The Young Turks - Special Episode: Cenk Uygur at Oxford Speaks

Episode Date: July 16, 2026

Oxford Speaks is one of the University of Oxford's foremost global affairs societies, run entirely by undergraduate and graduate students. Their mission is simple: bring the world's brightest minds to Oxford and spark debate and dialogue on the most pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. The Hulu original series Furious is coming to Disney Plus, starring Emmy Rossum. Furious follows FBI agent Alice Black on the hunt for a mysterious and calculating serial killer. Both walk their own paths toward justice. And as their lives start to intertwine, the line between. right and wrong begins to blur. Don't miss the three-episode premiere of the Hulu original series

Furious on July 27th, only on Hulu on Disney Plus. ...me today in conversation with Chenke Uyghur. Chank was originally scheduled to speak with us last Friday. His electronic travel authorization was revoked at the airports by the Home Secretary. We were very much looking forward to hosting Chank and having a civilized and critically engaging conversation. Oxford Speaks has invited Zionist, right-wing and other conservative individuals. The point has never been endorsement. Nonetheless, I am excited to be speaking to someone who is truly immersed within American politics.

Cheng is a Turkish-American left-wing political activist and the host of the Young Turks. He is also not new to controversy. Chen has run for president of the United States despite not meeting the requirements of being a natural-born citizen, and he has been accused by mainstream media of anti-Semitism, sexism and Islamophobia. However, part of the purpose of the events today is not to avoid controversy, but to confront it directly. Universities should be places where difficult conversations can happen without collapsing into caricature or moral panic. That does not mean giving anyone a free pass. It means asking serious questions and listening carefully to the answers, while also allowing an audience to judge for itself.

Political debate is often reduced to clips and outrage and I think there is real value in sitting down for a sustained conversation. Tonight, Chank will discuss free speech, Israel, war and freedom, among other things. And whether you agree with Chank or strongly disagree with him, I hope tonight's conversation reflects the fundamental need for argument. We will have audience questions at the end and if you have any questions you want to ask Chank, please send it to me through the chat and I will ask it on your behalf. without wasting any more time, Chank, thank you so much for coming. Thanks for having me. So I'll start with that, actually.

I appreciate Oxford speaks having me speak, despite the fact that I can't join you on free British soil. I wish I could. But obviously, not only have they taken my freedom away, but they've taken your freedom away, and that soil is less free today than it was before we were banned. So, and I want to be clear, I don't come as the accused.

I come as the accuser. So all of these so-called controversies are manufactured by the people in the establishment that don't want the powerless to have a voice. They want the powerful to be able to crush our voice, crush dissent, and do nothing but absurd propaganda behalf of the wealthy and the powerful. And we need all of us to fight back together.

And if we don't fight back together, then they'll just divide us and they'll claim another controversy and another controversy, but always for the powerless, always for the outsiders, and never for the insiders. They never, ever, ever investigate the insiders. Instead, they only create so-called controversies around people who are trying to help you. And their greatest wish is to get the people to attack the people trying to help them.

So I want to talk to you about why I come as the accuser. So the hypocrisies of the powerful, and in this case, case, Israel, are plentiful. And not only is it Israel's hypocrisies, but it is now the American hypocrisies and British hypocrisies as well. They have joined Israel in perpetrating these crimes, these crimes both against the Middle East, the Palestinians, the Lebanese, the Iranians, but also crimes against the British citizens and American citizens, taking our freedom away, freedom of movement, freedom of speech. So I ask all of the people. of you, why? Why must we bear these indignities? Well, they say, well, that's because Israel is a special

ally, a special ally, it takes away our rights, that takes away our freedom, that starts endless wars. They dare accuse me of anything when I have for peace and I am for nonviolence and I am for equality and I am for justice and they are for none of those things. Israel has murdered over 76,000 Palestinians, murdered over 3,500 Lebanese, murdered over 3,500 Iranians. Unfortunately, in that case, with the help of the United States of America, they murdered over 1,200 people in the West Bank. That's actually more people than Hamas killed on October 7. Now, that doesn't excuse what happened on October 7, and it doesn't excuse Hamas. But are we going to be consistent and apply the same terminology to both sides? Or is American and British media and government going to

be purposely racist and bigoted and say, no, I will only apply the word terrorism to Muslims and Arabs. And I will never apply to the beloved Israelis, even though the Israelis have killed a hundred times the number of civilians that Hamas or Hezbollah has killed. So why are they not a hundred times a terrorist? Well, they say, well, you have to intentionally target civilians. Well, do they intentionally target them? Absolutely. First of all, the civilian kill ratio of Hamas is 67%. That is how we know that they are targeting civilians. They are killing far too many of them. If you weren't targeting them, how come you kill two thirds of them? Two thirds of the people that you killed are civilians. Now you apply that same logic to Israel.

And I know for American and British media, that is unacceptable. How dare you be consistent and equal? How dare you ask for justice? No, you must favor the Zionists. You must lie on their behalf. You must commit wars on their behalf. You must give them hundreds of billions of dollars. No, we don't have to do any of that. Our governments are lying to us to protect another government. So if you were being consistent, you would say, wait a minute, Israel, according to the Israeli press, documents that were leaked by the IDF itself has an 83% civilian kill ratio. Worse than Hamas, therefore, clearly by the same exact standard as we use for Hamas, the IDF is a giant terrorist organization. But not only that, 83% is worse than any terrorist group

in the world. So Israel is arguably the largest terrorist organization in the world. And remember, they kill a hundred times more civilians. So when our media says that doesn't count, when our governments say that doesn't count, what they're saying is we don't value Palestinian lives. We don't value Arab lives. We don't value Muslim lives. We only value Israeli lives. That is why they are deeply racist and deeply bigoted. And I come to accuse them of taking away our freedoms and taking away the lives of Palestinian children. I ask everyone not to hate the Israelis. If you hate the Israelis, then you miss the point.

Our job is to break the cycle of hatred. So if it doesn't break your heart, the 36 kids died on October 7th, there's a part of you that's missing. That's not a good thing. We have to care about their children. And those precious children had done nothing wrong. They were perfectly innocent.

They were either playing soccer or games with their friends. They were having milk and cookies with their moms and grandmothers and Hamas killed them. 36 of them. Israel killed 23,000 children. If you tell me that it is less important than 36 Israeli kids, what you're telling me is, I'm deeply racist, I'm deeply bigoted and I'm genocidal. I don't mind a stadium for. Imagine an entire basketball stadium.

Best Square Garden right now, NBA finals are happening. Imagine every seat is filled with a dead child. And if they say, well, I don't care about that. I only care about October 7th. They're admitting to being genocidal monsters. So these are all obvious and indisputable and empirical points. But every time they say, no, I don't care. And I don't want to address your facts.

Because if I address your facts, then we're, we can't. Can't, Israel can't win that argument. America can't win that argument. Britain can't win that argument. So I will just label you an anti-Semite. I'll give you the scar letter, the same A, and I'll stamp it on you so that no one is allowed to talk to you. We'll even ban you from countries.

