Piers Morgan Uncensored - ‘I STAND By It!' Nicholas Kristof DOUBLES DOWN on NYT Israel Brutality Report - With Eric Weinstein

Episode Date: June 25, 2026

President Trump reportedly berated members of his own party yesterday in a bad-tempered meeting with Senate Republicans on the Iran War. Several Republicans defied Trump to pass a War Powers resolution which - symbolically - orders him to end military action or get their permission first. But while the endless MAGA schisms are fascinating, they are not the main barrier to peace - and Trump knows it. Israel is bitterly opposed to the US deal with Iran and has made its feelings known. Successive US presidents stood by Israel throughout the war on Gaza, even as many of its traditional allies expressed shock and alarm at the scale of civilian suffering. But just as the US met the limits of its power in the war on Iran. Israel is discovering that the limits to its power are met by challenging America’s interests. Piers Morgan speaks to New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, a twice-winner of the Pulitzer Prize, who faced a ferocious outcry for his work last month and Executive Director of the Urban Warfare Institute John Spencer. Then, for the first time in our Uncensored London studios, Piers sits down with mathematician Eric Weinstein, who’s both a close friend of JD Vance and a strident supporter of Israel. Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent and sponsored by: Dose: New customers save 35% on your first month of subscription by going to dosedaily.co/PIERS or entering PIERS at checkout. 00:00 Introduction 03:45 Nicholas Kristof interview begins 04:25 Nicholas Kristof on receiving threats over his report on the treatment of Palestinians 06:20 Nicholas Kristof on dogs being trained to sexually assault Palestinian prisoners 07:34 Nicholas Kristof on the intensified threats he’s received during his whole career 09:51 AD: DOSE - save 35% on your first month of subscription by going to dosedaily.co/PIERS or entering PIERS at checkout 10:54 International journalists being barred by Israel from entering Palestine 14:00 The role of Netanyahu in ethnically cleansing Palestinians 16:15 The war on Iran 19:30 John Spencer interview begins 22:00 The IDF targeting Palestinian civilians 28:35 How many civilians have been killed in Gaza? 34:07 Dr Eric Weinstein interview begins 35:11 Eric Weinstein on the narrative of London being overrun by immigrants 39:50 The UK grooming gang scandal 44:00 The disconnect between Netanyahu and his government 45:20 The role of the MI6 in Iran 47:30 The Strait of Hormuz and a deal in Iran 54:20 Is Netanyahu covering something up in Gaza? 59:40 Israel committing war crimes 01:02:04 What is Quantumania? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Visit BetMGM Casino and check out the newest exclusive. The Price is Right Fortune Pick. BetMDM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2,600 to speak to an advisor,

free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming, Ontario. I went to the West Bank. to talk with Palestinians who experienced sexual assault firsthand by Israeli soldiers, settlers, and prison guards. That was meticulously fact-checked. I stand by that piece. The Times has stood by that piece.

What Israel is trying to communicate is, please don't tell us how to survive, because if we listened to you, we would have been dead ten times over. And Israel is not wrong about it. How many civilians have been killed in Gaza? If you just do, literally, like my kindergartner, math of doctors.

But John, just to me clear, do you have a number or not? 50,000 minus the number of combatants that the idea have set. I've asked you multiple times how many civilians have been killed, and you don't know. Therefore, your assessment is bullshit. President Trump reportedly berated members of his own party yesterday in a bad-tempered meeting with Senate Republicans on the Iran war. Several Republicans initially defied Trump to pass a war power's resolution

which symbolically ordered him to end military action or get their permission first. But while the endless maga schisms are fascinating, they're not the main barrier to peace. And Trump knows it. Israel is bitterly opposed to the US deal with Iran and has made his feelings known. The ink was barely dry on the memorandum last week

when security minister Itamar Ben-Givir posted, with all due respect to the Americans, Israel must make it clear to the entire world that the blood of our sons and security of our citizens are not forfeit. all of Lebanon must burn. Besides the casual threat of genocide, Israel's opposition to peace

as practical implications. The US clearly can't keep the Hamus rate open with military force. Iran is ready and very willing to close it if the Israeli bombs keep hitting Lebanon. That's why Vice President J.D. Vance, whose charge was selling the deal and getting it done, is losing patience.

Donald J. Trump is the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this moment in time. And he happens to be the head of state of the world's superpower. If I was in the cabinet of the Israeli government, I might not be attacking the only powerful ally that I have anywhere left in the entire world. Well, successive US presidents stood by Israel

throughout the war on Gaza, even as many of its traditional allies expressed shock and alarm at the scale of civilian suffering. But just as the US met the limits of its power in the war on Iran, Israel is discovering that the limits to its power are met by challenging America's interests. All of a sudden, Trump and Vance are sounding a lot like the many commentators who've been chided as Islamists or anti-Semites

or criticizing the most moral army in the world. Too many people are being killed. And you don't have to knock down an apartment house every time you're looking for somebody because there are a lot of people in those apartment houses. You know, you're a country of nine million people. You can't just kill your way out of... of solving every single national security problem that you have.

Well, for now, the Vice President is bearing the brunt of the backlash. Congressman Randy Fine called his recent comments disgusting and inappropriate. Little Ben Shapiro called him, quote, weak and ridiculous. Later on the show, I'll be joined here in the studio by Eric Weinstein, is both a close friend of J.D. Vance and a strident supporter of Israel for his analysis. But we'll begin the show with somebody who understands very well the implications of interrogating Israeli operations. New York Times columnist Nicholas Christoph, a twice winner of the Pulitzer Prize,

faced a ferocious outcry for his work last month amid the appalling attacks on his employer and his family, a former Biden envoy likened him to a Nazi propagandist. Well, Nick Christoph joins me now. Nick, great to see you again. I used to interview a lot when I was at CNN. It's great to see you. And when it all blew up last month, you know, I told people, I know Nick Christoph. I've known you well.

I've interviewed you many times. You don't win two pullet surprises by just plucking stuff out of thin air and publishing it. Obviously, it's the elephant of the room, so let's get it out the way. What is your feeling now, we're a few weeks later, about the enormous furority that erupted over your report,

which was entitled, The Silence that meets the Rape of Palestinians and was about the treatment of Palestinian inmates in Israeli prisons? Well, I had certainly expected enormous amount of pushback, as had the times, but, you know, what happened, I think, exceeded that. Now, that includes the threat of multiple lawsuits, including threats from Prime Minister Netanyahu. So, you know, I don't want to go into it too much.

