Listen to this episode

Speaker A: Hassan, you just got back from Cuba? Yeah.

Speaker B: Yes.

Speaker A: Hassan Piker is a twitch streamer. A progressive guy. I mean, I know a lot of Americans are concerned about war in Iran right now. So why did you want to head to the Caribbean?

Speaker B: Because unfortunately, the American war machine doesn’t just stop at Iran. It’s. It’s constantly, everywhere, all at once. And I wanted to investigate the ways in which my government has engaged in economic warfare.

Speaker A: Hasan’s seen the same headlines you have. The ones explaining that after the US Took over Venezuela’s oil business back in January, Cuba got cut off. The result has been blackouts and uncertainty. All eyes are on Cuba as the world waits to see what will happen to the leaders and the people of the Caribbean island nation. With the US Blocking Venezuela’s oil to Cuba, they see the system falling. CBS News.

Speaker B: No oil tanker is allowed to go to Cuba and deliver oil. Right. Starving the island of this necessary resource which has created this major energy crisis. You know, rolling blackouts for 30 plus hours at a time. Entire city blocks are just like, utterly devoid of power. Uh, we’re talking like street lights don’t work, right? Like road. The. The normal functions, like the basic functions of governance are just like completely in a state of collapse.

Speaker A: Do you consider this a different kind of warfare?

Speaker B: Yes. I think this is still very much collective punishment. It’s a war crime, but it is, it is economic warfare.

Speaker A: And there’s a purpose behind this. Like Donald Trump has said, I think I will take Cuba. I do believe I’ll be the honor of having the honor of taking Cuba.

Speaker B: That’d be a good honor. That’s a big honor. Taking Cuba. Taking Cuba in some form. Yeah, taking Cuba. I mean, whether I free. Yeah. Like a. Like a bully, like a spoiled child.

Speaker A: What’s happening at the moment is an extreme version of what the US has been doing in Cuba for years, of course. Using sanctions to control everyday life in a bid to get rid of a repressive communist regime. It hasn’t worked before, but now conditions are worse. So Hassan’s group brought things they thought might help. Medicine, food, bicycles. As you might imagine, different people saw this trip different ways. Now more on the communist convoy to Cuba featuring pampered Western commies, including Hassan Pica, who is.

Speaker B: Baby, he’s wearing $1,500 Cartier sunglasses. Okay. While the people cannot eat in Cuba, and if they speak out like this guy is, they’d be thrown in jail with no redress. This is absurd. And all these humanitarian radicals, Laura, are staying at five star hotels. I couldn’t believe like, what the coverage looked like in America as opposed to what the situation on the ground looked like. I mean, this was put together with obviously the Treasury Department because we have to get our OFAC clearances, like 40 tons of aid. And alongside the Treasury Department, this was also in tandem with the Cuban government as well.

Speaker A: Right, because you were bringing solar panels, you were bringing all sorts of stuff, right?

Speaker B: Yeah, solar panels, medicine, food, other necessary items. Right. So like, obviously you can’t do that on your own in America. There’s tremendous restrictions.

Speaker A: Today on the show, Hasan explains what he saw in Cuba and how he thinks it fits into American foreign policy. Right now, Big picture, I’m Mary Harris. You’re listening to what next? Stick around. You got pushed back to your trip. As you might expect, places like Fox News were kind of obsessed with the fact that your group stayed in a five star hotel, the fact that you were at the Vanity Fair Oscars party and you flew to Cuba after that. And I guess I’m of two minds about this junket, which is that one. I think it’s good to draw attention to the oil embargo that the US has in effect. It’s impacting individual people in Cuba every day. I do think that economic policy has been totally lost in the coverage of Iran. But also there is an element to what you did that looked from the outside like disaster tourism. Did you grapple with that at all?

Speaker B: No. Not even a little bit.

Speaker A: Really?

Speaker B: No. And the reason why I say that is because, like, you have to. Well, first of all, I. There are 600 people that went, right. And there was no, like established itinerary. I didn’t participate in any of the events. Which is why it’s so funny that they’re always like, Hasan Piker was at this event with kneecap. I’m like, I wasn’t there. I actually went in.

