#78 - Hasan Piker over Charlie Kirk, 9/11 en de NAVO afschaffen

Je neemt Charlie Kirk, waar je morgen is dat? Morgen? Zo dan, welkom bij radioboos en wekelijkste scherperblik op media, politiek en maatschappijperen met de onderbuik inruiden voor de feiten met uitruidruimte om te lachen. Met deze week. Tegast! Een van de meest besproken en invloedrijke politiekkomentatoren in de VS Hassan Piker. Je hort eindrelijker Marijde Rode. Hallo. Vanaf de redaktie van Boos op Hilversen Media Park. Daar gaan we. People talking about how they're going to kill me at my next public event. Ja, je horde Hassan Pikerband. Hij is deze week, dus te gast in radioboos. Wie is deze man, die heel de VS, de kas op jacht, en nu ook voor ophevzorgd aan onze kant van de ocean? Voor republiekijnen is hij de personificatie van alles wat er mis is met links, en ook verschijden de demokraten, nemen afstand van de man. In Amerikaanse media wordt hij veel veel besproken voor namelijk Fox News, wei het veel aandacht aan hem. Maar ook voor promenenten Amerikaanse politie is Piker noemenswaardig. Hier even wat dingen die over hem gezegd worden. En at de very center of the so-called movement is he podcaster named Hassan Piker. Apparently grew up rich, lives in luxury, now pretends to be a communist. Regular working-class neighborhoods, because they still actually love their country. And they hate entitled brats, like Piker, who pretend to be oppressed. Ik ben een beetje een Bible-studie met Harold en Greg, en ik denk dat ik 'm heel certain dat 's Piker guy is, niet gegeten is. De communist 'snatic' who says that 'America deserved' 9/11, we deserved it, we deserved it. Ja. Ook hier in Europa is hij steeds vaker onderwerp van gesprek. Het verenigd Koningrijk heeft een bijvoorbeeld toegang tot het land geweigerd. De reden is onduidelijk vermoedelijk door zijn standpunt over Israel. En er was, vorige week, ophef in België over zijn komst. Buiten dit alles is hij, vooral een bekende Amerikaanse politiek streamer tot wel 8 uur per 20.000 uur aan live streams gedaan. Het zijn ruim 10 miljoen volgens over verschillende platforms. Blanda hij dan ook op de derde plek in de Rolling Stones Most Influential Creators of 2026 leist. En hij staat in contact met oogsieve democratels, Bernie Sanders, EOC, Mamdani. En dat ook met 1 regelmaat op tijdens de kapparje van de democratische snatskandidaten in Michigan, Abdul El, zei het. Hij is socialist, uitgesproken anti-Israel, en daarmee toch wel een vreemde ene in de buiten in het Amerikaanse politiek influencerlandschap, waar de populaire politiek podcast en streams over het algemeen gedomineerd worden door rechts denken aan Joe Rogan en Ben Shapiro. Waarom gaan we de elektriciteit grid afgekomen? Voor regular as civilians, shut the motherf*cking data centers off, right now! Rond om deze man, en wij dachten dat daar maar ook voordat we het gesprekken gaan, staan we daar heel even bij stil, daar krijg je ook even ons motief om hem uit te nodigen, wat is het wel, wat is het niet? Alle eerst in aanloop naar zijn recente bezoek aan België vorige week was er ook veel ophef. Ja, hij was uitgenodigd voor het Belgiës Festival manifesto, en de Belgiës Defense Minister regereden er op als Theo Franken, die wilde de terreurwet in de roepen voor het festival, waar hij zou spreken. Piker noemde hem daarop pispoi, dat was revereren naar een video die ooit rondging waar een Franken wildplast in een plantenbak. Ja. Zo was België echt wel dag in de band eigenlijk van die komstvanden als aan Piker. Ja, en wat ik interessant pond, is dat er heel veel fursen opheffen was en toen spak de standaard hem op dat festival en er was een nul ophef, van wat wij bij meegekegen, maar hij heeft wat interviews gedaan daar verder ook bij de Belgiës, daarvan de arbeid en dus ja. Er gebeurde niet zoveel, nee, even los van die minister. Wij deelden vrijdag toen we hem spraken, dat was afgelopen vrijdag. Ja, ook in grote hotel. Van tijdens het interview op onze socials, op mijn stories en herndarm en daar was op het rechtse spectrum. Een iets meer ophef. Heel veel ophef. Ja, zeker. De foto was gepost op mijn eleven, daar waren mensen woest over, ik had er ook niet zo bij stil. Dat is eigenlijk wel de oprecht, toevallig het interview op die dag en die foto is gewoon de dag van het interview. Nee. Maar dat belangrijk om te zeggen, want hij heeft 7 jaar geleden doet de uitspraak gedaan, een Amerika de zurf in mijn eleven. Ja, ja. Een 7 jaar geleden, tweeën heeft hij al tolloze keer excuses van aangeboden. Nou, ik weet in ieder geval dat dat bij rechts, het summen was show news. Die kopten met zorgen om radicalisering Tim Hoffman en toen houden ze Bart Neiman, Weerduk en Talita Musa. Talita Musa werkt voor de nieuwe wereld. En ook zat er volgens mij pas iemand die zo antisemitisch was dat ze het gesprek of leien hebben gehaald. Weerduk is Weerduk. Hij is letterlijk Weerduk. Precies? Dat wil ik niet meer wel. Dus ja, nee. En Bart Neiman? We hebben daar wel voorbij. Nee hoor. Oké. Hoe dan ook? Dat was ook in dat segment de rest in de media halen eigenlijk een maand. Nee, zeker. Dus die ophevige rondom hem dat ze hebben. Er was een vlak voor de interview nog interview en trouw. Niet interview, een profiel voor hem in trouw. Ja. Ik las ook niet heel radicalen dingen daarin, moet ik je werk zeggen. Vether, wat hem veel verweten wordt is antisemitisme. Hij is echt uitgesproken, anti-Israel, een anti-zionist en dat ropt heel veel kritiek op. Wat die daar allemaal over zegt. En ik had heel veel beschildige van antisemitisme, maar voor zich heen eigenlijk. Dat kennen we. Maar wel goed om te zeggen, heeft zich ook juist heel vaak uitgesproken voor joutse mensen en heel erg tegen antisemitisme. Daar worden dan vaak natuurlijk zinnetjes uitgepikt. Dat was zijdeheid, zij luisterd, dus heel erg veel. Echt die zarveel. En daar worden vaak zinnetjes uitgepikt die ook wel bot zijn. En daardoor kontroversieel worden op, als je ze los ziet, later nu al zeert hij die dan vaker weer. Ik vroeg ook af of daar een idee achterzit, dat leeg ik hem ook nog even voor straks in te gesprek. Kijk, hij is ook iemand die heeft gezegd dat hij zou stemmen op Hamas. Over is er el. Over is er el. Ja. En hij zegt dan de less of toevils. Hij zegt, is er el, heeft voor veel meer dood en verderf gezorgd dan Hamas. Het is een vergelijking, geen goedkeuring, oflof. In de standaard zegt hij daar nog over als hij Hamas met is er elvergelijkt is dat een bewuste provocatie om mensen aan te sporen aan, maar zo over beide partijen het er overwezen. Vergedocht de experiment. Ja, ik krijg geen grooit. Ja, ik heb het even doorgestuurd net Sharon ook. Samen gevat. Deze man heeft heel veel gezegd. Ook over geopolotieke onderwerpen, hij heeft 20.000 uur aan streams gedaan. Daar zitten ook dingen bij die dus wel echt commotie voor zorgen. Ja, zeker. Er zijn echt kwosten die als bodzo kunnen ervaren. Ja. Absoluut. Die zijn alleen die kwot wordt dan heel grootschalig uitgelegd te zinnen in die lange streams die hij natuurlijk doet. Ik denk dat ook voor de oppattingen als geheel. Dus dat goed om daar hem kreeg het zo te bevragen, altijd natuurlijk, als je zo iets zegt dan waarom zeg je dat nou op doe je daar nou precies mee, maar het is echt niet die zin is los, zeg het dus niet precies wat hij vindt en voelt. Wij zitten