https://youtube.com/watch?v=fFbZX9LeTzI
Dunno if anyone mentioned this, but Triggernometry guys interviewed Hasan and HOLY SHIT.
Part of me likes how unlike all the journo faggots who've basically fondled his balls, Kisin and Foster actually asked questions against him. However, they REALLY kinda let him slip-and-slide outta places where he could've been nailed; though I imagine if he got nailed like that, the podcast would go off the rails pretty quick.
But even with that, this slippery faggot...you look and see him basically just say something, then turn whenever it seems like it feels like his feet would be held near the fire. Everything from immigration or China or Luigi Mangione or "Reform is a fascist party" or whatever else. The man shucks and jives like he is on a fucking dance floor.
And given all the various different clips and everything that we've previously seen, it's easy to observe this guy is trying to hide his power-level.
Someone should really do a point-by-point analysis showing every single time this faggot has said something in this vid that is different from his views on his show or equivalent bullshit.
EDIT: Just realized after listening to it again, this seems to be one of the few times where Kisin and Foster DIDN'T ask their usual end question "what's the one thing no one's talking about that we really should be." Whether it's because of lack of time or because Hasan is full of shit or whatever...who knows.
I think these conversations are good, because you rarely see him and people like this try to actually pin down and explain what they believe. You got a lot of soundbites and screeching about what's wrong, but a more comprehensive understanding of what they actually want is often avoided. The problem is that he's a bit of a chameleon. He's very careful here, and you know he would never talk this way if he was on some commie podcast. So what does he actually believe? I still think this gives a pretty good idea of what he believes....and that is not much. If you wade through the rambling here, it's very empty.
If there's anything somewhat solid to get out of this it is that he thinks our problems basically stems from people not having their material needs fulfilled, and somewhat connected to that, he believes that western liberalism is collapsing and the result will be "fascism".
Also, he used China as the best example of a country we should emulate, because they are "improving the material conditions of all people".
You know, the country that is more authoritarian, nationalistic, exploitative and unapologetic than any western countries. And are the average people better off in China than in the US? No. How about the poor? Probably not.
So what does he actuall want? Again all you can say is that it boils down to "the west bad, the rest good", and of course "consume more product" as he's soyfacing over how he can buy Gucci and foldable phones in "socialist" China.
I clipped a large part of this video. They are quite long because I like to leave in the context, and Hasan rambles a lot:
Hasan is asked about "who cleans the toilets?" in his socialist world - an obvious problem if we are supposed to all be the same - and after a lot of rambling all he actually says is that, yes, you should be rewarded compared to your output.
Hasan is asked about authoritarianism connected to socialism, and his answer is that it's basically a protective measure against the dominant west. It's a bit of a typical Hasan answer that somewhat avoids answering the actual answer, excuses the seemingly bad thing, and blames the west for everything.
This is where Hasan proposes China as his best example of successful socialism.
Hasan uses the example of brits not supposedly not being willing to fight for their country as a counterexample to China. This then leads to a discussion about immigration. Hasan argues the main problem is always "underfunding". It's all very primary school debate on immigration.
Immigration debate goes on, the problem with muslim immigration is brought up,. Hasan snickers when how many want sharia law is brought up as if it's a joke, but doesn't really have an good answer.
Hasan then tries to pivot to "but right forces also want" this and that. When shot down he says that they don't start that way, but that's where they are going. The host tries to call him out on his slippery slope argument, but fails since Hasan says he wants communism, and this leads to a bigger discussion about communism.
Hasan is asked about the problems with centralized power, and he rambles his way into an answer about how, actually, things are better in the US. When called out for this, Hasan instead pivots to how he's afraid that is where we are headed, not where we are. So again, what are we trying to do?
This is a bit of a sequel to what he says in the second clip. He thinks as the west's dominance falters and China's rises, the west will become more authoritarian, and China less. If that is so, can we even avoid it in the west? And should we? If you are so afraid of it in the west, I guess we need to return as a domineering power then. It feels like Hasan stances here are evolving a bit throughout the discussion, as if he hasn't really thought this through that well before.
This is the full clip on Luigi Mangione. It's not very interesting, but it really shows how Hasan dances around his bullshit.
Hasan explains that he thinks the british Reform party is a "nascent fascist party".
And why he should call out fascists.