Speaker A: 600 people is a lot.

Speaker B: Yeah. And it’s from all around the world as well. Like this wasn’t just like there were diplomats, foreign dignitaries, activists, advocates, journalists, content creators. So it was this massive trip with the, with the purpose of one, delivering aid. Two, showing that Cuba is not alone. Right. Like to show the, the Cuban population that we, we see their struggles and that we want to help them and, and engage in, you know, like a friendship tour. Right. And cultural, like sharing in their culture, sharing our, like engaging in a cultural exchange. This is stuff that, you know, people do all the time. This is stuff that has worked. But the last component of it was also to bring awareness to it. My goal specifically was to go and link up with journalists on the ground. There’s an independent journalist out called Belly of the Beast. They’re fantastic, and I was very fond of their work already. And my goal was to go and set up a bunch of interviews and. And, you know, investigate how much of the. The problems of the island were actually a consequence of redistributive policies or government failures and how much of the issues actually were born out of the blockade.

Speaker A: Tell me about one person you met. Tell me the story of a person you met that was clarifying for you.

Speaker B: Oh, great. Okay. So I interviewed doctors. I interviewed a neuroscientist.

Speaker A: Why these people.

Speaker B: These are just like regular Cubans. Like the regular, regular Cubans, some of which, like. Some of which have been pivotal in scientific achievements in Cuba. Like the one doctor that I interviewed here. I’ll pull up the actual information sheet so I don’t mess this up. But one of the doctors I interviewed is Dr. Michelle Valdez Sosa. He’s a neuroscientist and the director of C Neuro. So he is one of the scientists that actually played a role in creating the only working treatment for Alzheimer’s and dementia right now. And now these clinical trials ended in Cuba, and now they’re working on phase 3 clinical trials in Canada. So it was to also show that, like, I asked them about what the impact of the blockade is in academic research. Right. And he had fascinating stories, but. And, you know, horrifying stories, really. But then also on top of that, I wanted to see, like, you know, how this country is still able to accomplish so much even with the cards they’re dealt.

Speaker A: Some might look at this list of interviewees and just feel like, are you doing image rehab for the regime in Cuba as opposed to something more investigative? Like, what would you say to someone who has that reaction?

Speaker B: I would say that my. My goal ultimately was to go there and directly ask people, you know, regular people, because I. Because there’s interviews that we have with, like, cab drivers. You know what I mean? Like, it’s not. It’s not just, like, people who are, you know, playing a big role. I mean, these are very accomplished people, and I want to show that. But also we were asking ordinary Cubans as well how they felt. And my primary goal here was to. Because I obviously have this feeling, have this opinion that I know that the sanctions, given all the research that has been conducted on the dangers of sanctions and the violence that it brings about from, you know, Jeff Stein’s work at The Washington Post all the way to the Lancet study that just recently came out showcasing that like 38 million people have died around the world as a consequence of sanctions, like an economic warfare and its impact. I already know that that was a massive hardship, but I was more so invested in trying to figure out, make the invisible more visible.

Speaker A: Show individual people within that story.

Speaker B: Show individual people, yes, show the hardships, but more so to show. Exactly. To pinpoint with exact accuracy where in the, the, the manufacturing process, for example, where there were like massive hang ups. Like, because I’ll give you some stories, I. So I interviewed a surgeon in one of the large. In the largest hospital in Cuba. He is a, and this is hard to. This. He’s a, He’s a jaw surgeon.

Speaker A: He does like jawline reconstructive surgery for people who’ve had cancer, right?

Speaker B: Yeah, throat cancer and jaw cancer. Right. And his name is Guillermo Sanchez. And he told me that like, because I was asking like, how, how does the blockade impact like your, your day to day, like the way you treat your patients? And he was talking about how like Guillermo Sanchez went and, and looked for a 3D reconstruction, like a, like a 3D printer basically to recreate to, to recreate these jaws, right. For his patients to implant them. Yeah, it’s a. When, when he’s doing like jawline restoration or like reconstructive surgery. So obviously there is one of the restrictions that America has created is like if you have 10% or higher amount of components in any, in any product, you can’t sell that to Cuba. Right?