straks met hem. Die uitspraken daar is hij al meer maals op ondervraagd. Bijvoorbeeld vaak ook. Harrette is redische krant, heeft dat pas gedaan, dat was goed dekend. Dus we daar op de link van de show nood zetten. Ja, goed om te lezen. Ja, ik ga dus niet met hem punt voor punt die uitspraken langs lopen. Ik wil wij wilden wat andere dingen weten die meer over de hoge overs gaan. Ja. Wij vroeg ons af hoe kijkt hij naar zijn verantwoordelijkheid en zijn invloedrijke positie bedoeld met hem, met zijn leven. Hoe ziet hij dat die verantwoordelijkheid voelt hij die u behaupt? Waarom doet hij wat hij zegt en zegt hij wat hij zegt? Ja, en wat ziet hij nou echt als een ideaal, als de oplossing en is hij echt wel zo radical als de pers- en politie doen voor moeder? Ja, ja. Daar zijn we echt wel benieuwd naar. Wij konden me een half uur spreken in Brussel, dat werd, ik zou zeggen, zo een beetje twee keer zo lang. Ja. Dan ga je zo naar luisteren meer eerst even abonneer als je kijkt op YouTube op ons kanaal. Dat kost 0 euro sluitje aan bij de miljoen mensen. En als je in de podcast app luistert, geef ons wat sterren. Als we dan weer ophevond staat, we moeten ons verantwoorden bij de omroepen kunnen zeggen maar we wel heel veel vijf sterren centies op de protestie. Ja, precies. Dan komen we er wel. Ja. Dat is handelijk voor ons. En kom naar A vast 30 september, zo'n gehandvoel kaart. Het is echt heel weinig. Ja, het is echt heel weinig nu. We hebben wat extra. We waren uitverkocht, we hebben een extra ring opgedaan, die zit bijna vol nu. Ik hoop dat het hierna vol is. Ik heb er wel. Wees erbij. Het is echt bestemmerlijk. Met rolmaal drink. Bob, Sylvana Simons. Sundos. Sundos. En wij zijn er ook. Ja. En dan nu waar je voor kwam deze week. Het gesprek met Hasson Piker bij ons in Brussel. Ja. En na het gesprek gaan we nog context geven als die nodig is of nu wansen. Ja, onze eigen beschouwing. Ja. Dus helemaal achteraan ga je ons nog heel even horen. Wij hebben Bernie Sanders ook. Even heel kortheen hier. Je hoek kijken wij hier naar vanaf onze redaktie. Ja. En dan hebben we nog wat toe te voegen. Maar eerst nu voor jou Hasson Piker. Voor de kijken en luisteren wij staan dus midden in Brussel nu. Voor het hotel waar Hasson slaapt. We hebben afgesproken dat wij hem even ophaen en dan brengen we hem even naar waarom gaan interviewen straks. We hebben ook een half uur dus dan kunnen we het eisen een beetje breken. Ik had al zin. Wel benieuwd wat ze zeggen. O, dat dus hier. Tim, nice to meet you. I'll be interviewing you. Ja, goed. Yeah, yeah, I'm a little tired, but I can't jet lag. I'm a little jet lag. Yeah, I can't mention that much. It's fine. What are you up to? After this, we're going to the parliament. Yeah. And I'm going to get a tour. I'm going to livestream it too. There's a lot of happening around you in Belgium now. From what I've heard, I've been quite the figure in Belgian news. I was a little bit worried when I was coming in because of Theo Franken. Yeah, what is it called? The Piss Manica. What is it? Oh, the piss boy. Yeah, yeah, it's Manica. It's Monica Piss. Monica Piss. It's the peeing statue. Yeah, he's the peeing statue. Perfect. So welcome. This is Brussels, part of our EU democracy. I know. It's nice. I like it. Yeah, you do? Yeah, I think the weather is really nice in comparison to Los Angeles because Los Angeles is so unbelievably human right now. Yeah. It's really funny because I was talking to one of our hosts and he thought I was joking when I said I like the weather. It's like chilly. First person ever who told me that who came to this part of Europe like a nice weather, dude. Yeah, no, it's good. You actually do. That's cool. Do you feel at ease here at Western Europe? I can imagine. There's a little bit of tension. I didn't have the most in what inviting welcome. The warm is welcome with the defense minutes there. Yeah. Calling me like a dangerous terrorist or something. Yeah. And we were really worried initially. My team and I were worried because I had. I had another obligation in the UK. Yeah. I was supposed to talk at the Oxford Union. I was supposed to, you know, go to this festival. And the British government banned my entry. So I thought it was going to happen again in Belgium. And I, I, I got this information that, that set my heart and mind at ease. They told me, no, don't worry. Last week the Taliban was here. Oh, yeah, that's the thing now. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So I was like, oh, okay, I think if they're, if the right wingers invited the Taliban into the country. But then they're saying, I'm, you know, I'm a bridge too far. I think that's, that's a little bit crazy. No, it's like Taliban, House on Piker and then the rest. Well, you know, we don't know what the Taliban's position on Israel is. So he, let's talk about that. Yeah. But do that later. What's the goal of House on Piker with, with your, your, your twitching and, and your outlets and everything? Is there an endgame? Um, I guess, I mean, I, I want to build a robust working class centered socialist movement in America. And I want to defeat the growing fascist forces in my country. And hopefully all around the, all around the world, really. Yeah. Um, I, I want to, in the interim, try to make gains for the working class, like socialize medicine. These are concepts that, these are, these are amenities that are, uh, given to every single citizen in, uh, in Europe. To you, that's quite radical, right? Yeah, in America, treated as, uh, you know, Soviet style conversation. Yeah. I, I spoke to Bernie Sanders, like this, uh, April, and I asked him for some radical ideas. And he said, like, healthcare for everybody. And we're like, that's radical to you. Yeah. Unfortunately. Well, it's not, I, I don't think, I don't think it is. I, like, Americans don't see it as radical. But unfortunately, the forces in control of, uh, of our country on both sides of the political spectrum, uh, either party act as though it's the most radical idea. It's not. Um, you say like you want to start a movement, socialist movement, you, you almost sound like, uh, a politician there, but there's difference. You don't have seats, um, how do you do that? So I'm, I'm just a media person. Yeah, right. Um, and I, I work with organizers. I have a lot of organizers in my community as well. And I try to push, uh, people in my audience to go and, and participate in more meaningful ways. Uh, and, and regain some semblance of autonomy. Whether it's in their workplace through unionization initiatives or whether it's, uh, through community organizing or whether it's through. Uh, direct participation in organizations like the Democratic Socialists of America. Um, I'm not running for office. I have no interest in running for office. But, uh, what we've been able to do, uh, what this movement has been able to do in the last year, especially is, is run candidates that are openly socialist under the Democratic Party's ballot. And, and we've actually had a lot of successes with, uh, Democratic Socialists insurgencies. Yeah. That have been able to unseat some fairly powerful long-term incumbent, uh, Congress persons. And then there's also, I'll say it, who's running for, yeah, and he's not a socialist. Uh, but, uh, there are, but anyway, yes, I support him