Isn't it insane? I can't go back to London when I am for equality, peace, and justice, but people who are pro-genocide, who argue that Israel needs to slaughter more Palestinians, more Lebanese, and take more of their land. They're perfectly welcome in England. They're perfectly welcome in Great Britain and the United Kingdom. What kind of monstrosity is this?

What kind of hypocrisy is this? So now, what should we do in response? If we do likewise, all we do is sync to their moral level, a level of total moral depravity. We can't do that. We need our governments, first of all, to represent us. And is it fair for us to ask that our governments represent us instead of this tiny country in the middle of the Middle East, of course.

Why? Why do we owe Israel anything? Israel is a country that has the size of population-wise of Papua New Guinea. If we, in America has given over $320 billion to Israel. Imagine if we'd given over $300 billion of Papua New Guinea, everybody would have said that's the craziest thing we have ever heard. Instead, they say, if you question that, If you don't agree to hand over your wallets and $320 billion that we could use to feed our families,

they say, no, then you're an anti-Semling and you owe Israel. This is just blatant, disgusting propaganda, and it is inarguable. Then we committed $8 trillion worth of war. They called it the global war on terror in America. What was it in reality? The global war on Israel's neighbors. Israel literally handed the Western countries, America and the UK, included a list of seven countries that they should attack after 9-11. We attacked all seven. And then

the people in media who have to be really the dimest people in the whole country, both in America, and in some portion of British media, say, oh, no, it was a coincidence that we attacked all seven countries that Israel wanted us to attack. It was a good expenditure of money to spend $8 trillion fighting Israel's wars for them. We had no interest in Iraq. We have no interest in Iran. There's no reason to be in this war. The only reason we're in this war is because Israel demanded it. America literally has zero interest in Iran. They don't have a nuclear missile. They don't have the weapon to deliver it. They didn't get to the enrichment levels. We already destroyed their nuclear facilities. This war has only made America less safe, less prosperous. And there's a super

super easy answer. We leave, but we can't leave because they say, no, you must do what Israel demands of you. And then when you point that out, they're like, oh, well, you're an anti-Semite, if you don't agree to do what Papua New Guinea asks you to do. Am I anti-Papa New Guineaist? If I don't do what they demand, am I anti-Bolivian? If I don't do every single thing, Bolivia demands or the Netherlands demands? No, these rules only apply to one country, Israel. So they say you have to apply two different rules. Who cares about Belgium. Who cares about Germany? Who cares about Malaysia? You don't have to care about in any other country but Israel. When I point out that hypocrisy, they say, how dare you? You're saying

things that are true. Hence, you must be an anti-Semite. No, all of their accusations against me are completely false, completely preposterous, and notice that they never have accusations for the people who pushed for war, who pushed for genocide, who pushed for us to follow every command that Zionists hand down to us. Zionists, to be super clear, because this is really important, and we cannot have them dividing us. Zionists are not all Jewish people. That is what neo-Nazis say, and that is what Israel first says.

It is a weird, weird conflagration. You have the ADL and A-PAC agreeing with neo-Nazis and saying, you must blame all the Jews. No, we're not going to do that. 63% of Jewish Americans are against the current Israeli government. Yet you never hear that in our media because it would ruin their propaganda for Israel. If you found out that most Jewish Americans are actually on our side, we are not divided by religion. We are not divided by ethnicity or race.

So how do we get our voices heard because the media is so deeply corrupt? And our governments are so deeply corrupt. And I can tell you more about American corruption later in the program. So the way I have a simple proposal and I don't know if it'll work. I propose these things from time to time in the hopes that it could catch on. Because without the giant megaphone of mainstream media, it is very hard to get the national spotlight on any issue. But wherever we gathered, if we chant free, free Palestine, including at sporting events, including at sporting events across the world, including at the World Cup,

maybe we could use our voice, the voice of the people, to speak out and say, we don't want these wars anymore. We don't want our governments following the rules and orders and dictates of Israel, a terrorist country anymore. We don't want to be serving them anymore. We don't want to pay for their war crimes anymore. we don't want to go to war with them anymore and most importantly not only do we want to free the Palestinians who have been brutalized for the last six decades while American media pretended that they didn't exist they called them the terrorists they said that they were the bad guys when they were occupied their freedom was taken away their dignity was taken away i accuse American media

being deeply racist and bigoted against those poor Palestinians all to serve Israel it's disgusting So raise your voices, wherever you go, raise your voices, free, free Palestine. Not just because the Palestinians desperately needed, but because we all need that freedom. We need our governments to represent us and not another country. And maybe if we all raise our voices together, they could begin to hear us. And by the way, if we do, and let's say it works spectacularly, and at the World Cup games, everyone is chanting, free, free Palestine. I guarantee you our governments will still ignore us,

but then you'll know you're also occupied. So now I'm forced into a situation where I say, one, make it so loud that they could hear you in Washington, they could hear you in London, they could hear you in Tel Aviv, but also so they can hear you in Gaza and Hebron and Jericho and Noblis and Ramallah and Ramallah and. and Bethlehem. Let freedom reign again in Bethlehem, which is currently occupied and enslaved by the Israelis. So we need all of us to do our part. And secondly, I'm forced to say, as our Jewish brothers and sisters do,

you know, they said next year in Jerusalem, well, now I have to say next year in London, because freedom has been taken away from the United Kingdom. And if I can come back, then we'll know that we're beginning to get back to freedom. Thank you. Thank you so much, Chink. That was really powerful. And I would like to talk about Israel and Palestine later on. But first, I'd like to address the elephant in the room, which was, of course, you were banned from the UK over your criticism of Israel. You and I are on the same page about your ban. I think it was an overreach by the Home Secretary exercising her prerogative power to prevent dangerous individuals entering the UK. I don't believe that you are dangerous or likely to incite public disorder,

as they put it. I would like to talk about the interview you had with Pierce Morgan, where you cited Valentina Gomez as someone you'd have allowed in, were you making that call, stating she's a nutcase, but so what? You further imply that you are making, were you making the decisions, you would remove the power of the UK government to ban anyone entering the UK to uphold freedom of speech. I'd like to push back that. I'd like to push back that on that slightly. First, by asking, do you believe there is a line between hate speech and free speech? And where do you think incitement to violence begins? Because a lot of people who've crossed that line didn't think they were crossing it either. Yeah. So I'm an American and I love the U.S.

Constitution. I love the First Amendment. I'm an enormous advocate of free speech, not just constitutionally and legally in America, but as an ideology and philosophy throughout the world. So no, I don't even believe in hate speech. So if you say, oh, I hate Muslims, I'm from a Muslim background. So what? Free speech isn't for pleasant speech and speech you agree with. It's for speech that is hard to hear and that you don't agree with. So if we ban speech we don't like, well, the next government bans the speech they don't like. And we're on a slippery slope of banning everything. In fact, I'm the perfect example. Why am I even in this category? I'm for complete equality for Jews, Muslims, Christians, and every other religion and every race and every

ethnicity. I'm for total justice for everyone to be treated exactly the same. Why am I in a category of people who hate Muslims or Jews or anyone else? Because once you start banning speech, you get into a habit of it. And then you ban this and you ban that. You ban every single thing that you don't like. And then we're in a place where we can't even discuss things national way and an intellectual way and in a way where we are free to express whatever is on our mind. Now, is there a line? Of course, there's always a line. There's a line for defamation. There's a line for violence. But you have to show the line for violence. If they say go and attack this person, or even if they say attack a group, you know, maybe that's not within the, like in America, that's not

good enough for it to be illegal. But if another country says, well, you know, somebody says, go attack Jews or Muslims or whoever it might be, that crossed the line. At least I, I understand that. But if you're not calling for violence and you just say, look, I don't like these people for whatever reason or I don't agree, no, I think you should definitely be allowed to say it. You mentioned the First Amendment. And of course, there's the Human Rights Act in the United Kingdom, which protects you from the government prosecution. But it says nothing about the responsibility of yourself or someone in the media like Valentina Gomez as influential voices. And I think there's a big distinction between legal protection and moral accountability.