Speaker A: So if it’s 10% American, no machine for you.

Speaker B: And there’s a lot of things that are 10% American, right, like, because the machine. So they went to Germany and they went to France and, and the, and the German company said yes. They didn’t have 10% American components in it, and they said yes. Right. So he went in and he got like a lot of charitable contributions from people and also, you know, got the government to also kick in and they purchased this like multiple millions of dollars. It’s this massive 3D printer, right. They brought it in, they shipped it in and they started doing 3D printed jawline reconstruction. Right? Like they, they went in and they were able to start printing out these, these jaws. Unfortunately, the machine broke. So then they called up the German manufacturer and they said, hey, the machine broke. Is it possible for you to send a technician? Because this is a highly, a specialized tool. Right. So the technicians also have to be like, very knowledgeable and, and basically the, the German company said, no, we can’t send a technician. We can’t send a technician because we’re worried about, like, getting hit with American sanctions. This is just one anecdote, but there are millions of stories like this. Every single person I talk to that has played a role in, like, you know, developing medicine. Like academics that I talk to, every single person had a story exactly like this.

Speaker A: I think a lot of the pushback to the convoy you participated in, it comes down to strategic differences. Like, conservative Cuban exiles in the States have started talking about what’s going on right now as bad but necessary. Like Republican representatives basically saying, medicine is hard, but in the end the patient is cured. You know, it’s devastating to think about what’s happening, but, you know, it’s either short term pain or, you know, that’s the way we get to a free Cuba, essentially. Do people like that just like, drive you nuts? Like, how do you deal with that opinion?

Speaker B: It does. Especially because, like, this standpoint epistemology has been the, like the, the core of, of moralizing American intervention.

Speaker A: You mean people saying, I came from this country and therefore I have the moral standing to say we can treat these people poorly for an outcome that I prefer.

Speaker B: Yes. And I, and I find that totally ridiculous. And a lot of people will say, you sound out of touch when you’re yelling at a Cuban. I mean, they tried to do that with, with Camila Cabello when she came out. And right at the, right at the beginning of the, the oil blockade that Trump had issued, she came out and said, like, you know, the island is suffering, the island is starving, and it’s because of communism and it’s because of the authoritarian government. And I will say this, ok? I have gone to countries that are also considered foreign adversaries, right? And let me tell you, ok, Is there political repression? Sure, there is political repression in Cuba. As far as political repression from the government, I mean, they’re under siege. They’ve never had a moment to breathe. They’ve been under siege warfare pretty much for their entire existence. And not only that, but I mean, this is not even a justification for it, but this is like analysis, right, as to why these countries do the things that they do.

Speaker A: You’re saying they’re repressive to their people because they’re under pressure from outside actors from other countries.

Speaker B: Yes, yes, absolutely. And there is real frustration internally.

Speaker A: That sounds like forgiving them for their bad actions, though, sometimes.

Speaker B: Let me explain. Yeah, there is no, like, throughout American history, we have, during World War II, when we were waging, you know, when we were engaging in, you know, state warfare, we use the process of internment. Right. It’s a dark chapter in American history. Is it appropriate to engage in, you know, mass internment of Japanese people? Absolutely not. But like, states have done much more, worse, much worse things than even the Cuban government has. And none of that is still a justification for continuing the blockade.

Speaker A: You’re saying everyone’s hands are dirty. And I do see that, I think, where you. And I don’t think that’s what you focus on. Yeah, I mean, that’s a good point, too. I do think that the place where I see the point of people who are saying you need to do something hard to get a good outcome is that exerting pressure in the way Trump is can impact negotiations with other governments. What I see, though, is you actually have to have a legitimate end game. You have to have a place that you’re going. That’s what I see as missing here. Like, there’s no credible opposition in Cuba. There’s no one to swap in. If you’re somehow changing how the country operates, that’s just not going to happen. So that’s where I get frustrated. That’s my pov.

