Glenn Greenwald
Politics • Culture • Writing
Interview with The Young Turks' Cenk Uygur
Interview
July 30, 2024
post photo preview

Interview: Cenk Uygur

AD_4nXfF79oAgdBraBuUxxv8ltfkd1egylcxSeok6J_jxKE4lkxL_MbtIrSRMtvwggI79Eu21IbcPgkOLnvTgIK6c1f_uHNHClvWLLOf8_-OdvUw2Im8jw49Sxroby43F_QQA-VosUOxEepa6rigKAely66nRCrIQ4G-VkUa40V20g?key=RYmctqW0yAzME3e7eAn-bg

My next guest – this one is going to be exciting for me – I'm excited to welcome, Cenk Uygur. He is the founder of the Young Turks. I formerly worked for the Young Turks in a previous life. I always respected and appreciated the autonomy that I was given within the Young Turks to do my own thing, even when it rustled some feathers and maybe everyone didn't always agree, so, Cenk has my admiration for that. And Cenk actually technically ran for president for the Democratic primary nomination in 2024. Largely, he says, because he was so insistent that Joe Biden was going to be a disaster electorally. So, I want to check in with Cenk and see what he makes of the current DNC machinations to corner Kamala in this bizarre, private, process and see if that, satisfies the grievances that he articulated. 

 

M. Tracey: So, Cenk, welcome to System Update with Glenn Greenwald although I'm not Glenn Greenwald, I'm Michael Tracey, and I am filling in for the time being. So how are you? 

 

Cenk Uygur: I'm good. And I'm familiar with both of your work, so I'm pretty sure I know. Yeah. I'm good. Thanks for having me on. 

 

M. Tracey: As we said, you ran for president. Obviously, you never maintained that you stood a particularly good chance of winning the nomination and that wasn't really the point. The point was you wanted to force the issue and get Democrats to realize that if they pressed ahead with Joe Biden, they were going to be in for a nightmare, that Donald Trump could romp, that Joe Biden didn't have the capacity to run a vigorous campaign. 

AD_4nXdteBHJZN0uIe7eGIpcAOzOxNALeHZzYLdJvDEuAMkmfdd2IdCrDZnG8IzAV_P_mIhkWKN3WoQ1Tb-zyrrxhCoI56dw-U3ZGpRLa1ry9LH0z2YHQnHPLFup85dErK2GYOngtfztD1FHjdXwAgBcP-ue3x0yvuDMVZqoUC-b3Q?key=RYmctqW0yAzME3e7eAn-bg

Your name was on one of these ballots, along with Dean Phillips, Marianne Williamson and, of course, Joe Biden, but conspicuously missing from that list of candidates was Kamala Harris. So, one of the points that I've been making is that Kamala Harris is being ushered to the nomination through a process that has remarkably small Democratic input from voters. She hasn't had to win a single vote, a single primary. She got a grand total of zero delegates in 2020 and zero in 2024, at least, if you go by state and territory primary election outcomes. So, I thought we were going to get this open convention process where they could have a mini primary or something truncated to actually gauge the will of the electorate. And in fact, Joe Biden was denouncing these insider maneuvers against him just in the past couple of weeks, he said that they would thwart the will of the primary voters. We're now even told that the DNC is going to have a virtual nomination, still a virtual roll call before the convention, basically negating the whole purpose of the convention, which they were going to do with Biden, now they're going to keep doing with Kamala so that nobody can even contest it, apparently, on the floor or the whole purpose of a convention has now been overturned. So, what do you make of it? I mean, does this satisfy your criticisms of how the primary process was conducted now that Kamala is just having the red carpet rolled out for her? 

 

Cenk Uygur: Well, let's start with a fun fact. I received more votes for president than Kamala Harris. 