But I would just say that, look, that was meticulously fact-checked. It was based on conversations with 14 people who had been sexually assaulted, whose accounts were carefully corroborated. The Times has stood, I stand by that piece. The Times has stood by that piece. Subsequently, the UN issued a report on sexual violence by Israel against Palestinians that put Israel on a blacklist for precisely this and disclosed new rapes of Palestinian prisoners. And so, you know, I think it holds up. And I mean, look at the end of the day, peers, you know, I mean, I've covered prison rape in the U.S., I've covered sexual violence in Burma, in Sudan, in Ethiopia, all over the world. And when you dehumanize people and when you provide impunity for prison guards and soldiers,

then terrible things happen. The specific allegation which got most attention and exposed you to most attack, I think, was the allegation from an unnamed person, in the report, who said he was raped by a dog on the command of a handler inside prison. On that specific, I know you don't want to get into the wider details because of the lawsuit. I understand that completely. I've been on the receiving end myself, and you have to be careful. But on that specific allegation, what do you say to people who say, well, that's just obviously preposterous.

That could never have happened. No dog can be trained to sexually assault a human being. What do you say to that? Well, I'd say that, in fact, the evidence is contrary to that, that we know from history that, for example, Nazis like Klaus Barbie did use dogs to rape their victims, according to testimony of survivors who'd endured torture by the Nazis. Likewise, the Chilean regime, you likewise had dogs rape political prisoners. as a way to abuse and humiliate them. And in the medical literature, there are at least three journal articles

about humans suffering rectal damage from penetration by dogs. So, you know, this is not something that is impossible. There have been a number of Palestinians who have testified about this. Have you ever, Nick, in all your career, you've written a lot of contentioned stuff over the years, but you've also won awards for it.

Have you ever in your career been on the receiving end of such a ferocious attack? And if the answer is no, what's it been like for you on a human level to go through what you've been through? This would be, I mean, look, you know, I've been shot at. I've been in things that seem a lot more dangerous than getting mean tweets directed at me. It has made me see the degree of kind of bad faith attacks. One of the things that my family has always been proud of is that my dad's family spied on that. They were Armenians.

They spied on the Nazis during World War II. And my dad was imprisoned on orders of the Nazis as a result. And then, you know, as a result of this, on the contrary, my dad. as being portrayed as some kind of a Nazi, and I'm a sort of second-generation Nazi. And, you know, I mean, I can take this, I dish it out, but it does sort of underscore just the absurdity of some of the accusations that the depths to which people will go. The sort of perverse irony is that Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli government, they have barred and continue to bar international journalists from operating freely in Gaza.

the only journalist allowed in are with the IDF embedded with full control by the IDF. Nobody else is allowed to go in and do their job, even though we're supposedly in a ceasefire period. It's made no difference. And at the same time, he's threatening, we'll see whether he goes through with it, because he's threatened this before and then didn't go through with it. But he's threatening to use the full instrument of the Israeli government to sue you and the New York Times over this report.

Like I said, there's a perverse irony there. if somebody suppressing freedom of speech in Gaza by not allowing journalists to do their job. And in a way, using the whole force of his government to try and, I guess, silence you, scare you off, bully you, whatever context you want to use. What do you feel about Netanyahu? Well, what do you feel about both of those things?

One, the ongoing ban of journalists being allowed in. And secondly, the fact he's using the government to sue you guys. Support for Uncensor comes from dose for cholesterol, a simple and reliable way to take control of your own health. Cholesterol can be an issue for many people, some for lifestyle reasons, and sometimes just bad luck. But you can get ahead of it. Dose for cholesterol is extremely convenient, just a small daily shop which tastes like mango. No pills and no powders. It uses naturally occurring ingredients like turmeric, so you know that you're not putting chemical garbage into your body.

This is a way to take more control of your own health, which could. help you delay the more intense conventional remedies. They'll send it straight to your door for zero hassle. New customers can save 35% on your first month's subscription by going to dosedaily.co slash peers or simply entering peers at checkout. That's dosedaily.com slash peers for 35% off your first month's subscription. I mean, I've tried very hard to get into Gaza

since the beginning of the war, you know, volunteering with medical organizations, this kind of thing. And like myself, you know, all journalists have been barred. Many aid workers have been barred. Doctors have been limited, even when they volunteer to go in. But it's not just Gaza. You know, in prisons, the Red Cross had been banned from visiting prisoners. Lawyers had often been banned. And that's the kind of context in which you get impugnuching and which you get abuse. And so I would just hope that these kind of allegations about serious sexual violence of prisoners

would be investigated and would lead to access by the Red Cross, by lawyers. In fact, the Israeli Prison Service wasn't even letting its own Israeli inspectors access. And just investigate. And if you think I'm wrong, then prove me wrong, but open up the doors and allow the kind of access by the Red Cross and others. But this principle of using a government to sue journalists, to sue a newspaper over a report,

what do you feel about that? Well, it's a threat. I mean, we'll see if it happens. I mean, look, I have full confidence in what I wrote. I know, people, you know, as I said, I've been, you know, worse things happen than getting sued. Right now we have journalists in covering wars around the world who can be killed tomorrow. You know, I've been denounced about a lot worse things are happening journalists around the world. It's very interesting to watch the changing mood about Israel, particularly in America, where for the first time you see a majority of Americans have a negative,

opinion of Israel. And I saw Joe Scarborough talking on MS Now yesterday about the BB Netanyahu effect, as he put it, which is if you want to know why Israel is so unpopular, if you want to know why in New York, you're seeing a lot of wins for Mandarney supported, you know, congressional candidates. It's because, and he said, all roads lead to Netanyahu with this relentless bombing. Let's take a little look at what he said. If you want to blame anybody, Jonathan, I think you have to. to blame Benjamin at Njahou. The idea that you're going to be able to brutalize children

and women in Gaza with bombing that looks indiscriminate on TV day in and day out for years, that you're going to be able to level half of Lebanon, that you're going to be able to continue to allow thugs to run wild in the West Bank and brutalizing Palestinians, brutalizing Christians in Bethlehem, brutalizing Christians across that area,

along with Palestinian Muslims, especially Palestinian Muslims, blowing up Catholic churches in Gaza. You can blame all of this on Benjamin Netanyahu. What do you feel about what Joe Scarborough was saying there? Because I reposted it saying I completely agree. I mean, I just think that in the end, if you look at the actions of this particular Israeli government, I think Netanyahu did this dirty deal

with these unbelievably hardline characters like, Bengavir and Smodrich, whose mission seems crystal clear. They just want to basically ethnically cleanse the Palestinians out of Gaza, out of the West Bank, out of southern Lebanon. And Netanyahu, for political power preservation purposes, and to avoid, presumably as well, the criminal trial that he's facing but keeps being put off, that it kind of suits him to keep bombing places. So I think that there is something to that.