Speaker B: Well, I also, I mean, I’m a non interventionist in general. I think, like, look, I’m Turkish. There was a coup that took place at this point.

Speaker A: Hasan told this story about how he believes the United States was involved in trying to oust Turkey’s leader, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, years back. This coup failed. US Involvement was never proven. Many call it a fiction. But Turks did die in this attempted coup and Erdogan used the moment to further consolidate power. Now, the idea of Western support for regime change anywhere just doesn’t seem like a great idea to Hasan in Cuba or back home.

Speaker B: I can’t even go back to Turkey. My uncle passed away this past year. I couldn’t go to his funeral. Right. Because Turkey doesn’t have a lot of press freedoms. And even then, at that moment when that coup was happening, I said the preference that I would have is for Erdogan to continue pressing being in power. Because at the end of the day, even as someone who can’t go back, I say this to this day because I have an understanding that growing up in Turkey, my whole life, I believe that the far more successful way of implementing a democratic mass movement and mass mobilization is when it’s utterly devoid of Western intervention.

Speaker A: After the break, we’ve got more from Hasan in a Slate plus exclusive Extended conversation. Okay. I want to pivot and talk about you a little bit, and I feel like I want to do that because people talk about your audience as a kind of woke manosphere. I don’t know if you would take that as like an accurate depiction of your audience, but I’ll throw it out there. Is that how you see it?

Speaker B: I guess. I mean, it’s, there’s definitely a lot of. There’s definitely a lot of bros in my audience, for sure. I mean, part of the reason they are woke. So, yeah, I guess it makes sense.

Speaker A: I mean, I’m asking about that because over the last couple months, there certainly has been some evidence that the kind of younger voters who went for Donald Trump in 2024 are maybe changing their minds. And it made me wonder if you, as a guy who’s in this space is seeing your audience change. Like, are you see actual people who are coming to your feed who are like, hey, I was a Tucker Carlson guy, but now Hasan Piker all the way.

Speaker B: Yeah. I mean, that’s been going on for years. That’s, that’s. And it’s not even like a Tucker Carlson thing. I think it’s more so, like I’ve always had a lot of, A lot of young men in this space from, from when I first started doing commentary were, were a little bit rudderless. Like, they, they didn’t really find a place in the Democratic Party. They had their opinions on certain issues and they felt like the Democrats didn’t really represent those values at all.

Speaker A: The way you’ve described Democrats in the past. You said they code as fake as s***. And so it’s like they were feeling. That is what you’re saying from the political parties.

Speaker B: And they’re insincere. Right. And elitist and out of touch and smug in many respects, like from the perspective of like a young, a young man. Like, they grow up in this environment where they’re like, oh, this is, you know, this is. What are they offering me? Right. Other than just a lecture. Like, that’s their perspective. And many of them were also, I think, going down the right wing pipeline, the alt right pipeline. That was huge in the 2016-2018 era, if you recall. And I have been able to, in my opinion, pull a lot of those people out of that pipeline.

Speaker A: You feel like you’re in the conversion business.

Speaker B: Yeah, in some respects. Yeah. I always, I always tell my audience, like, my job when I’m talking about like anti blackness white supremacy. I’m not talking to black people because black people Know it, they experience it every day. When I’m talking about transphobia, I’m not talking to trans people. I’m talking to transphobic people or people in the margins who are at least somewhat more charitable to my perspective and who are, who can be convinced of the truth.

Speaker A: Do you think the. One of the issues now for the GOP as we’re watching these voters theoretically turn away from Trump, these younger voters, is that the GOP now codes as fake as s*** because they’re the ones in charge?

Speaker B: Yes and no. I think the GOP is definitely not fake in their, in their immoral and indecent politics. I think they’re, they’re tendency to lean into culture war issues are not fake. They genuinely are invested in that. But I think the reason why young people are decoupling from the GOP very fast, this isn’t something I predicted as well, something I talked about quite a bit, is because the thing that they lied about initially was that, that they were going to fix the inflation and the cost of living issues. Right. And they never did that.