Do you not see the danger of allowing absolute uncontested free speech, especially on social media where you don't have a chance to rebut it, at least in the moment? No. So look, whenever you're doing any decision on what should be governing philosophy, whether it's for a government or in a context like this where we're having a conversation about what's the right ideological stance, you have to weigh the different interests. So oftentimes people see it as only one side. Well, I mean, that speech really offends me.

She says terrible things about how Muslims are hateful. By the way, Charlie Kirk spoke at Oxford, and Charlie Kirk said that Islam was a sword that the left puts to the throat of the West. Now, that is as terrible a statement as you could possibly have. Not only do I think Charlie Kirk should have been allowed, by the way, he was allowed. So wait, why am I not allowed when I say that everyone is perfectly equal, but he was allowed? okay, but if you say to him, you're not allowed to say that, okay, but then you're taking away other people's rights as well. And so on the one side is them saying obnoxious, terrible things and influencing people to some degree. But we get to counter that with our speech. And I'm not

afraid of any of those comments. Not only did you cannot ban Charlie Kirk, I didn't ban Charlie Kirk. I had him on our show a couple of times. I went to his conference America Fest and we did several interviews and conversations together because I'm not intimidated. I'm not scared of bad ideas. If you're scared of bad ideas, you will ban far too many ideas. Now, the other side of the coin, once you start banning things there's no end to it and you don't know which ideas are going to work and which ideas aren't going to work and which ideas sound bad but are actually adjacent to an idea that you could spring off of it and into something positive and more importantly what will the powerful use as a weapon and a cudgel to take away your freedom because if you say hey let's take away

the right to say things that are bigoted what is the first thing Israel's supporters are going to say Oh my God. Anything that accuses the Jewish state of anything is bigoted. And in fact, not what could they say. That's what they say every single day in American media and in social media. Anything that criticizes Israel is anti-Semitic. Oh, that's a trope, that's a trope, that's a trope. You're not allowed to criticize the government of Israel, no matter how many genocides they commit, no matter how many wars they start,

no matter how disgusting their actions are. No, nope, it's bigoted. You see how the powerful use that as a tool and a weapon to take away our rights. So I think when you balance those interests, it's not even close. Let us defeat the bad ideas with our free speech. I've just had a question from the audience, which I think fits in quite nicely here. Stanley says, asks, following on from your belief in the First Amendment, how do we ensure that social media can be a place for acceptable and non-dangerous discourse, as it seems to have become after Musk's takeover of X? And he's thinking specifically of the impact of rumors on X in the UK riots in June

2024, for example. Yeah, I just don't accept the premise. So to me, what's a bigger danger? You ban people from saying things on social media. I guarantee you the first people they ban will be on the left. I guarantee you the first people they ban will be the ones asking for peace and justice. Because the powerful don't want peace and justice. The minute you give them that tool, they're going to ban.

the good guys, not the bad guys. And even if they banned a couple of the bad guys, they'll ban a hundred times the good guys. And so, okay, what is dangerous? Well, again, the powerful would say, speaking out against Israel's war crimes is dangerous because it spreads anti-Semitism, it spreads bigotry. We find it dangerous.

We find it dangerous. As the UK government literally said, this is not hypothetical. This literally happened, and it's literally affected this exact conversation. I should be in the UK right. now talking to you and I'm not why they said well even arguing for peace is dangerous and it's a it's a this that it's a danger to the public order well in a sense they're being truthful there

it's a danger to their order their order of things so no no I'm not interested in the government's definition of danger in that regard okay I'd like to move on slightly I'm interested in knowing whether you're planning to challenge the ban legally because I've sort of looked into the case law and it's not especially encouraging. The courts have consistently shown a reluctance to overturn the Home Secretary on decisions of foreign policy and national security out of fear that the judges might substitute their own judgment instead.

Do you plan on challenging the ban and do you hope it will be overturned? Yes, of course I'll challenge the ban. What am I never going to come back to the United Kingdom again? This is so preposterous. This is Kafkaesque. So do I have to change my stance to being pro-war and pro-genocide to come back into the United Kingdom? I mean, what kind of level of absurdity have we reached? So, of course, I'll challenge it.

But really the ban isn't about me. It's about the United Kingdom and what kind of country you're choosing to be. because the majority of British citizens agree with me. They have almost identical position to me. So the government is saying that someone that has the same position as a majority of our citizens is a danger to the public order. Well, until the British government stops serving Israel and stops serving any other country

and stops limiting your freedom, well, then they're not going to let me back in. But if they change their mind and they go back to a free country, then they'll be allowed back in. So when I challenge it, if there is any kind of legal proceeding or a trial, that trial will not be about me at all. That trial will be about the United Kingdom and whether it's free or not. Interesting. I'd like to now move on to something you said you wanted to touch upon later on, which is the Trump administration and commercial lobbying as a whole. Trump's administration was the most visible proof in modern political history that disruption without institutional knowledge can produce chaos.

For example, cabinet secretaries who don't understand their own departments, a revolving door of advisors and an executive branch that cannot execute. It can be said that the disruption was very much real and the governance is a disaster. You have expressed support for a populist candidate on the left for the 2028 election, a candidate who you believe is going to take on Wall Street. the military industrial complex, the pharmaceutical industry, and the entire donor class simultaneously. That requires a sort of intimate, granular understanding of how these institutions operate, because you can't dismantle the system you don't understand and you can't regulate an industry you've never studied.

And you definitely can't outmaneuver an establishment that has spent decades learning how to absorb and neutralize exactly the kind of challenge you're describing. So my question is, has the progressive movement in its position, of a sort of ideological purity and identity-based legitimacy actively sabotaged its own ability to produce the one thing a successful populist absolutely requires, which is a leader who knows exactly what they're doing the moment they walk through the door. So let me see if I, all right, I'll answer it this way. So first off, in order to understand my answer, you have to understand how deeply corrupt the American government has become. And that breaks my heart because I love America.

And we move to America for those freedoms. And so my family is an enormous believer in those freedoms. But what happened was in a series of Supreme Court decisions in 1976, 78, and then in Citizens United, the Supreme Court basically legalized bribery in America. And so when I talk about Israel, it's, you have to understand that Israel is not the iceberg. It's the tip of the iceberg. Israel is not the cancer. It is a symptom of the cancer.