And I think that Netanyahu is certainly, you know, made things. is much worse ever since he first came at office in the 1990s. But I also think it becomes too easy and a little bit too glib to focus everything on Netanyahu. I mean, the truth is that the war in Gaza and the way it was carried out, leveling entire city blocks, you know, that had the support of a broad swath of Israelis. Much of the settlement policy has very broad support. I think likewise, a very aggressive policy in Lebanon has broad support. And so I think that if we have a new Israeli prime minister, as we may have this fall, you know, I think there will be some improvement, and Ben-Gavir won't be in the cabinet, one hopes. But I think that there will still be

some really hardline policies toward Gaza, toward Lebanon. And that this is not just personal, although that magnifies it, but also structural. And, you know, your point about how U.S. opinion has That's absolutely true. And it's interesting because it's not so much an ideological divide. It's really a generational one. Yes, it is. That even young Republicans are much, much more skeptical of Israeli ties than, you know, than older folks.

So it's really a, and the Democratic Party, because it was being led by Biden, who was so supportive of Israel, it hasn't really fully made that transition. But Democratic voters themselves are, you know, they're going to pull the party toward this much greater skepticism toward Israel. Just quickly, Nate, what is your overview of the Iran war, which Donald Trump is clearly desperate to get out of? The narrative, which was painstakingly laid out actually by the New York Times in a brilliant piece quite early on,

that Trump ultimately is his decision to take American forces into war, of course, but that he had been persuaded of the merits of doing this with the Israelis by Netanyahu, by the head of Mossad, in this big meeting in the White House Situation Room. And that Netanyahu laid out this series of events. You take out the Ayatollah and the top people, then the IRGC kind of collapses from within, the people rise up, and it's all going to be a clean revolution.

But, of course, the only the first bit happened. And in fact, the Ayatoll got replaced by his even more hard-lined sun. The rest of it didn't happen. And you have this asymmetric war, where the Iranians worked out if you just shut this little straight of water and chucked a few missiles and rockets at the neighboring Gulf states, they can hold everyone to ransom. What is your overview of this war?

Has it been, as some people believe, a catastrophic failure? It's been absolutely a catastrophic failure. I mean, in a sense, we have had regime change. We now have a harder-line regime in Iran, one that is more repressive, one that is more likely to pursue nuclear weapons. I think it's, you know, the risk that Iran has nuclear weapons in five years is now much greater than it was in January.

And meanwhile, we've handed Iran enormous amounts of leverage because it has turned out that it can close the straight. So now as we implement this new accord, whenever there is some disagreement and bound to be many, then Iran will say, look, maybe we're going to close the straight now. Ships, look out. And then I think the Trump administration is going to be inclined to back off. Yeah. It's been great to talk to you, Nate. I'm about to interview somebody else who takes a position that Netanyahu has also endorsed, which is that the IDF is the most moral army in the world, that they kill fewer civilians in a ratio to combat and stroke terrorists, whatever people want to call the other side, than any army in modern history. Do you agree with that? No, I completely disagree. And I would note that I know who you're going to be interviewing. And, you know, he is the one person that Israelis always quote for that position. He's not at all representative of what military leaders or retired military leaders or officers think. And, you know, I mean, again, you look at, I know Gaza and she entire blocks leveled to see what's happening. happening in Lebanon, you know, that is not moral.

And one child a day has died in Gaza since the ceasefire, one child. And, you know, I find that just terrific. Nick Christoph, great to talk to again. Thank you very much for coming on uncensored. Good to be with you. Well, joining me now is John Spencer, Executive Director of the Urban Warfare, John, thanks for coming on the show. You've been on before. I appreciate you coming back. We had a little exchange on X, and you laid out a very firm conviction that in your estimation, the IDF is the most moral army in the world.

And I was struck really, I guess, by the fact that all the people that you cited who you'd spoken to were, of course, on the pro-Israel pro-IDP side. So, of course, they're going to say that. And the criticism that I would level back at you about your claim was simply that if you're only going to do that, talk to the people that effectively have a horse in the race, and journalists aren't allowed into Gaza to work it out for themselves, then it's hard to believe it. What would you say to that? Well, hi, peers, thanks for having me. I really appreciate you in doing that. I will have to correct you on misquoted me. That quote about being the most moral military in the world,

that's probably from my friend Colonel Richard Kemp from the British Army who led Afghanistan forces during the Afghan war. My quote that you called nonsense was that the Israel and the idea have implemented more measures to prevent civilian harm than any military in history. Now, that's a provable fact. You asked about the people I've interviewed, So over 100 interviews, although your previous guest said that he had 14 interviews resting on three journal articles.

And I wish I would have in New York Times spread based on hundreds of interviews. And I listed them for you in that ex post, not just the prime minister, both chiefs of the IDF, the every division commander in Gaza, battalion commander, company commander, doing what we call primary source resource. So I'm not asking them. They would all say that, John, wouldn't they? I mean, you know, my instant reaction when I read it was, of course, they're going to say that to you. Of course they're going to present a series of facts to you which endorse this belief that, you know, whether you call them the most moral army in the world or whether you call them the one that has, you know, spared the most civilians, when the reality on the ground, and I think it's why Netanyahu won't let journalists into Gaza to operate freely,

the reality is very different. As even Donald Trump said last week, you know, why do they keep leveling whole buildings to go after one Hamascai or a couple of Hezbollah people, right? They are in the process of targeting the enemy, they are killing enormous numbers of civilians. Now, you know, I've had people say to me, yeah, but what about World War II? What about Dresden? I completely agree. But of course, that was precisely why the Geneva Convention was brought in to prevent that kind of thing happening again. And many people think that the IDF has been indiscriminate,

not because they're deliberately targeting civilians, but because they are targeting one, two, three enemy combatants and in the process killing huge numbers of civilians. And whether you call that targeting civilians or willfully ignoring the civilian casualty reality on the ground, I mean, it makes a little difference to the victims, does it? So it's a great question. So post-war War II, but let me address your question about me just doing interviews. Since I have traveled and I mentioned this to you, although you argue that journalists can't go into Gaza unless they're asking.