Speaker A: Also, no more foreign wars.

Speaker B: Yeah, no more foreign wars. Fix the cost of living crisis and also deal with immigration, which they had created as this like, massive problem, as though it was like a real national security issue, that migrants were responsible for, you know, unlimited crimes on US soil or whatever. They were saying it was a lie, right? This was. There’s no empirical evidence for this. As a matter of fact, the evidence showed the exact opposite, that migrants, both undocumented and documented, were responsible for a far smaller share of crimes per capita than natural born US citizens were. But the Democrats unfortunately conceded on that because they were too fearful. They saw the polling, they didn’t counter signal, they didn’t counter message, and they completely dropped the ball and allowed the Republicans to dominate that conversation. And even on that issue, I think people are now realizing, yeah. What this meant, the idea that we have to deal with immigrants. It means kidnapping random neighbors in American cities, like sometimes occupying American cities with masked, unaccountable thugs. And people don’t like that. They very quickly found out that this is not what they wanted, actually. They thought only the criminals were going to be apprehended.

Speaker A: And turns out it’s just they’re apprehending landscapers and barbacks and people that are the signs said mass deportation now at the convention.

Speaker B: But yes, I think a lot of people in, a lot of people that vote, especially on the Republican Party side, they don’t really know what they’re voting for.

Speaker A: Yeah, I was Reading one of these articles about the young voters who are sort of rethinking their support for Trump, and I was really struck by this guy. This is an article in the Washington Post, guy named Josh Byers who said he’d lost faith in Trump over the war in Iran. And then his conclusion was, I don’t really want to vote anymore. Like, I’m really starting to just think it won’t matter. And I was like, wow, that’s a really bad outcome. That’s a bad outcome. I think personally, to be like, less involved, like, I guess there’s a harm reduction involved in that if you’re not voting for someone who I think is, you know, behaving as an autocrat. But it’s not the outcome that I think is going to get us where we need to go. That’s what I worry about right now.

Speaker B: Yeah, I mean, that’s what I’m desperately trying to change. There’s a lot of voter apathy that has always existed. And I think Trump, actually, to his credit, regardless of his fascism, is very good at activating low propensity voters. I mean, that much is clear, right? And he was able to do this in 2016, and he was certainly able to do this in 2024. That’s why he won. The problem is, I mean, he’s lying to the people that voted for him as well. But he was utilizing economic populism in some instances and right wing populism in others. But it was appealing because he was breaking the previous system that existed. Democrats, on the other hand, are seen as like, the system upholders. The defenders. Yeah, the upholders of the system. Even now, when we’re talking about Iran, like, what’s the number one thing that the national Democratic Party criticizes the Republicans over? Process. It’s not necessarily that, like, we shouldn’t be striking Iran at all. Like, what are we doing? We’re just like going to bomb a sovereign nation state all of a sudden because we don’t like their domestic policies or whatever kind of like, ridiculous reason that we design to create.

Speaker A: To be fair, the process here was crap.

Speaker B: No, of course. But like, but yeah, I hear what you’re, and, and numerous other Democrats are, are making an unconvincing argument when they say, and they did this with Maduro as well. They were like, maduro is a ruthless tyrant.

Speaker A: And what we are upset about is that you didn’t ask for congressional authorization before you kidnapped him.

Speaker B: That’s not an argument. If you’re like, imagine if you were like, yeah, Adolf Hitler is a monster. But I don’t like that you bombed his bunker. You should have asked us before he bombed his bunker. People are going to, the ordinary Americans are going to hear that and go, what do you mean? No, it’s awesome that they did that. You’re agreeing with us too. Like, what are you talking about? Right. And obviously I’m not making a comparison between Adolf Hitler and Maduro. But the point is you can’t justify the reasoning, you can’t concede on the reasoning as to why this military campaign took place and then just say, I’m upset with the process because most Americans don’t care about that. As a matter of fact, they like that Trump is breaking the process. That’s why they voted for him. He’s a hatchet.