regardless, uh, because he is once again, someone who is, I would call a burning crack. Where he's a left populist candidate who also has, uh, spent almost a lifetime fighting to get, uh, Medicare for all. So it's double in. Like, like, like, you, you, uh, make sure people get a seat with a more left wing or a liberal agenda, and you take one seat from the, from the right wing. Yeah. Um, supporting him, like, is that the, the, the lesser of two evils? It's a thing you, you say quite a lot. Like, I, I go for the lesser of two evils. I mean, I guess, uh, but I don't even think he's, uh, evil necessarily. No, yeah. Yeah. I would, I would use that for like, uh, supporting a, uh, an establishment Democrat over a Republican candidate because the Republican party has become a fascist party in America. It's like turning into a fascist party ideologically in the United States. So I think like, yes, any way to erode their power, uh, even if it means, uh, putting a establishment Democrat in their position, uh, is, is still going to be beneficial. And your role is like reshaping narratives or anything like that? Um, I wouldn't say my role is a reshape the narrative. It's, it's more so to, to communicate to his broadened audience as possible, uh, what's actually going on and, and why sometimes change seems impossible. Yeah. Uh, and, and to hopefully instill in them, uh, a sense of hope for a better future. Yeah. And, and try to get them to organize in that direction so we can achieve it. Tell me more about your, your style of communication to me as a, as a, as a media figure that's interesting, but also for our viewers and listeners. Like, what are the things you do or the things you don't? I mean, I, I would say I have a very rude and very brash style of communicating, which sometimes gets me in the trouble, example. Um, well, uh, the, the most famous one, this is, we're filming this on, well, I guess it's, uh, is today 9/11 technically here as well. Okay. In Europe, it is now, yeah. In Europe, it's 9/11. It's about to be 9/11 in America as well, uh, September 11. I, 2019, I said, America deserved 9/11. Uh, we brought it upon ourselves. We, uh, we totally did. And then I got into a lot of trouble for saying that, um, part of that was, or, or part of that was because it was misconstrued. But I also took ownership over the language that I use. I shouldn't have deserved, right? Cause I was talking about blowback, like our meddling in the affairs of the Middle East, uh, created an environment like these people that we had armed in the past, the fighting against the Soviets, uh, eventually turned on us. And, and, you know, uh, did a heinous active terror that killed almost 3000 American citizens. And, and it was, it was obviously a horrifying tragedy. But, um, to this day in the 25th anniversary, like what we've done in the aftermath of that has been unbelievably consequential unbelievably violent tens of millions of people displaced millions killed, um, trillions of dollars of American resources went into this endeavor. It's like we deserve death. Yeah. And, and, uh, people, people got very upset about, uh, the language that I used, but I think people should be more upset about the failure of the global war on terror than the language that, you know, a two streamer used in 2019 that he apologized for one day after. It's like moving, like, like on the right, they have this tactic, um, moving on an overton fan story. Yes. Right? Yeah. I said it in Dutch, the overton, uh, window. And, um, the, the, it's, it's, it's a very nice tactic to, to make sure you, you can say as much as you want. Um, and, and what's normal, you know, the normalizing you normal life, normalizing far right sentiment. Yes. Is that something you do on the left? Um, to a degree, I think, but, but I also don't consider my world view to be, um, irrational or, or violent in the way that I think the far right is. Cause at the end of the day, uh, for the far right, or just right wing in general, now in America, which has now become the far right, ironically enough, because of the successes of the initiative that you just pointed out. Um, their ultimate goals revolve around ethnic purity, national purity, uh, and, and that ultimately is a violent endeavor, right? this idea, like tribalism yields. violence against the out group, no matter what. Whereas my worldview is egalitarian. My approach and my approach in this subject matter is also egalitarian. My goal is to pull back against those right wing forces and try to re-center some of these first principles that Western liberal democracy was built on, like pluralism, having a diverse society that cares about making sure that every citizen is taking care of, every human being is taking care of. Because I want to unlock the potential that the masses have that currently don't have an opportunity to fully achieve their potential because of the material struggles that they experience. It's something where I guess we're all looking for us as press, as left wing politicians, left wing people like you. What's the answer to right wingers moving the overtone window? And do you think your method is working? Yes and no. I think my method is working in the sense that obviously I've become fairly successful in American media. I'm the largest left wing content creator, broadcaster in the country. But it's also met a lot of resistance. I would say more resistance than the far right has ever experienced because we have two different enemies in this regard. We have obviously the reactionary right. But then also there are elements within the liberal party which is supposed to comprise of the anti-Trump coalition, the left flank of American politics that also opposes our platform, also opposes the things that we want to advance, whether it be something as simple as Medicare for all or even something a little bit more complicated like restraining American militarism. Foreign policy, unfortunately, is very uniparty in Washington, D.C. And so is the attitude around healthcare. Both parties and both of the parties of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party still want to maintain a privatized system of healthcare in the country. So we oppose that and we push for socialized medicine, universal healthcare access, and of course for that reason we not only get attacked by the right, but we also sometimes get attacked by liberals as well. Yeah. I'm just thinking about what should be the method to make sure you're fighting a different fight than the people here. Like we have multiple party systems. Yeah. You're aware of that? Like the difference in our democracy. Yeah. So there's a party for everybody. But it also turns into coalitions, right? So ultimately there's still like a left flank coalition and a right flank coalition. Kind of. It's been more difficult the last couple of years, but kind of. Yeah. Yeah. But you know, you are up against two parties now, you and your story. So I'm thinking should you change tactics then or become more radical or what's the what's the what's the ball game now? I there are some people who believe that that is the goal or that is what we should be doing right now. But I feel like our movement is in its infancy stage at this moment. Americans are very antagonistic to the term socialism. They've been socially