The cancer is money in politics in America. We have an absolute absurdity again in America where they say, if you give hundreds of millions of dollars to a politician, it is not a bribe. Just let that sink in. I know that for most of you, if you don't live in the United States, you have to think that can't be true. That has to be hyperbole. That can't possibly be right. Well, it is right. The Aedelson family alone has given Donald Trump $317 million in campaign contributions and independent expenditures in his three presidential runs. But that is not unusual.

Incredibly wealthy people, corporations who are actually the number one culprit, not foreign governments. But yes, also lobbies for foreign governments like Israel, all collectively give billions upon billions of dollars. So the Israeli lobby gives to 94% of Congress. And that's one of the stated reasons that the Home Office gave to the Times when they explained why it was banned. They said, Jenk said that the Israeli lobby gives more to Congress than any other lobby. Well, that is a factually correct. They banned me for being a journalist. And they can't disprove that. It is empirically correct. You can't ask anyone and get a different answer. Now, They were the largest lobby in the last cycle, but they are not always the largest lobby.

Normally, big pharma is the largest lobby. And so what that has created is an end to capitalism in America. And another thing that you might not have heard. Well, you've got to say, well, that's got to be a hyperbole as well. Well, did you know that in America, when it comes to drug companies, there is no free market. You cannot negotiate drug prices. Now, again, if you're not familiar with it, you must be thinking, I don't even understand what that means. Well, you're not wrong. Nobody understands what that means. Are you crazy? The government says

we're going to buy billions over the long run trillions of dollars of drugs, but we can't negotiate the prices. We must accept whatever the corporations give as their price, no matter how absurd. It's insane. That is why in America, sometimes for drugs, we pay literally a hundred times what other countries pay because we can't negotiate the prices because we kill the free market and capitalism. But American media is also so deeply corrupt, they never talk about any of these issues. They don't cover the news. They cover up the news. Do you know that in America, the oil companies, which are among the most profitable companies in the history of the world, get $35 billion in free gifts from the American taxpayers every single year? That's 10 times.

what Israel gets. And yet the American media goes, oh, I don't see it. I don't see the problem at all. God bless the oil companies and the drug companies and foreign governments. And if you criticize them, you're the bad guy. No, no, no, no, no. This system is broken. It's deeply corrupt. So we can't get our government to do anything we want until we free ourselves. We've lost democracy completely. Our politicians are up for sale in an auction. And so right now Israel's buying them. But later, Russia can buy them. Qatar can buy them.

Anyone can buy them. You just set up a lobby. You give them hundreds of millions of dollars. And then they work for you and they give you hundreds of billions of dollars back. And then you pay off the media. And the media goes, oh, no, you're anti-Muslim, anti-Jewish, anti-Black, anti-this, anti-that, anti-Oilist. I don't know. They'll make up the most absurd things.

And say, no, we must limit your speech. You're a danger to the public order if you don't go along with this corruption. So we've got to free ourselves from all this. And the way to do that is through populace. And that's why I've set up another pack in America, a rebellion pack. And we support populist candidates like Graham Platner, Rokana, and others. And so now for progressives, I set up a pack earlier, Justice Democrats. And so that was AOC-Lohan Omar, Rashida Tili, Biont, Diana Presley, Corey Bush, Jamal Bowman, and many others.

And so why have I gone more towards populism? Is it because I'm any less progressive now? No, no, I'm squarely on the left, okay? But unfortunately, I thought Justice Democrats and some of the people that I named there that won went too much in the identitarian direction. And if you do identity politics, it only helps the powerful. It splits our movement. It says this is for these set of people and not for the other side.

of people and that's not what populism is that's not what democracy is that's not what our freedom movement is about we are for freedom for black people and white people for Latinos and Asians for Jews and Christians and Muslims and Buddhists we're for equality for everyone we're for rights for everyone and and so when we get if we're lucky enough which seems nearly impossible in America universal health care well then it's not Not like the right wing wouldn't get it. It's not like white people or Christians wouldn't get it. That would be absurd.

No, everyone's going to get it. When you get higher wages, you get higher wages for everyone. So you could be on the left and be a diehard populist like I am. And I think that that is the right answer. So Rokana was one of the co-chairs of Bernie Sanders presidential campaigns. And if he runs for president, he's the guy who got the Epstein files released. He doesn't do identity politics. he's for Team America

and I think that a person like that would be the exact right direction to go. And most importantly, it's the same rule I had at just Democrats that we have at Rebellion, which is no corporate PAC money, no foreign government money. You only represent Americans.

Yeah, and staying on the subject of money in politics, one proposed solution to the lobbying problem is arguably counterintuitive, but the argument goes that if you pay politicians significantly more, you reduce their financial dependence on donors and lobbyists and therefore reduce the incentive for corruption. Do you buy that argument, or do you think the problem runs too deep for a pay rise to fix? No, I buy that argument. So it's not the first thing I'd go to. The first thing I'd go to is taking their power away, okay,

the power of the donor class, I believe we should have an amendment in America. Now, if it wasn't for the Supreme Court's preposterous rulings that corporations are human beings and have constitutional rights and that money is speech and they could spend unlimited money in politics, we wouldn't need to change the Constitution. It isn't in the Constitution. They lied about the Constitution. That's just not in there at all. They made it up out of whole clause. By the way, other Supreme Court justices said the same exact thing I'm saying. And they said back in the 1970s, if the majority gets its way, it'll be the death knell of democracy, and that is exactly what's happened. So we must pass a constitutional amendment to get money out of politics in America, and I would argue to end corporate

personhood. So if we do that, that's the best way. But if they say, well, look, then you have to pay the politicians a little bit more so they avoid corruption. I have seen that work in other countries, and including in America, where we started paying police more money than we did in the past, not in my lifetime, but before then. And that worked to get a lot of the corruption out of the police force. And I think that it could work for the politicians as well. But first, you have to turn off the tap of donor money. Interesting.

I had a question from the audience who asks, it's anonymous, but who asks, as progressives, should we not fight to remove PACs and political funding at some stage instead of leaning into using them? Yes. So there's a distinction among PACs, Packs that you should know. So there are the packs that are corporate packs, and there are the packs like ours, which are grassroots. So we don't allow corporate money. We don't allow anything that can corrupt our candidates. The candidates can't take it. We can't take it.

So, and you need grassroots money. You can't just wish your way into power. So you have to match the money that Susan Collins has with the money that Graham Platner has, which is a a very important and prominent Senate race that's happening in Maine, in the state of Maine in America right now. Now, you don't have to match a dollar for dollar. At Justice Democrats, we achieved miraculous victories with far less money than our opponents, but you do need a certain threshold amount of money. So as they are taking hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate money and foreign government money, if we chose to run on vapors and no money at all, that makes no sense. You literally couldn't hire anyone. So it's okay to have packs that bringing grassroots money. Now, having said that, if you said to me, let's do an amendment that ends all packs,

oh my God, I would love it. So I'm perfectly happy to end all of my packs immediately, as long as we're on an equal footing. But most of you don't live in America. In America, the media is so oppressive and so ridiculous that they will make arguments against grassroots packs, but not make the same arguments against corporate packs. Again, when I describe what happens in America, I must sound like Alice in Wonderland to anyone who doesn't live here. Like, how could that really be true? But it is. And whenever I object to it, they say that I'm the bad guy. I'm the rebel. I'm the radical. By the way, my policy positions, as it turns out, are nearly identical on almost every issue to the majority of American people.