Speaker A: I can see how they get hung up on process, though, because I get hung up on process when I see a 7am truth social post from Donald Trump on Monday of this week saying, okay, you know, I threatened to destroy the energy infrastructure, but now I’m in very serious talks with Iran. And so, you know, we’re going to hold off on that. Meanwhile, I’m sending Marines to the Middle East. Meanwhile, Iran is saying, actually, we’re not negotiating at all. Like, I can understand why, like a kitten with a ball of yarn, one would be like, but this makes no sense. And I, but I agree with you that you have to kind of get to the other side of that.

Speaker B: Yeah. But my point was basically that, like Trump’s, you know, Trump has this like, madman way of doing things. Right. And he’s like, he’s willing to take bold risks, like, at least to his base. This is how it reads. Right. But they have established a lot of confidence in him. It’s in a almost cult like way. I would say it is a cult. Right.

Speaker A: Yeah. You were marveling recently that I think 100% of MAGA supporters are like, yeah, war in Iran, thumbs up. Which is, which is an amazing statistic.

Speaker B: Yeah, it is. I mean, there’s, there’s, it’s, it’s, this is from cnn. I think it’s a cult. And that’s why they went from you know, only 30% approval for striking Iran to 50% approval and striking Iran the day that the strike happened. And then two days after, it was 75%. And now it’s at, now it’s trailing at 85%. Right. Like the, the numbers instantly change for the Republican Party approval on, on something that Donald Trump, dare I say, presented as a key part of his difference between himself And Kamala Harris is that he was a peace president. Kamala Harris was a warmonger.

Speaker A: The funny thing to me about this, how average voters are kind of being brought along with Iran, is that actually you’re seeing fracturing within the Republican elite and the media elite that supports Donald Trump. You know, you’re seeing Tucker Carlson talk about, I’m not in favorite, Candace Owens, you know, all these people. And then you see Joe Kent, this counterterrorism guy who just left the administration. We can say lots of things about why these are not people that we might support. But it is interesting to see this high level fracturing, whereas, like down below, it feels like the support is still there. Trump really could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue maybe.

Speaker B: Yeah, no, it’s.

Speaker A: He’s a call leader, which is why I always say the ray of hope is that that means that, like, the electoral support for the GOP is really just an illusion. That’s Donald Trump based.

Speaker B: Yeah, no, absolutely. I think that, I mean, I have a lot of thoughts on this as well, but I think that there’s not really like a, like a torch bearer, like, of, of like who is going to be the, the leader of the MAGA movement once Trump is gone. And I think J.D. vanessa gonna have a very hard time with that.

Speaker A: And I think, Mark, take it back to the Cuba of it all. I was gonna say Marco Rubio, he wants to go that torch.

Speaker B: Yeah. And I think, like, it’s just not happening for either of those guys because Marco Rubio is a neocon and JD Vance is. Is too greasy and gross and I think weak. He’s so desperate to be liked by all these different groups, including ones who consistently call him a race traitor for having an Indian wife and having Indian children. Right. Like, he’s actively trying to court the griper vote. And I think that makes him look very weak for a lot of other people in a way that like, Trump will. Will never be caught in the crosshairs. In a similar fashion where Trump is very bold. Right. He’s very confident in his communication style. And I think JD Vance is insincere and insecure.

Speaker A: You know, it’s interesting. I interviewed Adam Kinzinger recently, the GOP guy who left Congress. And he said Marco Rubio is the one person in the cabinet he could ever see himself supporting in the future. And I was like, really? Really? And he was like. Because I like, he’s the normalist. And I’m like, I guess it’s. But do I have to pick between these?

Speaker B: Well, there you Go. That’s why I never trust never Trump Republicans.

Speaker A: No, people do change their mind. But like, but it was interesting because I was like, this is how Marco Rubio does build support for himself. Do you know what I’m saying? Like, there.

Speaker B: This is how Adam Kinzinger is not Adam Kinzinger. And the never Trump Republican contingency is not a significant constituency that will make or break elections. I think it’s a lie that mainstream media has told ourselves. I think the base is like fully swung in the MAGA direction. And now at this point it’s like, who will be able to continue holding that base together by doing a decent amount of populist rhetoric, baking a decent amount of populist rhetoric, but also simultaneously continuing like American capitalism and American imperialism. And I think the guy for that is Tucker Carlson.