conditioned into believing that socialism and communism, these are dangerous ideas. These are un-American due to the Cold War. There's still this remnant hatred towards any kind of socialization because of the endless sequence of propaganda from the red scare. Americans are also not very class conscious. There's this quote that's falsely attributed to Steinbeck that I like that during the Great Depression era, someone said socialism will never take root in America because the working class do not see themselves as an exploited proletariat, but temporarily embarrassed millionaires. And that is very real. A lot of Americans think, Oh, I'm I'm going to be a millionaire one day, and then the poor is better look out. Once I become a millionaire, those poor is they're going to get it and they don't realize their class position. Yeah. Yeah. And and they don't advocate for their class interests. So I think one of the most important things for our movement to do at this stage is to try to to ferment class consciousness. And that's ultimately what I'm trying to do. And how do you sell that? Like, like, sometimes I have these conversations with people in Holland, and I ask them that the sales pitch for socialism. Yeah. And I got a lot of different answers, but not that quite, you know, good actually. Yeah. What's your sales pitch for socialism? I mean, look around that's it. The system has failed people. There's a massive cost of living crisis taking place in every single country. But the reality of the matter is that we have enough wealth for everyone to have material comforts. Yeah. And and also pursue their hobbies and their interests. And yet we struggle on a daily basis. And the struggle seems endless. And and the material conditions are worsening year over year. The cost of living crisis in housing has become a real issue in every single European capital in the United States. We know the problems. Yeah. We need and like, and the answer, the answer to that, the answer to that is to retool the system to benefit the individual to benefit the working class to push back against real estate speculators, for example, to to build a robust government-backed housing initiative. So that every person is is assured to have housing, adequate housing. So if if you're like, like in a restaurant and I'm a capitalist, then what would be the pitch? Like, like, I will tell you like, so, okay, you can escape this system by making a lot of money and then have a couple of cars and a and a big penthouse and so much money that you don't have to work ever again. And then and then it's your turn. So what do you tell me? I would tell you that there are billions of people all around the world and also, you know, thousands of people around us right now. I'd point to the to the waiter and say, look, yeah, this guy could have a much easier life. He could still be working here but have a much easier life if he had more of a say in the productive output that he that he is or that he contributes to in this restaurant. He understands, you know, serving tables better than the manager does. He could actually increase the productivity of the of the restaurant itself. But the way that our system is designed, he has no say in the matter. He has no autonomy in his life. He has no time to himself. If, you know, God forbid he has a health scare, he's going to have a difficult time getting back to work. Maybe it's going to be hard for him to take time off. We have to change that. We also don't know if that waiter could potentially pursue a PhD and go get a medical degree or become a medical researcher and eventually find the cure for cancer. There are billions of stories like this all around the world. And I think in order to advance humanity, we have to recognize that capitalism has outlived its usefulness. It was good. It was better than feudalism. It's better than monarchies. And certainly there were a lot of social gains that took place in the process. But it is clear that nowadays there are billions of people whose potential are being cut short as a direct consequence of the current system that we operate under, the current system that we exist under. So in order for there to be true prosperity, we have to evolve beyond the current system. Is there a future for the democratic party in the USA, maybe in your ideal world or maybe in real life? I mean, in my ideal scenario, there would be a separate socialist party that was broadly popular and worked alongside labor unions and also created more labor union participation in the American economy and was able to even engage in re-industrialization of the American heartland in a way that was beneficial for the working class. That is obviously pying this guy idealism. It's very difficult to accomplish. So we work within the confines of permissibility. We work with what is possible. And as far as ballot access goes, as far as being able to present our goals and legitimize our worldview to as broad an audience as possible, working within the democratic party is the best strategy at this moment. Yeah, why is that? Because the American system is designed to basically eviscerate third parties. There's no third party viability. It's quite difficult to gain any sort of gain any sort of influence. I mean, you can do it as an independent, sometimes Bernie Sanders, an independent senator from Vermont, but even then he caucuses with the Democrats. He's basically a Democrat, even though he's a democratic socialist. So it's virtually impossible to use the electoral system to present your platform or your program. because you'll never win. You won't even make it out. You won't even make it to the finish line if you are running as a third party currently. But you openly support Democrats, which you understand in this story, but it's also like a pro-Israel party actually. And so you have to like contribute to a system that works against your ideals. How do you do that? How does it feel? So that's actually really an interesting point that you brought up because what is a party if not its voters, right? And the Democratic Party's base of support, its voters, they're not pro-Israel. It's actually now a 90-10 issue where 90 percent of self-identifying Democrats and overwhelming majorities of independence actually want to critically re-examine our relationship with Israel. So there is mass support for this and mass appeal for my kind of politics, our kind of politics, anti-Zionism. However, the Democratic Party's politicians are refusing to listen to the demands of the moral center of not only its party's base of support, but basically the majority, the moral majority of the country. And that creates a unique predicament. But that is also precisely the reason why we've seen a lot of success despite being outspent in every single one of these races. Are you familiar with the Tea Party? Yeah, back in the days. So back in the day, I think it was like Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin was like the most popular expression of it as the Vice President. But in 2010, the Tea Party ran. It was an astroturf movement back by the Koch brothers. They're billionaire backers of the Republican Party broadly, but they wanted to move the Republican party further in the direction of anarcho-capitalism further in the direction of right wing