So when they call me a radical, what they're saying is our populations are radical and we dismiss them. We prefer the viewpoint and the perspective of the already wealthy and powerful. And speaking of Rebellion Pack, is Brianna Wu still involved? And if so, why, given her views on Palestinians? No, she's no longer involved. So the new board of Rebellion Pack is myself, Cara Eastman, who was a wonderful populist candidate for Democrats in Nebraska. And Marie Newman, who was a U.S. Congresswoman. She was one of the Justice Democrats. She was one of the best Congress people we had. And her story is actually very telling.

She once voted against Israel on a bill where they just didn't even explain what they needed the money for. And it was an enormous amount of money. It was a surprise at the last second. This has not been properly explained. And she voted against it. For Democratic colleagues, her own party, came up to her and yelled at her on the House floor and said, how dare you? They said, we're going to take away all your money and we're going to fund a race against you. That was not an empty threat. They did exactly that. They ended all the funding she was getting from official circles. And the Israeli lobby then spent $4 million defeating her. Of course, as usual, they labeled her as an anti-Semite,

her husband is Jewish, I have Jewish family. They don't care. They defeated Andy Levin, who's a Jewish American in Michigan because he asked for a two-state solution. He says, I love Israel. I'm a Zionist.

They said, not good enough. You have to sign a pledge giving Israel money unconditionally. Again, you have to think that can't be true. It is true. My friends have run, they've gotten the same

ask for an unconditional pledge. It's in the news. They don't even. deny it and Andy Levin said I think there should also be a Palestinian state and I don't think the pledge should be unconditional. I'm going to give money to Israel anyway, but this is absurd to say that Americans unconditionally owe money. They're like, shut up, you're an anti-Semite. They didn't call him an anti-Semite to be fair, but they have called Bernie Sanders an anti-Semite who is Jewish, right? So this isn't have anything to do with religion or your background. This has to do with will you

kneel to Israel or won't you? So Marie Newman's the other board member now of Rebellion Pact, so on those grounds you have nothing to worry about. Amazing. And one final question on the topic of corporate lobbying. The revolving door between Capitol Hill and Castery is very much well documented. And according to a study by the government Accountability Institute, around 50% of retiring senators have taken lobbying or lobbying adjacent roles after leaving office. Some Some people point to Singapore as a model where ministers earn salaries pegged to top private sector wages explicitly to reduce corruption, and Singapore consistently ranks in the top three least corrupt nations on earth.

Do you think that is a good model tying politicians' wages to how well the country is doing economically? Well, that's super interesting. So I would certainly consider it. I can see a downside, which is they're going to want to pump up. the economy in the short term, which might cause long-term damage. But anything that has American politicians be accountable would be a boon. I mean, it would be wonderfully different than what we have now. Our politicians in America are totally and utterly unaccountable. And they just, at the end,

they just raise millions of dollars from the worst PACs and the worst corporations and foreign governments in the world and they support them and only them, they never, ever support the American people. All right, I'll give you one more example because, again, you have to be thinking, how can this be true? So, and you could look up every single thing I've said and see that it is highly researched. So paid family leave is giving basically moms 12 weeks off after they have a baby. Okay, that's the version we have in America.

Many other countries have much longer family leave. applies to husbands as well or to fathers as well but we have a really bare bones version in America it has 84% popularity both Democratic voters and Republican voters definitely want it overwhelmingly it hasn't passed and it has no chance of passing Congress because corporations don't want it they're like oh that'll add a tiny amount to our cost no and the politicians go all right We'll betray 84% of our voters. We'll betray Republican voters.

We'll betray Democratic voters. And we will serve the corporate donors. I think America's among three or four nations in the whole world that doesn't have paid family leave, even though we're the richest nation on earth. It's us and a couple of island nations, I believe. So it's not even developed nations. All developed nations have universal health care. America stands almost no chance of having universal health care because of the, deep-seated corruption. But in paid family leave, it's not developed nations. It's almost every

nation on earth. And our country wants it so badly. And our politicians say, no, we don't serve you and we will never serve you. And our media goes, oh, I don't see it. I don't see the corruption. I think politicians are honorable people having honest debates. And Jake and these populists are such radicals saying that the politicians aren't honest. He won't even kneel to the politicians. He won't kneel to the foreign governments. He won't kneel to the corporations. How are dare he? And again, you think it's hyperbole. No, I'm banned, not just from the UK, I'm banned from every cable news station in America, CNN, MSN, MS now, or whatever the hell they're calling themselves, and Fox News. Apparently, my ideas of representing the average citizen are so dangerous

they can't be allowed in the media or even in your country. And finally, considering everything that we've talked about so far, the problems of the United States and its government, where do you see the trajectory under the Trump administration and beyond. Well, the trajectory under Trump is certain disaster. So that one's easy, unfortunately. So look, there are two, three layers of disaster. One is the war already, even if it ended now, there was an article out this morning

that barrel of oil is going to go to $105. It's currently at 90. And at 90, it's already causing worldwide economic, downturn enormous energy prices, energy shortages in Asia and in Europe. And that's at $90. It is definitely going to $105. And then if we continue the war, unfortunately, as you've seen over the last couple of days, the bombing has started again, both sides bombing one another.

If we continue, it might, J.P. Morgan says it'll go up to $150 to $160 per barrel. And some experts say over 200. Can you imagine if the price of gas doubled? Doubled! It's already causing economic calamity. So if the, and again, as usual, literally no other nation on earth wants this war to continue other than Israel. American voters are 80% against it. Every other country is against it.

Iran is against it. The only country that insists that the war must continue is Israel. Israel is a war monster. terror state that needs more and more land and infinite endless wars. It's obvious cover to take southern Lebanon. Again, our media is like, oh, I can't tell who's attacking who. I don't know. Why don't you look at a satellite?

Why don't you look at a map? Are the Lebanese in Tel Aviv and Haifa right now? Or is the Israeli army in southern Lebanon right now? I mean, are you, is everybody in American media the very dumbest people in the entire country. You guys don't own a computer. You don't, you can't look at a map. You can't tell who's invading who. Who started the war? It's preposterous. Okay, so if Israel's destructive calamitous war continues, it is going to be an economic catastrophe like we have not seen in our lifetimes. We keep warning about it, but no one listens because mainstream media does the exact opposite. No, no, it's not that bad. Don't

worry about it. We're winning. We're winning. Winning what? This absurdity. All right. Number two is Donald Trump's general incompetence. And there isn't anything that brother couldn't bungle. So I've been saying this for over a decade. His IQ can't be higher than 70. So one of the dumbest people we have ever had in public office. And he can't get anything right. He doesn't know anything. He never does any of his homework. He doesn't know who the country's leaders are. He doesn't know anything about the countries. He's attacking, let alone other countries. He doesn't know anything about the economy. I mean, I can give you literally hundreds of examples. Let's just give you one that was so simple. At the beginning of his first term, everybody's talking about health care. And he said,

I'm going to have the greatest health care plan. Of course. He always says he has the greatest everything. Nobody knows more about health care than I do. Then after a couple of weeks, They said, okay, look, you want to kill Obamacare. That's the Affordable Care Act in America. That gives us bare bones survivability in America, right? And what's your alternative? And he went and studied it theoretically for a couple of weeks. And he came back and said, nobody knew that health care was this complicated.