Freely, right. So you want them to embed with Thomas. I want them to do their jobs as they do in every war zone in the world. I mean, these are people who do this as a matter of course. I know a number of war correspondents. They've never had a situation where particularly when it moved to a supposed ceasefire, they're still not being allowed in. I think I know why they're not being allowed in, and I'm curious whether you share my concern that there can be only one reason

why a government wouldn't want journalists to operate freely when there's a ceasefire, and that is because they do not want people to know what really happened. No, so I wouldn't agree with that assessment, although there are other combat zones, and you and I have actually discussed Ukraine in the coverage that I've had in Ukraine on the front line of Ukraine where journalists aren't allowed.

So it's not that there, This is a unique and their probable answer on why isn't just what you listed. But the embeds that I have done, I'm not a reporter. I'm a war scholar. I went into Gaza multiple times, over six times. So when I was asking a division commander, what are you doing here? I'm actually also watching them operate. And to your previous guest question, which I really want to talk about is that you and

others have pinned me as the only person, right? I'm the only one that says this thing when there's actually been four. I didn't say that. Well, he did. Your previous guest, right? So do you know Sir John McCall? I know you've been on a panel with him, right? The former deputy NATO Supreme Commander, who was very skeptical, almost had similar thoughts

to you, then went to Gaza, went into Gaza with six other NATO members, and came out and said, no, the harm mitigation measures, which is really important because we're going to talk about post-war II. Would you call the Korean War a genocide, Pierce? Well, I think the definition of, the reason I have held off calling what happened in Gaza a genocide is because actually no country, stroke, state, has ever been found guilty of waging a genocide. That's just a fact, as a country, right? So I think that it's important that when people throw these kind of words around,

they understand what it means, and they wait for a proper adjudication by people. proper authorities on whether it meets the criteria for genocide. I have used the phrase ethnic cleansing because I think that is more pertinent to the language, particularly we see from certain members of Israeli government. But let's be honest, John, when you saw that statement from Ben-Givir about Lebanon and burning it to the ground, that is the language of a genocidal maniac. It is. But I don't want to live in the world where, you know, outlier, politicians.

that make statements that if you took them... And he's the security minister of Israel. I think Natali Bennett replied to your ex post and said, he made that title up for himself. But he didn't answer that point. And I replied to him saying, but hang on, this guy is the security minister for Israel. That is his job in the government.

He's not a fringe member of the government. He's actually the security minister. That title, though, isn't what you're inferring. That's what Natalia, no friend of Netanyahu said. No, no, he's not. That's more like the head of the police. He's not in the chain of command. So when you, Chris,

that list of people, I was demonstrating that I've interviewed or observed in combat operations both the political leaders in the chain of command and the actual field commanders operating and watching them take in extraordinary, extraordinary steps that no military has done. But do you think, John, on that point, do you. But Pierce, you said post-war II. Can I answer that really quick? Sure, sure, sure. Because you said the Korean War, right?

So yes, things that we did in World War II, you did. In War II, Dresden, even the blitz of, we don't do that anymore, right? The Geneva Conventions. The Korean War was a 37-month war. Two million civilians were killed in that war. That's 54,000 civilians a month, every month of the war, 2,000 civilians a day, more than actual combatants. These numbers, these lies, damn lies, statistics, even if we want to talk about the numbers of children, which is, according to the United Nations, anybody able to. the age of 18, half of the population of Gaza is below the age of 18, and Hamas is historic

for deploying soldiers from 12 to 18. The average age of a Hamas recruit right now is 16. But do you believe, okay, but John, do you believe that the ratio of civilian deaths to enemy combatant terrorist deaths in Gaza, for example, is the best ratio, if you like, that we've seen in modern warfare? Is that your belief? And so I stated that early in the war when there are people doing false comparative analysis. Did you still believe that about Gaza?

Absolutely. Okay, so my question for you is very simple, then. It's an aggregated. Okay, but my question is very simple. What is the... Hang on, John. Let me finish my question. I will let you answer.

I will let you answer. Because you said that, let me just give you my question, which is this. Sure. To make that assessment, you would have to know how many civilians have been killed.

wouldn't you? Yep. So how many is it? So I take both the numbers that we all have available. I just, I don't filter them through some prism of intentionality and already... But no pro-Israeli guests have been able to tell me the numbers, so maybe you can enlighten everybody. How many civilians have been killed in Gaza?

Sure. So I take the Hamas number that they provide, which doesn't distinguish between civilian and combatants. And then I take the one that Israel. provides. I have done enough research on all the numbers of any urban battle to understand when do we have a number and then how is it determined... Sure, so how many civilians have been killed? According to Hamas, 72,000. What is your belief?

My belief is that we don't have a number, but if we take Hamas's number and then we compare it to Israel's numbers of combatants, how many fighters do you think Hamas has, got it? Okay, let's take the Israel number of combatants. So I've asked Israeli ambassadors how many civilians have been killed. They can always tell me how many Hamas have been killed. That's right. But they can never tell. But oddly, oddly, they can never tell me how many civilians have been killed.

So my simple question for you is to make the assessment that the ratio has never been better than it is in Gaza in terms of combatants killed compared to civilians. You'd have to know both numbers. You have to, right? So my question, again, is simple. how many civilians have actually been killed in Gaza? So that would be a question. You don't know, do you?

You don't know? So when people talk about how many civilians have died, you just started this show talking about an indiscriminate number, a high number of civilians, you too don't have access to information to know that that body... But you're the one making the claim

that the ratio is the best we've seen. I don't think it's unreasonable. I don't think it's unreasonable, John, in that context of that claim to simply ask you that obviously to make that assessment, you must know how many civilians have been killed and how many Hamas terrorists have been killed.

If you don't know, I don't know how you can make the assessment. I mean, I guess you could challenge the qualitative analysis of any war in the history of war. I'm only asking you about your claim. You said it was the best ratio, and yet I'm simply asking you, okay, so what is the ratio? How many civilians? How many Hamas?

And I'm trying to explain you, the qualitative analysis. Do you know the answer or not? Yes. What is it? It is based on Hamas' number. Just give me a number of civilians who've been killed for you to make your judgment

that the ratio is the best in modern times, okay, that's your claim. I respect your right to have a claim, but to back it up, you have to know the two numbers. You have to better tell me this number of civilians were killed and this number of Hamas. And then we can all decide

whether that is the best ratio of modern times. But if you don't know, now is your chance to say, actually, I don't know, because I don't think you do, do you? So that's an interesting viewpoint. If you didn't know that I'm comparing the numbers we all have available to the same numbers that we all have available. So how many civilians have been killed? You said you're a scholar of war. So as a scholar of war who says the ratio has never been better, one last time, how many civilians have been killed? So in, let's talk in the Battle of Rafa.