libertarianism. So they ran a bunch of candidates. They were well-funded and well-organized, but again, it was an astroturf movement. It wasn't like there was a lot of popular support for it, but it didn't matter. They had a lot of money. They were only able to flip two incumbent seats and run in two open seats as well. So they got four wins in 2010. This was seen as this massive movement, the seismic shift in the Republican Party. We've had 10 incumbents so far. We've had 10 victories so far and many more incumbents have been flipped in the process in just this primary cycle alone. And we were able to do that without billions of dollars of money to interest backing our candidates. It was pure grassroots mobilization. And that's what you're trying to do here. Like flip seats into-- Flip seats, democratic socialists within the party. Yes. And not only that, but also the goal here is to run candidates who are on-bought, run candidates who are on-boss, run candidates who are not going to abide by the party line that the Democrats are pushing and actually be more responsive to the needs of the base. And then once we win, we govern successfully as well. And we associate good governance with democratic socialism. You say we. Yes. What does it tell me? I mean, this is not the movement of one person. This is just like a broad people-backed movement. Yeah, okay, but the people in power and people in charge and then you're like, stand alone. But you feel like you're being part of that movement. Yeah. And it's politicians. It's you as a politician. It's organizing. Yeah. It's labor unions. Yeah, it's anyone and everyone that feels as though this system needs necessary changes. I do feel like I feel frustrated that these changes are not coming from either of these established parties. So you team up with media and politicians? Well, I guess I want to say team up because there's no there's no teaming up in the media really. It's just like a bunch of independent media outlets on the internet. Like to me, I feel like a big, big distance between me and politicians. Although I do have views. People know that. I do have quite progressive views and left wing views. But I always keep my distance from right wing politicians, left wing politicians, the other people in charge say the power. I have the questions. But do you see like I mean, it's because it's necessary in the USA, right? Like you're a team with some politicians and a team with organizers. Yeah. No, I understand. There's a layer of independence in the media in Europe and in America, unfortunately, since the Fox News wave, like since the Rupert Murdoge, Roger Ailes era, I think Fox News is not a secret. It operates as an organ of propaganda for the Republican Party. Democrats don't even have something similar. I guess they have MS now, MSNBC now known as MS now. And that is an organ of propaganda for the, I guess, liberal democratic party. Yeah. But there is no, there is no socialist organ of propaganda. There's no socialist platform in general. And while I still maintain my independence, because there's criticisms that I have for even Zoram Omnani, who I was an early endorser of and boosted a lot initially. I still have criticisms of him. I understand that we are a part of a broader movement that we're all playing a different role in this broader movement that will hopefully change the American trajectory into a positive one. So you're making a shift towards the people in charge, the people in power. How do you make sure you won't be compromised the next upcoming years? This is a good question. Well, part of that is because I'm accountable to my audience. That's it. I'm accountable to no one but my people, my audience. And I think that is, I guess, one of the ways in which I maintain my integrity. Yeah. I have a moral compass. I'm a very stubborn person. I've been fighting for these same issues for a decade now. So it'd be really strange if I just all of a sudden flipped on them. People would go, that's a little weird. You know, if I all of a sudden was like, Hey, you know, it's real actually, it's fine that they have an apartheid. They have to keep it. You know, if I just all of a sudden turned on that, people would say that's ridiculous. But the more people you help get in charge, the more power you get. And how do you make sure you won't be a real propaganda channel for the people in charge? That's a good question. So you keep your own agenda and your own ideals. I guess once again, it's the integrity that I represent regardless. Because like I said, Zoram Umdani is a 34 year old Muslim socialist. I'm also a 34 at the time. I was also a 34 year old Muslim socialist in America. He's like, the closest I've ever felt to being represented, right? And yet I still have many, many criticisms for Zoram as well. Same with AOC, someone that I've worked alongside for many years at this point, someone that I talk to all the time, I still have criticisms for her as well. So I care about making sure that I am covering the news truthfully, more than anything else. So I guess that's the, that's my own personal convictions on a matter. That's a promise to your viewers and to yourself, maybe them. Yeah. And a thing you're busy with in your head like, yeah, yeah. In a way, keep a distance. And in a way, definitely, make sure, I want to, I want to make sure that these guys win. But more importantly than that, if they were to win and then betray the movement, then that means nothing. Then all of those people that poured hours and hours of work into getting these people elected would feel discouraged. It would create tremendous apathy. So of course, it's very important to hold these guys to account as well. Luckily for us, it hasn't been all that difficult. Although I do have my criticisms for every single one of these politicians that I work with that I even admire like Bernie Sanders, you know, in the, in a long enough timeline, they've, they've done a pretty good job so far. So the Republicans have embraced right wing podcasters like name them Joe Rogan and all the guys. But the Democrats, Democrats seem to not really do that with you. Yeah. Well, because here's the difference, right? Charlie Kirk is the best analogy here. Charlie Kirk was a party apparatchic like he worked as a servant of not the people, but a servant of the party. And the best example I can use is Charlie Kirk talked exclusively about Jeffrey Epstein extensively about Jeffrey Epstein until Donald Trump called him one day and said, stop talking about Jeffrey Epstein. That to me is is is something entirely different than the role I play. And that is also precisely the reason why there's so much friction. There's this real divergence between voters and the politician. There's almost this antagonistic relationship between the voters and the politicians on the democratic party side. And I am simply a megaphone, a platform for the desires of the base for the desires of the masses. And therefore, in an environment where the Democrats don't want to listen to their base, having someone like myself go around and talk directly with politicians and have them actually win their elections in these contentious primaries against billions of dollars of money to interest being spent to make sure that they don't win. That creates a unique problem