Speaker A: Deep breath.

Speaker B: Yeah, I think he’s the most dangerous Republican out there. And I think once again, going back to my criticisms of Democrats, as always, they don’t understand that there is currently an information vacuum. There’s a base of support for decoupling with Israel. And unfortunately, the National Democratic Party is falling short of being the leader of this. This cause.

Speaker A: They’re definitely not being the leader. They are following a little bit. You can see them trying to follow.

Speaker B: Yeah, they’re. It’s a just cause. And not only is it a just cause, but it’s a very popular one. Right. And you still have. I still see so much, so many shortcomings on the Democratic Party side, even from people who are close allies of mine as far as, like, how they communicate. I think they’re like very worried of coming across as, as not playing ball with the Republicans here. I think some are just like also invested in bombing Iran and you know, continuing to offer unlimited support to Israel because of AIPAC or for ideological commitments, you know, for a million different reasons.

Speaker A: But, and to be fair, some of those old school people in the party see you as a threat too. I mean, there was just a Wall Street Journal op ed that was like, Hasan biker is the enemy essentially. We need to stop being nice.

Speaker B: Yeah. Third Way. I think Third Way has never really had a popular base of support at all. Like, I don’t think there’s any Democrat out there who’s like, oh, we really need to do the bidding of billionaires. Right. Like, that’s never been a popular position. But at least they had like more institutional motion, institutional relevancy. And I think they’re recognizing now that they don’t have that institutional relevancy any longer. And In a desperate bid to, like, hold on to their grip of power amongst the political class, they’re trying to actively punish and yell and berate politicians who identify someone like myself as, like, a voice for a big chunk of the base within the party. And it’s really funny. It’s just an inability to read the room over and over again for third way guys that they chose Israel as, like, the point to attack me on because it’s like, that’s. I’m just representing literally the popular base of opinion. Like, this is. This is the mass opinion in this country right now. I don’t know what rooms, you know, you’re in if you’re in a third way. But the reality of the matter is, like, you go outside, you know, it’s. Especially amongst Democrats, I mean, it’s 90 to 10%. Like, that’s ridiculous. Right. So this demand that, like, Democratic hopefuls need to not associate themselves with someone who is. Not associate themselves with someone who’s like, who demonstrates and represents the popular opinion on this issue is ridiculous. You just. Do you want to lose? Like, I don’t understand what’s going on here. And I don’t think there’s a lot of real motion there. I think at most, like, they’ll get a couple Democrats to be fearful of associating with me. And if Democrats don’t want to do that, then they don’t have to. I don’t really necessarily care. I don’t do these, like, I don’t care about access. Right. And if they, you know, choose to, to avoid me because they’re worried that, like, the ADL is going to yell at them and call them an anti Semite, as they call me an anti Semite. So cynically vicious smear that if they, if they’re fearful of that association, then who cares? You know, I don’t, I don’t mind. Yeah, I’m still going to do what I’m doing. And, you know, I still have, I still have the base with me. Right. So it doesn’t matter. And eventually, unfortunately, we will probably lose if we continue doing that.

Speaker A: Hasan, I’m really grateful for your time. Thanks for coming on the show.

Speaker B: Of course. Thank you for having me.

Speaker A: Hasan Piker is better known as Hasan Abi on Twitch. He’s a political commentator. Go check him out. All right, that’s our show. Thank you again for your Slate plus subscription. It is essential for keeping us going over here. We are really grateful for your support. What Next is produced by Elena Schwartz, Rob Gunther, Anna Phillips and Madeline Ducharme. Paige Osborne is the senior supervising producer of what Next and what Next tbd. Mia Lobel is the executive producer of Podcast here at Slate. Ben Richmond is our senior director of podcast operations. And I’m Mary Harris. Go track me down in blue sky. Say hey, I’m AryHarris. Thanks for listening. Catch you back here next time.