No, no, let's talk about in Gaza since October the 7th. Yeah. In the war, how many civilians have been killed? If you just do literally like my kindergartener math of the numbers that are available and subtract the number of combatants, because there are no civilians in war peers, there's combatants or non-combatants. Non-combatants are those that are not participating in the war. Such as in Gaza, if you're holding a civilian and you're a doctor,

but John, just to be clear, do you have a number or not? 50,000 minus the number of combatants that the IDF have set. 50,000 is what numbers that? It is the number that Hamas says is left over of the number of combatants that Israel says. Sorry, so just to be clear, how many, you don't want to use the word civilians, how many non-combatants have been killed? I'm struggling to get my head round your maths. According to Hamas, all of the deaths are not about it.

Okay. So how many do you think... So 7,000, according to Hamas... How many do you think it is? It's less the number that the Israel has... How many is it? John. I mean, to have said the ratio's the best we've seen, you've got to know the number. And if you don't know the number, obviously your assessment is bullshit.

Peers. So, sure, if the entire history of war is bullshit, every case... I'm not talking about the entire history of war. You said you're a war scholar. You've been to Gaza six times. You have stated the ratio is the best we've seen. I've asked you multiple times how many civilians have been killed and you don't know. Therefore, you don't know the ratio.

Therefore, your assessment is bullshit. This spring, denim gets a softer, lighter update. Introducing Old Navy's drapey denim wide leg, a new fit that moves with you. It's everything you want denim to feel like for summer. Easy, breathable, and effortlessly cool. With a fit that creates natural movement and a wide leg that feels modern, not overwhelming. Plus, that signature, wait, for this price, moment. Old Navy's drapey denim wide leg.

Sure, peers, the entire study of war is bullshit. I wasn't talking about the entire study of war. I was simply talking about the war in Gaza. John Spencer, thank you very much. We've run out of time, I'm afraid. I gave you multiple chances to answer, and you couldn't answer. But I appreciate you coming on the show. Thank you very much.

Well, as we discussed earlier, the Vice President's tough talk on Israel has earned in the ire of many of the Iran war's most ardent cheerleaders. Dr. Eric Weinstein is both a friend of the Vice President and a supporter of Israel. And I'm delighted to say he joins me in the studio. Eric.

Pierce, great to be here. It's like having a state visit. Normally I'm put into a mysterious van and I never know follow merge. You were very Eric when you arrived. You looked at me and said, God, you got a massive head. But then you have...

I have you added it by saying, obviously, if you have one that big, you would have a lot of brain in it. Well, I've clearly playing a second. It's great to see you. You're in London to take part in the ARC conference, which is Alliance for Responsible Citizenship. Now, this is an annual gathering that unites thought leaders from around the world to promote traditional Western values, free enterprise and individual responsibility. Now, there are a lot of people in America who have been led down a path, I think, wrongly. that London in particular, it's the kind of epicenter of the end of Western civilization as we know it, that we've been overrun by marauding foreigners,

particularly Muslims, and there's no way back. We're under siege, we're collapsing, blah, blah, blah. I live in London. I have done since I was 20 years old. I don't recognize this characterization of my city. Do you sense that when you're here? The food got a lot better. Yeah, you did. It did.

Yeah, I mean, I think Edgeware Road, you know, has been an epicenter of great cuisine, and I think London's gotten a lot more interesting. I think what people are really reacting to is things that they don't know how to talk about. And so as they react, they become less good versions of themselves. I think one thing is that there was a sense that during the Tony Blair era, there were forces reshaping the society that nobody seemed to have asked for. I think that that's true. I do think that there was a lot of binge immigration,

so that one of the great features of the UK is that there's a UK software product that you could load onto anyone's shoulders. We have like Stephen Bartlett, who certainly doesn't look like a traditional Anglo-Saxon in the US, but comes across as perfectly British. And so part of what the problem is, I believe, is that you took in too many people too quickly,

didn't give enough time for the assimilation, because nobody wants to lose that special quality that is British sensibility. I don't think we care quite so much as to who's running the program on which computers, but that would be an absolute tragedy. I mean, what's interesting. I mean, like, you know, there's absolute merit to that. It's what most people, I would say, genuinely feel concerned about.

We've let too many people in too fast, and it has changed the way our country feels to people. But how do we deal with this in a way where the solution is not a kind of anti-reaction to having foreigners in our country where if they come from a different culture, they're the enemy. And we've got to get rid of them all. Sure. I mean, I think part of, so, I mean, I have an unorthodox piece of advice. I brought two cab drivers to tears crossing London this trip. And not giving them a tip?

Well, I certainly tried that. By speaking in rudimentary Urdu and being unflinching about the problems. Yeah, sure. And I think that, for example, a lot of what's going wrong in the UK is that you're talking around your Muslim population rather than talking to them because many of them are incredibly ashamed of some of the things that are being ascribed to all Muslims. Right. Right. And so, strangely enough, I had a Bangladeshi cab driver last night who knew some Hindi and some Urdu.

And, you know, he basically spent his whole life here. And when I tried communicating with him, I managed to tell him that my wife's uncle had taken the surrender of East Pakistan as a Jewish general in the Indian Army and had not accepted the surrender of the sidearm of this surrendering general because they wanted to preserve honor.

And he says, why am I so emotional? Why am I crying? How do I keep in touch with you? I think that, you know, in many ways, the problem is, if you're going to let in all of these people, it's time to go back to being the UK. The UK used to have a foreign service that prided itself by understanding every culture with which the British Empire was in contact. And my feeling is that more traditional white Anglo-Saxon English and the like need to learn the languages of the subpopulation, communicate directly to them, and also learn the sort of.

ethnic sensibilities because shame and family are powerful ways to restore order. I think that by poking a hole in the social order to defend the imagined racism, you're going to create real racism. There's something, if the landing pictures at Heathrow spoke of British confidence and strength, rather than see how diverse we are, you would look less pathetic. You look somewhat pathetic from overseas. Yeah, and I think it's not helped that we've had seven prime ministers in 10 years, which is clearly ridiculous. Right. It's ridiculous.

I mean, it just shows a rudderless country, doesn't it? But you really do have to deal with the fact that the grooming gang thing was, let's assume it's exaggerated. There's a core of truth there that if we don't actually stare at it. It undeniably happened. And it undermined thousands of young, almost exclusively young white girls. were raped and abused by almost exclusively gangs of British Pakistani Muslim men. So let's just sit with that. That is inarguable.

