vanguard is happening.