for a lot of Democrats in power. And that is precisely the reason why they attack me so viciously. - Are you a danger to them, you think? - Am I a danger to do nothing, Democrats? Yes, I think so, 100%. I think that the real danger is not me, the real danger is democracy. I think they oppose the democratic process. They oppose the system that was designed to ensure that our elected representatives represent our interests. They oppose that. They want to maintain their comfortable seats, they want to protect their comfortable scenicures. And the easiest route to do that is to become a slave to corporations and push whatever bills that lobbyists write for them. That lobbyists send them. And they get rewarded endlessly for it with millions of dollars of fundraising. - You named Charlie Kirk? One year ago, Charlie was killed this week, I guess, right? - Yeah, yes, yeah, yeah. You had a quote in an essay in the New York Times, "File and it's almost never originates in a vacuum." And the killing of a high-profile political content creator regardless of why it happened, speaks to a breakdown in our social order. The big difference between where you are right now and your country, one of the big difference is gun violence. We cannot imagine having people walking around. I do not even know someone with a gun. There's not a chance in hell. Is it something you're afraid of? Could I be the next Charlie Kirk? I am a little worried for sure. I mean, look, I get death threats all the time. I mean, especially around 9/11, especially around Charlie Kirk's assassination, there are people, if you go on Twitter right now, people talking about how they're going to kill me at my next public event. It's just, unfortunately, a thing that happens in American politics. - Do you get any extra security or maybe cancel events or anything like that? - I don't cancel events. Sometimes I have security, but I just have a policy of not letting fear, guide my life, and in the immediate aftermath of Charlie's assassination, we were supposed to debate one another two weeks after the date of his assassination. - But were you have told him? - Well, we were actually supposed to debate one another on the issue of Israel, ironically enough, which then became this big conspiracy that he was actually going to turn on Israel and that's why Israel killed him. That was a huge, in America, a lot of people believed that, which is kind of strange to believe considering that we were both preparing for a debate where the primary issue was going to be Republicans are pro-Israel, but younger voters are not. You're the guy who's supposed to get young people activated to go and vote for the Republicans. How do you go about doing that when it's very clear that people are turning, young people, especially are turning on Israel? - Were you mourning his death? - Mourning, I'm not a mourner in general. I don't know, I just have like a, I'm weird, I'm a strange person, I'm not, I don't know how to handle grievance in general, even including with family members. - Do you feel grievance? - No, I feel like, I feel like even with family members, I have this like ultra rational perspective that comes across as irrational because it's almost like not human where I think like, well they've lived a wonderful life. I choose to look at their accomplishments and the things that they've been able to do in their lifespan and cherish that rather than think about their lives ending. - It's interesting because the things you stand for are based on solidarity and caring for people, maybe empathy, anything else like that. It sounds like a feeling thing, but your motive for this is, tell me about your motives for doing what you do. Is it more like reactive? Is it because of empathy? Is it more like a very rational lack of calculation? - I mean, I think it's both. There's an argument to make on both ends. Yes, first and foremost, it is empathy. When you see someone suffering, you wanna lend it helping hand. And do you feel that the worst at the more logical to you? - No, I do feel that. But then also, I guess these are these two, they're not necessarily contradicting forces inside of me, but there's these two different forces inside of me where I also think about it from a rational perspective where it's like a society doesn't take care of, of their wounded, a society that doesn't take care of, of the people that are experiencing the worst hardships is not a successful one. It's not a successful society at all. And like I said, I gave you the example of like unlocking the potential of the masses. I feel like there's so much more we could do, so many more things that we could accomplish. If we were to give people a little bit more breathing room. - It's a rational thing. - Yeah, I do care about making sure that people, I try to identify how people arrive at the positions that they arrive at. I think about that all the time. I think it's a lot of it is social conditioning. And I try to untangle that and I try to deconstruct that to the best of my ability when I'm communicating with people to try to get them to change their minds and see the world from my perspective, right? And of course I empathize with the issues that they experience. But also there is definitely a rationale behind the world view that I represent. It's simple, like I always use this as an example when I'm talking about homelessness. Nobody wants to see homeless people at the end of the day. There's a selfish, there's a selfish way that you cannot advocate for combating homelessness, which is like the empathetic ways, look at these people they're suffering, you know? We have to help them. The rational and cold heart logical way to look at it is you don't want people that are experiencing struggles out and broad daylight experiencing like mental health episodes and broad daylight, someone has to help them. The government has to come in and take care of that. The government has to come in and make sure that there are no homeless people that are on the streets. And the first thing that the government must do is to make sure that they have housing, proper housing and adequate mental health care. That's the, I guess the rational or the more selfish way to-- Yeah, it's more like individualism. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, there's an argument to be made on both ends. Yeah, funny, to me, there's your sales pitch for the people that are new to socialism. Like socialism can be sold as individualism. It is. It will be a massive, we don't do this. No, but that's like a very misunderstood element of Marxism in particular. It's like Marxism is, of course, individualistic. Of course, there is individual liberties in a socialist mode of governance that you normally don't have. If we were to look at socialization and like countries that are closer towards socialism versus further away from socialism, who has more free time? A person that doesn't have to worry about medical debt or a person who does. I think this is-- Who has more freedom? Yeah, which is-- Who has more freedom? A person who can maybe leave their job and pursue a career ambition and maybe even become a much more productive member of society because their health care is not tied to their employment. Yeah. That is true freedom. Socialism is supposed to unlock more time for people to regain autonomy. Socialists historically have fought for this. Before socialist movements, trade unionist movements, anarchist movements fought to establish a five-day work week. People used to work seven days a week. They had child labor, right? These were real freedoms that people fought for. Sometimes died in the process of fighting for. And now we take it for granted. So socialism is freedom. Yeah, of course. What's your most radical stance? My most radical stance, which we don't know about. There's so many. Give me one. There's so many. Everything I say in America, everything I say people treat as radical. But I think even here-- This is Dutch. I know, but here this is the heart of NATO. I'm an anti-NATO, for example. NATO is an expression of American imperialism. And I think that in order for Europe to regain sovereignty, which is an absolute necessity, especially with this growing wave of mega-fascism, and the international fascist movement taking the shape of MAGA weirdly enough. I don't know if you guys have noticed that. It's very strange phenomenon. It's so weird. You got people wearing MAGA hats in Europe that are far-right nationalist. And I'm like, I don't think that's how it's supposed to work. Yeah. No, no, it's like the paradox of-- It's the same with Israel, like-- You're like America first. Yeah, what do you mean? You're America first, but you're like a European fascist. How does that work? Yeah, well, it doesn't make any sense. But yeah, I say NATO is an expression of American imperialism. It's a big topic. What do we do with NATO? Yeah, like most of the people are pro-NATO. And I don't understand the danger that's coming. I mean, it's pretty obvious. Trump is openly-- you know, Trump is-- saying the quiet part out loud. And yet it's shocking to me that European leadership is refusing to reckon with it. They got a little taste of it with Greenland, right? And it was really interesting because it highlighted, it's shined a bright spotlight on that hypocrisy, right? One week prior to Trump coming out and saying, "We're gonna invade Greenland. We're gonna annex it militarily." And maybe even Canada, what did he do? He deposed Maduro, right? The head of a sovereign nation, Venezuela. Brutal, despotic, sure, doesn't matter. Still, it was totally illegal, right? Yeah. It was irrational, it was irresponsible, it was violent. And yet, European leadership celebrated it. One week after that, he said, "I'm gonna mail Terri Leonics Greenland." And they said, "Whoa, whoa, whoa. What do you mean? You can't treat it. We're NATO country. We're Europe. What do you mean? We're fearful of Russian incursion. And now we have to worry about American incursion from our Western flag, what is going on? That is the-- But that's the danger of Trump. That is not just a danger of Trump. That's the danger of American imperialism. Trump is just the last manifestation of it. Much more honest and much more vulgar. Yeah, he's open of manifestation of it, yeah. So that's what my point is, and in order to fight back against that, in order to fight back against Trumpism, fascism, and American imperialism, Europe has to regain its sovereignty. But as long as they maintain the American security contracts that are beneficial for certain industries, you got Germany reindustrializing and getting involved in the defense sector now in a more meaningful way. And that is obviously beneficial for certain kinds of capitalists. Should we leave NATO in the rest of the countries or kick the USA out? I think there needs to be a separate political cooperative agreement that focuses on the interests of the European continent, rather than is used as an expression of American dominance, American force projection capabilities. I mean, if it were up to me, I would disband NATO and its entirety, yes. What NATO did in the aftermath of World War II was obviously purge the socialist and communist sympathies from Western Europe and that they did so successfully. They did it in my country, Turkey as well. And basically reassert Western capitalism and the dominance of capital in these countries. What NATO is doing now is Americanizing Europe. The demand for 5% of your GDP going back to the defense sector, some of which will be spent on American manufacturers, and some of which will be, or all of it will be spent on American manufacturers, or some of it will be spent on domestic industry. Let me tell you, as a warning as an American, it's gonna come from your healthcare, it's gonna come from your public transit. - Yeah, we know, yeah, it's happening right now. - It's coming from the social welfare. So that is America reasserting its dominance, that is America creating opportunities for capital because in order to create an environment where you're spending 5% of GDP on defense, you have to do austerity. And when austerity kicks in, private enterprise comes in and says, oh, we'll handle it from here. We'll take over from here. This is exactly what happened in the UK as well. From the Thacherite neoliberal reforms that took place in the UK, that also gave way to this new growth of a fascist movement the discontented masses, the angry masses, then we're taking advantage of and reform and restore and all these other fascist formations came in and said, you're angry, your trains are not running on time. You don't have the same welfare initiatives, you don't have the same industry here, and that's because Muslims are coming. That's because refugees are coming into the country. - It's the same here. - Yeah, you know, do you know what I heard builders and the blonde of guys. - Of course, yeah, the Netherlands Trump. - Quite like, yeah. - Yeah, yeah. - But gay, right, I think. - No, no, no, he's not, our prime minister, he says he's not, I don't know, I don't know anything. - We don't know either, I don't care anyway. - Yeah, he's, yeah, he's exactly what I'm talking about. And it's so funny because like, these are the exact same problems that everyone is experiencing. Maybe they're further along the way in America, maybe we're closer to a fascist mode of governance than you guys are, but then you see the rise of AFD, the rise of the national front in France and reform in the UK and Gert Wilders in the Netherlands. And these guys are, they are taking advantage of the understandable enmity that a lot of people feel and redirecting that anger to vulnerable populations, redirecting that anger to two people that have the exact same class interest. Because at the end of the day, a refugee or a second generation migrant, they wanna work. They wanna roof over their heads. They want job stability. They want a better future for their children. That's identical to the rest of the population that's been living in the Netherlands for numerous generations. They have the same interest. - Bring us back to the start of this conversation about laws and yeah, exactly. And yet, these people who are servants of capital and I guess in a closer association, servants of American empire, right? People that care about the interests of capital owners that don't care about the interests of the masses seek to divide the masses and actively do divide the masses. And if there is no strong resistance against that that tries to keep everyone together and to explain to people