The stuff that is problematic to me is that you get people with their own agendas who suddenly come out with their own report, which says 250,000 girls were, right? That's not a fact. That's just them extrapolating certain numbers and guessing. And I think people should be more precise about what is factual, which we know from the investigations, how many have been arrested,

how many times they were accused of committing crimes and so on, which is a huge number. The whole thing is disgraceful. And the cover-up was completely disgraceful. But I do think it's important that we don't then wildly exaggerate with guesswork

when you've got a real set of details you can tackle. I, in many ways, agree and disagree. The problem is that when you indulge in what I will call the hyper-liberal form of illiberalism, or you have an exaggerated liberalism, you're just tolerant of everything.

You are consigning the next generation to hypoliberalism, which is what you and I are also... I mean, I sense we are in violent agreement. I think we are. There's no question. I mean, I try to explain to people. The grooming gang scandal was a horrendous scandal on a very widespread level. It went on for many years.

There was a cover-up from top to bottom of Laurel, enforcement of authority, of politicians, of police, and so on. And it was a complete disgrace. And it was done because people didn't want to say who was doing these crimes and operating in these gangs and who they were doing them to for fear that it would create racial tension. And, of course, by not dealing with it, it's created way more racial tension. Exactly what you would have expected.

So it had the opposite effect to what they thought that their cowardly cover-up actions would create. I like what you're saying. I fear that there was more. social engineering going on our side of the pond with the Clintons and your side of the pond with Tony Blair and I still think we don't know the the source of it. I was able to for example trace some of the hyper liberal immigration in the sciences to 1986 secret study of the NSF where the National Science Foundation was plotting to lower the wages of American scientists using an invidious mechanism of visas as payment or visas are no good to anyone who's actually a native. And so what you see is high trust is even more important than diversity to a society. When you undermine high trust...

I totally agree. Then the problem is that you open it up to say, I have no idea what's true and I heard this from my friend at the bar. Well, never has this been more pertinent, I think, than with the Iran war, where it's almost impossible to know what is really going on or who is telling the truth.

Now, I say that in the context, J.D. Vance, the Vice President, has become the poster boy for this war on the Trump administration side. Obviously, it's a deliberate thing. He's been out there trying to sell this deal, explain what's going on. You know him well. I want to play a clip from J.D. Vance, which is quite critical of Israel. I think it's quite interesting. Donald J. Trump is the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this moment in time. time and he happens to be the head of state of the world's superpower. If I was in the cabinet of the Israeli government, I might not be attacking the only powerful ally that I have anywhere left in the entire world. Are you reacted to this by posting on X? Israel, which I love,

needs to snap out of its delirium ASAP. J.D. Vance is sending a message. Israel needs to listen, not respond, not argue, but listen. B.B. needs to be out of office. The new PM needs to understand that hybrid war slash cheap drones and missiles changed everything, which I completely concur with. You know, it's been fascinating to me to see this utter disconnect between Netanyahu and his government, particularly fueled by these, to me, psychopaths of Benghivir and Smodridge, that as Israel's reputation around the world has got steadily worse,

to the extent that the majority of Americans have a negative view of Israel, and I think it's predominantly driven by the rhetoric, of these guys and the actions of this government, that no one there seems to either get it or care. Is that a fair characterization? I think there are people who care who don't get it. There may be people who get it who don't care. And I would put forward the following.

Let me say some outrageous stuff. Please. Come on, Eric. This is largely a UK problem here. This is a problem of the legacy of Operation Boot. And MI6 really did a number on Iran over the nationalization of oil back in the 50s. And we are looking at the long tail of that. And the MI6 and the UK that did that doesn't exist anymore.

The two countries that best understand the clerical threat in Iran are Israel and the United States. And right now, because they are so out of keeping with the rest of the world, Those two countries are correct, and the rest of the world is not getting it. Let me tell you a terrible joke. How do you say London and Farsi? Go on. Diego Garcia. I'm telling you.

It's not going to get a joke. Yeah, but the point is they've just communicated that they can reach you. You underestimated their reach. And in their framework, they're not psychopaths. They're extraordinarily skilled players. But in our framework, they're not psychopaths. their belief in an afterlife, in the idea that religious life is at the center of government, you're dealing with a game theory of players that you will not be able to control and who can reach Europe and who will be able...

There's an unfortunate term associated with pornography called edging. They have been edging for decades that they are a short distance away from a nuclear weapon. And that has become a claim. The claim is, oh, it's Chicken Little. We've over... No, no, they are always close to it. But there are unstable countries who have nuclear weapons. Pakistan has nuclear weapons. North Korea has nuclear weapons. And the answer is that people don't go and invade them or try and overthrow their regimes, right?

I mean, we look at Iran's been dealt with in a different way. And from where I'm looking, 16, 17 weeks in since the war started, to me it's been a disaster. Well, they had no, they had one plan. And the one plan was, we have a one-time opportunity to decapitate this regime. And had they done that during the 12-day war, it probably would have worked. But Iran is so skilled. I have such respect, even for my enemies.

Grudging respect, I agree, yeah. Yeah, so what I would say is that they did something no one counted on, but works in the Iranian mindset. The clerics didn't say, okay, we're going to get hit again. How do we save ourselves? They said, you know what, they're probably going to wipe us all out. They've demonstrated an ability to do it. How do we make sure that our regime survives our own deaths? So rather than trying to save their own lives, they decentralize.

But didn't they also work out very quickly that they had it turned out the most potent weapon of all, and it was the Strait of Formuz. And if they combine that with attacking their Gulf State neighbors with a few missiles and rockets, they actually held everybody quite literally over a barrel. And the worst thing about this deal is it looks to me like they will maintain the ability

to turn that straight on and off with impunity. And there's not much anyone can do about it. Well, I mean, I do have to say that straits Hormuz in Taiwan are probably the two most gamed scenarios among people who speculate on such things. So this certainly wasn't a question that hadn't been considered. Everybody's done it to death. I think that what's really going on is

that there was one plan, which is one and done. It's going to be a lightning-fast decapitation. And then all the people who were rioting back in December and January who will rise up. But the CIA and the Mossad didn't run them guns. And they found that there was always more support for the regime in Iran than in Tarangeloas, as we call it, people claim. And as a result of this, we probably got the first step right and we thought there would be no second step. And, you know, the problem is that Israel is wrong about some stuff here, more right about the danger of Iran than anyone else. It was a botched, ham-fisted operation in terms of the follow-on.