No, we all knew health care was that complicated. You were literally the last idiot in America that didn't know. And so he was planning to get rid of the bare bones. health care we have in America with absolutely nothing to replace it. Now, do you know that to this day, now we're in his second term and 10 years later, he still doesn't have a health care plan. He doesn't have a plan for anything. So how long can you go with a buffoon like that in charge before things break down? And we found out things are breaking down right now because the buffoon got us into a war with Iran. And after the war started, he said, well, nobody could have known that they were going to

attack our allies in the Gulf. We all knew that. We all knew that. We all. warn you where else were they going to attack that's where our bases are and then he even said nobody knew they were going to close the straight of horro moves come on children knew they were going to close a strait of hor moose so with a buffoon like this a series of calamities ensued but guys there's a third thing that has nothing to do with trump or our current politics it's AI and everyone is also ignoring this iceberg and we are going to hit this iceberg square on even if we end the war today and Trump turns into a genius and does everything right. AI is still going to be an enormous problem.

Everyone on Wall Street is bragging. So I not only am the host of the Young Turks, but I'm also the CEO and the founder. So I run the company. So I also know business circles. And I went to Wharton Business School. So this stuff is not lost on me. And so everyone in business circles is bragging about how they're going to cut 25% of their workforce. And whoever gets to cut 25% first is going to be rewarded by Wall Street because they're being so efficient.

Well, who's going to buy your stuff when you fired 25% of the country? Okay, let's say it's not 25%. But I mean, they are all desperately trying to get to fire 10%. So 10% unemployment is a near guarantee at this point. And our politicians are doing nothing about it, nothing. They're living in fantasy land where they're like, well, AI will eventually make it so that we all live in a holodeck and we don't need to work and we could all write poetry and run in the fields and have robots cook salmon for us.

First of all, not overly likely, but okay, no problem. Maybe that happens 85 years from now. But what are we going to do in the meanwhile when no one has jobs? They say, oh, maybe we could do universal basic income then. But a coder and all the coders are being fired as we speak makes $120,000 a year, $150,000 a year. Now your universal basic income is at best $36,000 a year. How is you going to live on 20% of a salary, 25% of his salary?

we're going to hit that iceberg head on. So you have three giant icebergs ahead of you, and it does not bode well. I'm afraid that if you haven't come back and speak in a year or two, well, again, if I'm ever allowed back in the country and if your country is ever free again, that we will be in a much, much worse, economic, political, and social situation,

and the anger will build. so and guys it's very important that you go in a left-wing populist direction because you're going to go in a populist direction one way or another once these calamities hit the establishment will learn absolutely nothing their mouthpieces and i'm sorry that i'm being so blunt and that's why people don't like me because i'm you know frank and honest and blunt and they say oh well you're too you know you speak too loudly against the establishment and the corrupt you speak too loudly against genocide, but I'm going to have to say it again. These idiots in establishment media and an establishment politics will come out and say, oh, no, everything's fine. Vote for Joe Biden or his

son or Trump or his son or his grandkids or something. And everything's fine. Vote for the next corrupt politician. And they'll get you back on track. But no one's going to listen to that. After these calamities happen, nobody's going to vote for their corrupt puppets. And so they're either going to go populist right or populist left. And there is danger in the populist right. So, and that's what frustrates me so much about the Democratic Party in America. They keep closing off the one avenue for getting America back on the right track. So what have we tried? We've tried an endless string of corporate robots who are Democrats and Republicans. Okay. We tried, you know, you're Joe Biden's we tried your George W. Bushes we tried them all okay then we tried a guy

pretending to be on the populace right Donald Trump so all three of those pathways led to disaster the only pathway we didn't try it was the Bernie Sanders wing the populist left wing the Rokano wing and why because not because the Republicans it was Democrats who said no you can't have Bernie Sanders that would be so dangerous he would do what the American People want. We can't have that. And he would embarrass all of us. Oh, he's serving the citizens and not even taking any donor cash, right? So they defeated him. But now I'm telling not just the Democrats, I'm telling independence and I'm telling Republicans, but I'm also telling you all across the world. The one thing they haven't let you try is populist left. For God's sake, do not listen to your media. They are corrupt. Do not listen to your government officials. They are corrupt. Go populist. Go populist. left, try giving power to the people and not to corporations or foreign governments. And by the way, one last note of irony here, before I was banned from the UK and all this Israel stuff came out, I was mainly known as the biggest supporter in American media of Bernie Sanders.

And in the UK, I am supporting Zach Polanski. So what kind of anti-Semite says, hey, I'd like to give Jewish people, not only power in a country like the United Kingdom, which would be an enormous amount of power, but I'd like to make a Jewish person the most powerful man on earth by being the American president. And they go, yeah, I know, but it doesn't matter because you aren't actually an anti-Semite. You're just against Israel's genocide. That's why we're trying to eliminate your voice from media. Amazing.

And very quickly, before we move on to the topic of Israel and Palestine, I'd like to ask whether you think that Zoran, Mandae, campaign in New York was a victory for the populist left and where and what impacts you see of that? Yeah, I definitely think it was. And and this is interesting. So Zoran is to the left of me. Okay. So his opinions are and policies are a little bit more progressive than mine. And and a little bit more towards socialism than mine. So I I call myself a democratic capitalist. And so even though I'm on the same. the left and you could support capitalism and still love the citizens. Capitalism does not have to be opposed to democracy or serving the citizens. I think that actually it's a very good system

for serving the citizens. But right now in America, just quick aside here, we don't have capitalism. We have corporatism. Corporations have taken over our government. We're occupied, not just by Israel, but also by the corporate world. And so they've cut off the free market in ways that I've described earlier with the drug companies, but there's dozens of more examples of how they limit the free market. For example, during the Iraq War, they gave a series, an endless string of no-bid contracts where no-one was allowed to bid. And it was a big shocker, but the vice president's ex-company, Dick Cheney's company that

he ran, Halliburton, got hundreds of millions of dollars in no-bid contracts. That's not capitalism. that's the exact opposite of capitalism. So even though Zoros policies are a little bit to the left of me, I want him to try those because democracy is supposed to be a laboratory for different ideas, whether it's speech or policies. Do I know that government-run grocery stores in New York are going to produce the right result? No, I don't know that, right?

Do I even think that any form of extra rent control is going to work? No, I actually think it'll probably be counterproductive. But having said that, the brother won. Let him try. Maybe I'm wrong. I mean, what is the last time someone in the media or government said, maybe I'm wrong? Maybe we should try that. So what's my litmus test for trying something and for supporting someone like that?

My litmus test is that they are honest and clean. So what do I mean by honest and clean? They don't represent corporations. They don't represent foreign governments. They represent their citizens. And it's okay for them to have different ideas than me, to be the left me or to be to be to the right of me as long as they're actually clean and honest and representing the citizens. Perfect. And I'd like to now move on to the topic of Israel and Palestine.