like, no, no, no, no, you shouldn't be fighting amongst yourselves. It's not about left versus right, it's up versus down that those in positions of profound power are making you feel like your neighbor is your enemy. When your neighbor has the same exact interests as you, if we don't unite and if the liberal politicians try to keep the established order together and are more predisposed with fighting their left blank rather than the growth of fascism in their countries, fascism is going to take over. - What's your message to our countries here in the West and the West of Europe? Like what would you tell us? - I think you got to stop eating Trump's dick. (laughing) That's my message, like there are so many wonderful things in theory that the post-World War II design was supposed to create human rights and international order and it created some semblance of stability early on. But of course it was very quickly weaponized against America's enemies and still weaponizing as America's enemies to this day. And there's no accountability for America, my country, right? I think that that system needs to change. And we have to abide by the first principles that were established. That's number one and number two, I think European countries need to rebuild sovereignty. And that sovereignty is not going to come from nationalist parties and fascist parties and far-right parties, they're lying. We saw this with Maloney. Maloney was very critical of America, very critical of NATO when she was running, right? And she came from that fascist tradition. So of course, if anyone was even remotely familiar with Italian fascism, they knew that that was lie. They knew that was bullshit, right? It was. And now she is a loyal servant of NATO and a loyal soldier for Donald Trump. Because no matter what fascists express when they're running to seize power, ultimately they will still abide by America's interests. That's precisely what NATO had done in Italy, ironically enough. And that is part of the reason why I never thought that Maloney was going to be against NATO at all. - Shouldn't it be like then, or do you mean like stop eating the United States dick? - Yeah. - Anyway, like Trump or any other Democrat? - Yeah, Trump is just the reason why I use Trump is because he's such a repulsive figure. And there's a lot of anger towards Donald Trump in Europe, even by liberals, that might love being a vassal to America otherwise. - It's our marker to that cosm daddy, right? - Yeah, yeah, marker to that. - Yeah. - I think the reason why they do it is because they think they can just like wait this out. - That's what it is. - Yeah, yeah. - I think that's it. - Yeah, that's what it's like. - That's what it's like. - He will be gone in two years or two years or whatever, and then they don't expect to normal. - They don't understand. He's not going, he's not leaving. And Trumpism is not leaving, right? Like that is going to be a real expression unless we fight back against it. That is going to be, it's going to manifest itself in whoever carries the torch of that movement later down the line, but that system of control and domination is not going to go away. - You're going to the parliament in Brussels. Are you going to meet politicians? - I don't know, I don't think so. - I would like to see you twitching with the parliament members. - Yeah, and tell them stop eating Trump's dick in their face. Yeah, I don't think the politicians that will come up to me are. Maar ik wil dat doen. -Ik denk dat niet. Maar als je dat wilt doen, promise me. -Ja, ik wil dat doen. Dank je voor het kommer. -Dank je voor jou in mij. Dat was Hals van Piker. -Het was minuut, ja. -Wel kijk jij daar nou? Nou ja, we hadden natuurlijk als vraagstuk Hoeriet Radikal is hij eigenlijk. Als je ziet hoe hij wordt neergezet, zeg maar, dan denk je dat je een hele radicale man hier tegenover ons aan de lieve glank. Ik vond het net als bij Bernie Sanders een paar tekens die bij ons hadden in je geval niet pertezo. Nee, ik denk dat de naval het gevaarlijks is als gesprekse onderwerp niet zo zeer in de naastlipen wat hij zegt. Dat is iets waar wij in Nederland en ik denk Europa echt even niet aan willen. Nee. Nee, dat vond het ongeveer een hele radicale. -Ja, ja, ja. Eigenlijk besprekt hij ook wat wij hier hebben besproken heel vaak. Dan heen luisteren die navalormte en kosten van wat gaat dat dan. -Ja, precies. Dus dat is per dag geen gek gesprek, maar zijn tekken op mijn boren die kalf van het moeten maar meer stoppen. Ja, nog even een feitelijk ding, over die 90% van de democraten die de relatie tussen Israel en VS kritisch wilden herzien. Hij is echt 90% maar wij hebben 80% kunnen vinden. Ja, wij zijn ergens tussen de 63 en 80% dus hoger dan 80% kunnen wij niet gewoon niet verreferen. Dus we hebben toch even zo terugkomen. -Dink dat dat wel goed is, ja. Ja, zeker. En voor de rest filmen ook op hoe ongemakkelijk hij werd die hij begon over dat rauwe over Charlie Keur. Ja. -Hoe die ging zitten en dat ging helemaal aan zijn jasje zo een beetje. Ja, zo, dat ging helemaal heel hard. Ziet er op eens waar hij daarvoor heel relekt zat. Hij zegt dat ik ben niet zo snel niet relekt. -Nee. Maar op een stoen merkte hij toch, die ben je echt niet meer relekt. Over zijn gevoel en motiven, daar werd het wat ongemakkelijk weer in daad. Maar goed, daar moeten jullie zelf conclusies uittrekken. Bottomline is, denk ik, aardig gast, voor daar heel radical. Je ziet dat wat rechts met hem doet dat dat eigenlijk denk ik irracioneel is. En dat zien we hier in Nederland ook. -Absoluut. Maar zijn ideeën zijn niet heel radical. Ik zou zeggen, het is eigenlijk basicsocialisme, hetzelfde als met Bernie Sanders. -Ja, klopt. En wat we ervan kunnen leer is misschien als je dat aanhangt met welke bril. Kun je dan kijken naar bijvoorbeeld Navo en de plek van Amerika als imperialistisch rijk? -Ja. Wat ik het aan heel de zwaar aan? -Ik denk het wel echt, ja. Want woon vond jij het met hem? Vond jij er nog iets van? -Ik vond het een feindelijk verant. En een Amerikaan? -Ja. Dat is ander spraten, dan met een Europese. -O, opmerk je dan? Dat maakt hij met Amerika. -Andere retorieke. En hij heeft dan nog wel, hij ligt nog best dicht bij ons, zeg maar. Bernie Sanders was ook nog politicus. -Ja. Dus dan krijg je veel one-liners, dat zet er wat aan gingen, hij wel best voorbij. En in principe sluit ik me aan dat hij zegt dat er radicalen ja, dat was best wel mee. Ik heb hem niet gehoord over een gebaafende revalutie, bijvoorbeeld. Ik denk dat die uitspraken, again, die in haar res sproken zijn, dat hij dat aardig kan nu ontzeren. En hij heeft al af en toe radicalen dingen, zeg maar, dat maakt hij er niet aan radicalen. -Nee. Nee. -Nee. Nou. -Onze zoekt toch naar radicalen aan Amerikaan een duurt voort. En precies, we gaan verder, je zijn er vast. Als je denkt, ik zou deze gastels willen horen in radio-boos vanuit Nederland, vanuit Europa, vanuit de hele wereld. Dan laten we ons even weten, boos binnenvaren.nl, dat vind ik wel hartstikke leuk en booyent. Ponderweg zouden we weer met een reguliere podcast. En goed om te zeggen, binnenkort komen we weer grote onderzoeken. Om de reguliere boos natuurlijk. -Ja, dat zijn druk bezig. Die onderzoeken komen we weer, en ook in 2007 gaan we daarmee door en liever vaker. Dus we weten dat tot volgende week.