The initial thing was executed to a fairly well. So you have this complicated mix, and we've been, we've taught people that you can only think in simplicity. Oh, Netanyahu is holding something on Trump and is actually secretly in control of the U.S. not true. But did Netanyahu paint a picture of what could happen, as the New York Times reported quite early on in the war, that just manifestly turned out not to be accurate? In other words, if you decapitate the top, then the IRGC collapses from within, the people rise up, it's all reasonably straightforward. None of the rest of it happened. Right. And it seemed to me as the weeks and months went on, Trump began to realize it wasn't going to happen. And then how do you extricate yourself

from what has become a real mess. Now, he took a decision in that moment. It seems to me, well, J.D. Vance can deal with a fall out of this. You know Vance really well. What's going on here? I mean, is that something that Vance will be comfortable about doing? Because this deal doesn't seem to be pleasing pretty much anybody. Will he be comfortable as he's been set up for a fool here?

I refuse to speculate. I'm just going to opt out of certain things because I have a personal connection to J.D. Vance, which I'm not going to share with your audience. What I believe is that he's an extremely tough spot. He chose his words very well. He's associated with the so-called America First Wing of MAGA, which is actually a reboot of a Nazi-adjacent movement

to stay out of World War II, associated with Lindbergh and the Klan. JD, I don't think, is a bigoted person, but I believe that he has taken the sense that Americans have that they don't create their own foreign policy. Unfortunately, we have memetic terms like Forever Wars that are really not good terms that capture something, but they also distort just as they elucidate. And as a result, he's stuck in a situation

where the population has had a sort of self-inflicted 25-point IQ loss inside the US. And he's trying to send a message to the insane, like, Ben-Guiver, I have no idea what that guy is thinking. I do know Israelis pretty well. They have a very strong sense that in order to live in that neighborhood, you have to understand the calculus of the local mindset. But when Ben-Givir issues a statement in which he says all Lebanon must burn,

he's just advocating genocide. He's saying the whole country has got to burn. He says it in his own words. And he's not like, as they try and make out some sort of irrelevance, it's the security minister. In Yiddish, we'd call him a Piskudniak. He's a terrible person. Yes.

Right. But I don't think it's good enough for the pro-Israeli side as they've tried to do. I have left Ali Bennett, challenge me who I like. I think he's come on my show a number of times. I think he's got a really good chance of being prime minister, and I hope he is. But he challenged me and said, ignore Ben-Givir. He's irrelevant. I was like, he's the national security minister.

He's in a very tough spot. He needs to be silenced and he can't be silenced. I'd rather have a more honest conference. conversation, even than I'm in London with you. Sure. And my feeling is that you have to understand the Israeli mindset, first of all, not just of your opponents, which is that is the language of the region. And very often it's bluster, and sometimes it isn't.

And nobody knows exactly because in order for bluster to work, you have to have a question. Does he actually believe the stupid thing that he just said? Let's go farther. There is tremendous suspicion in Israel of American and other diaspora Jews. that we are weak, that we don't understand the calculus, that we believe that you can replace the Judaism of either belief in God or picking up a gun and sending your children to war

with something called Takunalam and nice thoughts about healing the world, sort of the equivalent of thoughts and prayers. And so in a certain way, what Israel is trying to communicate is, please don't tell us how to survive because if we listen to you, we would have been dead 10 times over. And Israel is not wrong about that. And so in part, the world is also using Israel to work out their own frustrations. I mean, here you have, effectively, an indigenous people come home.

You've got this incredible expanding colonial empire in green from Morocco to Pakistan. And you have this question about immediately after October 7th, there was enthusiasm. And so in part, Jews have this other idea, which is there's nothing we can. do about the outside world. The outside world has lost its mind. And in part, you know, everything that... But much of the outside world thinks that Israel has currently lost its mind, or rather, its government has lost its mind. I mean... E.B. Netanyahu has failed quite badly. He's an extremely skilled politician. He's tough as nails. And you have to appreciate that if you know, if you're asking me, I'm going to tell you

this good, this bad, this true, this not true. But, but you have to appreciate that if you know, you know, you know, But right now what we're having is we're having a moronic discussion. If I go online and I say anything at all, I've got four or five tweets that use the word genocide from some sort of bot network. So we're all losing our mind because everything is distorted. But the problem, because I've avoided using the word genocide, for example, about what happened in Gaza. It's completely incorrect. Well, because, I mean, as widely known, no country or state has ever been convicted of waging a genocide. It's just a fact.

So why would you start actually, if it didn't in Rwanda, for example, why would people start with what happened in Gaza? However, however, I think a lot of bad stuff has happened in Gaza, and I think it's reprehensible that Netanyahu won't let international journalists in freely to investigate it. And he must be covering something up, otherwise he'd let them in. I don't think so. Well, I think he is. No, but let me give you a counter argument.

The counter argument is that the rest of the world is not thinking, We never talk about the Tokyo genocide at the end of World War II. We don't talk about the Dresden genocide. When we talk about the... Well, we do. But in the context of the Geneva Convention was brought in precisely to stop these kind of things happening again.

No, but my point is that when it was the UK and the US, we hit them hard. And we had to hit them hard and disproportionately. But there wasn't an acceptance after World War II but notwithstanding that, the Geneva Convention was brought in, agreed by myriad countries to avoid things like the carpet bombing of Dresden, all the dropping of atomic bombs and so on. Let's talk about the resettlement of the Sudeten Germans.

It was not called ethnic cleansing, because ethnic cleansing, if I remember correctly, is a Romanian phrase that came into currency in the 1980s. And quite honestly, everyone is supposed to be smart enough to know that you have to relocate people at times so that you don't have a reinforcement. The problem, it seems to me, for Israel in terms of PR to the world, is that on the one hand, there's this vehement denial of genocide being waged in Gaza. Correct.

Okay. But then you have the national security minister literally, in his own words, advocating genocide in Lebanon. 100%. So the rest of the world doesn't understand, perhaps, the subtle nuances of politics in Israel. They just see a senior member of the Israeli government who is openly took. calling for genocide. He's a madman. And so therefore, the problem for Israel is that a lot of people go, well, they obviously are genocidal menace. Look at the security minister. He just wants to wipe out the whole of Lebanon. And I hope that that pressure causes Israel to throw that guy out of government,

never to be seen again. But Netanyahu won't throw him out because he's the reason he got back into power. And if you remember what I said in my post on X is that Netanyahu has to go. Yeah, I agree. So, you know, again, my point isn't that your intuitions are wrong. My claim is, as a Jew, who has lived in Israel, who is left of center, has lots of friends in the administration. I'm in a much more complicated position to see all sorts of different angles. And if you want my take on it, overall,

the simplicity with which we've been taught that we can address these questions is the abomination. Israel is in an extraordinary position. It has to use techniques that it doesn't want to use. We should talk about them. We don't know how. like collective punishment is the problem with how do you disincentivize a suicide bomber who's already willing to give his or her life, and maybe even as a child, in order to inflict pain.