I have an audience question and they ask, you've advocated for forming an alliance with conservatives who have spoken out on Gaza, such as Tucker Carlson and. Marjorie Taylor Green. Can you speak more to that and in particular address the criticism that from some on the left, like Mehdi Hassan, that figures such as Carlson and Green are bigoted or taint in the pro-Palestine cause as such? Yeah, it's absurd. Okay, look, I love Medea San. He's a good friend, an ally of mine, and I love a lot of people on the left who disagree with me on this, but they're wrong. So, look, again, I would argue it's empirical. So, for example, a margin. Marjorie. Taylor Green and Tom Massey. When they were in Congress, they voted against funding of Israel's genocide. So what do you want me to do? Reject it? Have them vote yes? Well, that doesn't make any sense

at all. No. And are we going to their position or are they coming to our position? Well, it's again, an empirical fact. They're coming to our position. So when Tucker Carlson and Megan Kelly were on Fox News, they were generally pro-war. Now, Tucker says he changed earlier, et cetera, but really didn't talk much about it on Fox News. Now, they have both apologized. Tucker apologized when he was on the air with me on his show. Megan Kelly apologized when she was on the air

with my co-host, Anna Kasparian, on her show, and said, we listen to their talking points too much. In essence, I don't want to put words in their mouth, but you can see it on tape for yourself. And now they are anti-war, and they are for American sovereign. Well, that's the position we've always been in. So if you say somebody comes to our position, we should reject them, I'm sorry, but that's just elementary politics.

That doesn't make any sense at all. So will they say, well, we disagree with them on other issues? Well, good news. When those issues come up, you can disagree with them. What's stopping you? So, like, so for example, Tucker Carlson says that he's a proud sexist. I find that to be absurd. Okay, so if the topic is equal rights for women, I will fight Tucker Carlson 100%.

Nothing is stopping me from that. But if he's helping us end a war and end a genocide, I think it's maniacal to say no. So, no, I will take every ally I have. Look, guys, think about it this way. A genocide should not be in doubt to begin with, meaning like, of course you should take every ally to end a genocide. But just to make it clear, what if it was the whole thing? Holocaust, 13 million that were killed in the Holocaust that Germany did, right?

Or if people came to our side to oppose the Holocaust, but we disagreed with them on tax policy, or even on something as important as women's rights, should we say, no, we want you to be pro-Holacost? Of course not. That's absurd. So if they're coming to us and saying, I'm signing up for the anti-genocide anti-war camp, I am very happy to have them. And by the way, you should know as a practical effect, nobody in America has swung more people to be anti-war than Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens.

And so I wish that weren't the case. But part of the reason, of course, is because most of the left was already anti-war and anti-genocide. So we couldn't swing as many people because we were already there. But they moved millions upon millions of people. And one last thing that's really important about them in case you don't know, all of them have started to come out and say, we got basically programmed to believe that Muslims were our enemy, and that was wrong, and we're sorry. Muslims are not our enemy.

Muslims are good people that pray five times a day, that have faith in a God above, and we shouldn't have said what we said about Muslims, and we shouldn't treat them as our enemy. We should treat them as our brothers and sisters. Under no circumstances will I reject someone saying that. Amazing. And another question from the audience from a guy called Ali, he asks, is a two-state solution even possible? Israel won't want a Palestine to have any defense force. Shouldn't we push for a one-state solution? No, look, guys, right now with Israel being what it is, everything is impossible. So they wouldn't agree to one state, they wouldn't agree to two states, they wouldn't agree to 18 states, they wouldn't agree to anything. They won't agree to their current state.

If you said to them, okay, have whatever you currently occupy in Israel proper and in the West Bank and in Gaza, which now they've taken over 60% of Gaza and get out of Lebanon and end there. They'd say, no, we have a right to take more land in self-defense. They say we demand southern Lebanon. We demand Western Syria. Look, again, not reported by much of the media, but on the young Turks, the media we follow most closely is Israel. Press. Because the Israeli press is pretty good. They often report things that are true for two different reasons. Number one, because in Israel, the right wing brags and goes, yeah, we're going to kill the Palestinians. Yeah, we're going to kill. We're going to do to southern Lebanon what we did

to Gaza. We're going to destroy it and take it. And it's going to be ours. But then American media goes, no, no, no, no, no, don't report it. Don't report it. Right. So, and then the second reason is because the Israeli press can't be called anti-Semites. So they're more free to actually report what's happening. So if you looked at the Israeli press, the Israeli government officials are their greed is endless. They're like, no, we want Raider Israel. Raider Israel stretches into North Africa and into Turkey. These lunatics are planning endless wars. So they're not going to agree to anything. They're not going to agree to the current state of affairs. If you said the Palestinians and all the Arabs would can't arm themselves at all,

but you have to stay with the territory Israel has now. They would say no. So, okay, so you have to reduce the leverage that Israel has. That is why we should defund Israel across all Western countries because we are enabling their worst instincts. We are enabling all of their war crimes and crimes against humanity by funding them endlessly. Okay, so, but if you get past that,

And we get to a point where there's enough of a balance that we can get to a peace deal. You have to understand something. I grew up with a lot of Jewish friends. And so I understand Jewish culture really well. And I respect Jewish culture. I think there's a lot of beautiful parts of Jewish culture. Like question authority, question the rabbi, et cetera, right? So, but in this regard, if you said to them one state where the Jewish Israelis could be outvoted

by the Palestinians, they will never agree to that in a million years. Because to them, that destroys the Jewish state because it's no longer a Jewish state. So even the most liberal Jewish friends I have, no, that's not true. My liberal Jewish friends are totally anti-Zionist, et cetera, et cetera. But ones that believe in Israel, even if they're on the left and they're liberal, they're never ever, ever going to agree to a one-state solution. The only way you have a one-state solution is if Israel has lost all power and we are forcing it upon them, right?

And what would be, what would we be forcing upon them, democracy and equal rights? But they don't view it that way. Zionism is a cult, and the cult believes certain things without question. In fact, if you question it, the cult will turn on you and will be furious with you. And one of the core beliefs that they have is if they have equality with the Palestinians, the Palestinians would murder them all. because they were taught that everyone hates the Jews and Arabs, Muslims, and Palestinians hate the Jews the most

if they are given one second of opportunity, they would murder every Jewish person in Israel and in the world. Now, that's not remotely true, that's actually ludicrous. It's like, you've got to get therapy for that kind of belief, right? But they believe it with all of their hearts. So they're never, ever going to agree to a one-state solution. The only practical thing we could do is if Israel loses enough leverage, we can get a two-state solution and say, no, you've got to have a Palestinian state. And this whole idea of they can't have a military.

What is that? That's not a real thing. That's not a real country. But Israel demands special rules. Imagine if Turkey said, oh, fine, we'll let Greece exist, but they're not allowed to have a military. And we can go in and kill them anytime we like, and we could barricade them and starve them to death anytime we like. Who would agree to that? Nobody would agree to that.