So a lot of our go-to shorthands for, you know, we don't want ethnic cleansing. I agree. We don't want collective punishment. We don't want this. We don't want that. We like the press. Now you've got an enemy who's using press credentials in part as cover. You've got people building tunnels. under hospitals and mosques and old age homes, not because, wait, wait, one second. Not because they're human shields. That's completely misunderstood. Sinwar is much more impressive. What he did was he said,

you will have to bomb these tunnels, and what we want is the video. The point I made in that tweet is that hybrid war means that the video of Israeli bombs falling on a hospital or a mosque or an old age home or anything like that is worth so much more in a dumb world consuming video in a particular way,

that Sinwar, and this is painful to admit, completely outsmarted his Jewish adversaries who pride themselves on intelligence and strategies. But Trump was right, wasn't he, last week, I think, when he said, look, the problem is going after, one has Bolligai, two has Bolligai, and taking down an entire apartment block is ridiculous. If you keep doing that, I mean, I think it's ridiculous

for a different reason to Trump, which is that I don't think, this makes the lives of Israelis any safer. I think the opposite. It creates more enemies over time. If you are, you know, do I think Israel deliberately target civilians? I don't. I don't either.

Do I think that they target lone terrorists, little group of terrorists, and don't care about how many civilians are killed in the process of that targeting? Yes, I do. I think we've seen that again and again in Gaza. We've seen it a lot in southern Lebanon now. And we're also seeing at the same time, this appalling aggressive expansion of settlements on the West Bank, but terrible stuff going on, which is clearly war crimes. So you have, I have no question that every war has atrocities.

And then when you put a bunch of young kids who watch their friend get blown to pieces, are going to act in ways that are terrible. This is also true. So it's not just a question of they don't care. I'm sure that there's some vengeance aspect to it. I don't agree that Israel doesn't care about civilian casualties. they do, but they are definitely, to your point, willing to kill a bunch of civilians.

There's a particular calculus of how much can you afford, which the rest of us don't have to consider. My point in all of this, peers, is that the rest of us have been at peace for so long that we have forgotten what war is. We think of war as a war crime. Israel is fed up with all of us saying, look, we have to survive.

But, you know, if you want my Israel critical perspective, When you don't show up for the hybrid side of a hybrid war that involves PR, presaging what you're going to do, telegraphing, here's how this is going to take place, you're going to be extremely upset. We're going to have the following things. If you recall with my tweets, right after October 7th before Israel invaded, I said this is Monkhausen by proxy. Right. And you have a guy who's going to try to get as many atrocities as he can possibly get real or optical. on video, and if I pat myself on the back, it took me a little while because he's so damn smart.

And one of the things that I really miss is that the Arial Sharon's of the world really knew the mind of their enemy. They lived in the region. And if you want to look, you know, look at Thomas Friedman's from Beirut to Jerusalem. There's a chapter called Hamer Rules about disproportionate violence as a language.

When Israel gets tarred with the question of, this violence is disproportionate, If Israel only engaged in a proportion of violence, it would cease to exist. Just before we finish, I just want to ask you about quantum mania. So you're actually in the UK in your capacity as a financial expert. And many people think I had Andrew Ross talking about his book, 1929, and whether there are parallels, and he said there are clear parallels. As we're meeting today, there's a big sell-off in tech stocks.

We've seen SpaceX skyrocket and now falling back. must became a trillionaire, but even he's not impervious to what's going on here. Quantum media, what is that in simple terms? What is quantum media? What is this? Well, in part, it has to do with technology. The quantum sounds like it should be more physics, but it's really an attempt to use the particular properties

that we've considered to be mysterious or even defects of the quantum theory as a technological edge. So the idea that one can encode more information in a qubit with continuous degrees of freedom than zero and one. And the idea that certain things would be easier in a different style of computer. So in part, what we're talking about is can we break into your encryption and read your love letters, your customer database, and your secret plans to attack? And so what I find amazing, of course, is that the administration in the U.S. has forgotten that science, So in general, if you look at their appointments to PCAS, the Presidential Council of Advisors and Science and Technology, there were 13, 12 of which were like billionaires and technologists,

and one guy was a scientist. So at the moment, we have this weird feature where none of these rich people seem to know any actual scientists. They're not comfortable. They don't dine together. The poorness and precariousness of academic scientists means that they don't vacation in the same places and as a result the US is basically committing hierarchy and it is it is consigning itself to lose its status as the world's scientific superpower what we've decided instead is that

you can only trust people who are motivated by money because Lord knows what a scientist is motivated by it might be truth beauty fairness who knows could we face another 29 style depression a proper crash you are dealing with something so much more more powerful. I mean, my belief is that we are holding no conferences that I'm aware of, capable of dealing with the change mediated in neoclassical economic production theory with the move to AI. We've never had any technology chase so many people out. We always said, you know, you can go the next rung up if your rung becomes automated. But this is an old problem, sort of like the Hilbert Hotel, where if you tell everyone move one room, you know, at some level,

you just keep getting chased by the AI infinitely up the value ladder. If Carl Marx and Adam Smith were in a room today, they wouldn't be going back to communism and capitalism. They'd be saying, my God, we just traded everything we know about capital and laborers' inputs to production for some unknown new system. And we're not trying to found a new economic theory. And I am absolutely bewildered. why are we not convening everybody,

given that the labour market's about to be completely obliterate. I hope it's only as bad as 1929. Do you know what? I share your concerns about that. I think to me it's obvious that's going to be the big thing, and we're not dealing with it properly. Eric, I can talk to you, as always, for hours. We've run out of time, but thank you very much.

It's great to see you. Great to finally meet you. Next time you're in town, let's catch it by two eight. I'll put the world to rights with you. Terrific, sir. Good to see you. Piers Morgan Unsensored is proudly independent. The only boss around here is me.

You enjoy our show. We ask only one simple thing. Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Pierce Morgan Unsensored on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate and entertain. And we'll do it all for free. Independent Unsensored Media has never been more critical and we couldn't do it without you. If you want a $3,000 a month payday for less, What would you feel free to do?

Maybe take a long weekend, every weekend? Or try a bunch of new hobbies? Would you feel free to upgrade and listen ad-free? Don't worry, we get it. Every $20 ticket could win you $3,000 a month for life and supports life-saving cancer research at the Princess Margaret. Feel free to buy your payday-for-life ticket today. Raffle number 155-2194.

Please play responsibly.