And Israel says, no, I want special privileges. I want to be able to do that to the Palestinians. Our answer as an entire planet combined should be, hell no. The Palestinians will have a state, and they will have the same rights as you do. And if you don't like that, that's your goddamn problem, not the Palestinians problem. You don't get to take their freedom away forever. Look, the fact that Israel is a rogue, fascist country now, is again not in question because they say they want to reserve the right to starve the Palestinians

to death. They voted in the Knesset to never give Palestinians freedom that they will never have their own state. What kind of a monstrous apartheid government is that? And no, no amount of propaganda from American or British media is going to get me to lie to you and say that that isn't apartheid or that isn't fascism. Imagine if the Germans said, no, no, we'll let the Jews exist, But we can starve them to death anytime we like. We could bomb them to death. We could kill 23,000 Jewish children any time we want. And they're never allowed to defend themselves.

And they're never allowed to have the same freedoms we have. We would have called them fascists because that is a fascist position. And that is the current position of the Israeli government. There's no dispute over the facts. There's only propaganda that purposely tries to cloud the facts so you don't see it clearly. Interesting. And just before you go, I have two more questions. Firstly, it strikes me that AOC has been much more coy on coming out for populist and populist policies,

for example, Graham Platner, Seika in California, or even Gaza. Is that your impression, too? Yes. So AOC has chosen to go in more of an identity politics direction, the culture wars. I think it's just been very destructive in America. I think it helps divide us, and I'm not in favor of it. So look, AOC had a miraculous victory. The just Democrats were a big part of that, and we took great pride in it.

And Choycott was probably the most instrumental in getting that victory. He was her campaign manager and her chief of staff after she won. If I have to be honest with you and I, that's what I do. AOC betrayed him. He was nearly in first place. She refused to endorse him. The other candidates used that in ads against him. He dropped in the third place and lost.

And so she is, she has not supported anyone who she rose up with, who helped her to get into office. She's not going in a populist direction. She's going in an identity politics direction. And why are you indecisive about Graham Platner? You can't make up your mind between Graham Platner and an establishment candidate? That's not even a left-wing position. That's, hey, establish a media. for president, I'm your best friend.

Don't write negative articles about me and say positive things about me. Okay, yeah. I remember when we were running a race and I had a very small role in it, but I was deeply aware of everything that was going on. And we hated the establishment back then. We fought the establishment back then. We beat the establishment together back then. Now she says, I don't need anyone else.

And I kind of like the establishment and the establishment media. and I'm going to equivocate. And by the way, don't get me wrong, it's not a crazy political calculation. That is why mainstream media has been very, very positive about AOC. Back when we were fighting the establishment, they were very, very negative about her. But now they write glowing articles

about how she could win this whole thing. So that strategy is working with her for her with the people that she's now surrounded by in Washington. But I think it's a disastrous strategy and will definitely not work in the long run. And one final audience question. They ask, what would you say about the relation of Europe and America and how do you think the future will look like in that regard?

Okay. So look, there's a magic line in America, probably the case in the UK and a lot of other countries as well, but I can speak with knowledge about America. It's 50 years old. That's the line. If you're under 50 years old, you're largely getting your news from online media and you're about a hundred times more educated than people watching television. Above 50 years old, you got brainwashed by television. Oh, corporate donations is no big deal.

Our politicians never doing anything we want is no big deal. A genocide is no big deal. Bow your head, bow your head, right? So now, those are general rules. There's plenty of people above 50 years old who are wonderful, progressive. populists, or just people who care and are trying to do the right thing, right? But generally speaking, the people who grew up on TV were programmed to believe absurd things. And that includes me.

I'm 56. So I had to get rid of my brainwashing one by one, right? So I believed in all these absurdities. And so remind me the question you asked because I was going to lead back to it. What do you think that the relationship between Europe and America? Oh, yes. So one of the, as I discovered these things that weren't true, for example, we were taught in America that in 1948, Israel was beset by these savage Arabs. And the Palestinians voluntarily 750,000 of them moved out for a picnic and decided not to come back and said, oh yeah, take our land, but we're going to kill you all.

I mean, whatever, like these just nonsense lies, lie after life. No, there was ethnic cleansing. People didn't leave their homes voluntarily. They were murdered and driven out. We were told that in 1967, Israel was attacked. That's just not true. Israel attacked all of its neighbors, wiped out their air forces, and then took their land. Again, consult a map.

They didn't use to have West Bank or Gaza Strip or Golan Heights or Sinai Peninsula. They traced Sinai Peninsula to neuter the top military in the Middle East, then they keep the rest. That's exactly what happened. They're an aggressive military. But I didn't know any of that because we're constantly brainwashed by American media.

So I do that as a lead-up to recently. I realize why there was this huge attack against NATO and the UN. Because the UN keeps voting against Israel. So Israel is telling you, remember, 94% of our politicians are paid by the Israeli lobby in America. And they all go out. They're all the United Nations, this is a problem.

Working with the whole world, that's terrible. You should hate the rest of the world. What? Well, Israel doesn't want the United Nations to be more powerful. They have their bought politicians attack the United Nations. And recently, Trump has been attacking NATO over and over, but he did it in his first term, too. So you might think, like, where did that come from? Why does he randomly hate Europe?

No. Turkey is in NATO. And the Israelis have now said, again, I can show you the tape. And you could watch it yourself. Neftali Bennett, now currently leading over Netanyahu, even more right-wing than Netanyahu, said after Iran, Turkey is next. The problem is Turkey's in NATO. So if America's still in NATO, Israel can't attack Turkey.

So Israel has to get, it's bought politicians in America to get out of NATO and to drive a wedge between America and Europe so that Israel can attack a part of Europe. I mean, this is insanity, guys. What are we doing here? So you could back, again, you could look up every single fact I'm giving you. So what do I think about Europe and America? Well, of course, there are top allies. Why wouldn't we be top allies?

Why wouldn't, look, if we keep driving Europe away, eventually they're going to go, well, why am I getting constantly yelled out by these Americans and new rules and new tariffs and new punishments for, no reason. Why don't I just go over to Bricks and do a deal with them? And that way we don't, you know, maybe we don't have to use the Petro dollar. Maybe we don't have to use the dollar as the reserve currency. And we go make a deal with India, China, Russia, Brazil, etc. That would be a disaster for the American economy. You have to shore up Europe as our top ally and then build from there. Then I would go to Bricks. Then I would go to Asia. Then I would and then I would go to India.

and make sure that India is on our side. And guess who's going to India instead? Israel. They have sent a whole bunch of pundits and commentators, but I would tell my Indian friends, beware of Israelis bearing gifts. They've, they're, because of the polling in America, they think their time might be up here.

So they're trying to find a new host country that they could take billions of dollars from and drive hatred towards Muslims. easier with and get them to help Israel attack their Muslim neighbors. So watch out India. Do not go towards Israel. Once we free America, come back towards America, come back towards Europe. Amazing, Chink.

I think we'll wrap it up there. Thank you so much for giving us your time. I know you're very busy. And hopefully I will meet you in person sometime soon when you're hopefully allowed back into the UK. But before you go, could I get a picture with you through the screen? Sure, that'll have to do. And then... Thank you.

No problem. And I'm in Europe right now. I'm in France. So close yet so far. Yeah. They've forced us again into this absurdity. But that's okay. We will persevere and we'll win out.

Amazing. Thank you so much, Chang. All right. Thank you. Appreciate it.