 

M. Tracey: That’s a very fun fact. 

 

Cenk Uygur: Yeah. And not only am I just an online talk show host, but I'm a naturalized citizen. So, that's why I was only on seven ballots. That's a civil rights issue somebody should get back to someday. But that was, of course, not the primary reason that I ran. I ran, as I stated from the beginning, in almost every interview that I did, it was an act of desperation because I felt like we were all on board the Titanic and we all saw the iceberg. Or at least a lot of us saw the iceberg, apparently, and I was actually surprised later in the process to find out that blue MAGA existed and that they didn't see the iceberg at all until the debate. But I saw it. I know a bunch of people saw it, and I thought, well, it doesn't look like anybody's going to do anything about it. So, I'm just going to lunge into the captain's quarters and try to move the wheel, because otherwise we're toast and Donald Trump is going to win and God knows what happens to democracy, etc., etc.. But you know what? All the folks who decided to try to make a difference, whether it was like any strange bedfellows – I don't know anyone who criticizes Nancy Pelosi more than I do and so me and Nancy Pelosi on the same side, that is weird – and Ezra Klein and James Carville and David Axelrod and by the way, let's also note, Axelrod, top adviser to Barack Obama, James Carville, top adviser to the Clintons and no one got the memo. I'm like, it's the Obamas and the Clintons telling you there’s something wrong with Joe Biden, and you knuckleheads aren't getting it right. So, there are old fights, Michael, between progressives versus the establishment. And in this particular election, I sense I'm one of the few Democrats who actually think that democracy is on the line. It led to completely different coalitions, people who were perfectly happy to lose to Donald Trump and people who really, really didn't want to lose to Donald Trump. So, me, Carville, etc. were the ones who didn't want to lose to Donald Trump. Blue MAGA was like, who cares, as long as we obey Democratic leadership. That's what “Morning Joe” taught me, Oh, I had to bow my head, the top, value of the Democratic Party is obedience, right? I'm like, man, you guys have lost a thread. You completely forgot what the Democratic Party was supposed to be about. 

So, am I satisfied with the result? Well, I'm enormously satisfied that Joe Biden is out of the race, because we went from about a 0% chance of winning to about a 50% chance of winning. So hard to not be satisfied with that. What about the process of democracy? Was that fulfilled here? Of course, not, but, look, democracy has a number of issues in current day American politics and then I'm going to get to “Yes, but that's the best we can do.” Right? So, number one, come on, the donors control everything. We don't have a real democracy anyway, right? And I talked about this in my book, “Justice is Coming”. You know, a person in Northwestern did a 20-year study, 1800 policy issues. The bottom 90% of Americans have zero effect on public policy. Absolutely zero. Okay? The top 10% don't control everything, but when they want something, they get it 45% of the time. So, already is hilarious.

Reid Hoffman, today, gave $7 million to Kamala Harris and demanded that Lina Khan be fired. And guess what? She'll be fired. That's AIPAC. And when, you know, bought all of Congress, Netanyahu, notorious war criminal, one of the most evil men of my lifetime, getting standing ovation after standing ovation. So what? Democracy? 

Secondly, when you get into the primaries, the Democratic primaries are a joke and have been for a long time. Under the bullshit rubric of unity, notice they never have unity around progressives. There's never any unity other than corporate democratic leadership. So, and this was a sham primary, again, I know, because I was in it and, in Florida, they just canceled the election. North Carolina, Tennessee, they didn't just take me off. A lot of states took me off because of the naturalized citizen issue. That's a totally different thing. But they took Dean Phillips and Marianne Williamson off of the balance in North Carolina and Tennessee. So, a joke of a primary, and I kept saying the whole time and mainstream media just didn't pay any attention because running against Joe Biden was a violation of etiquette. And so, I was a bad guy. I was a radical for wanting democracy. And I would say, if you're going to try to defend democracy in a general election, wouldn't it be nice if you had won in the primaries and people in mainstream media were like, how dare you bow your head to Joe Biden? He's the most young, dynamic guy that anybody's ever seen. 

But, Michael, at this point, that ship has sailed. So, then the next layer of it is, okay, I call for an open convention, as Ezra Klein did and others did. And that's obviously the last vestige we have of democracy at this point. And, at this point, Kamala Harris has gotten the majority of the pledged delegates. No one's even running against her. I mean, this Democratic Party, it's just incredibly frustrating. So, she's going to be the nominee. Let us at least go to the convention. No, no, they're lying about how Ohio this and we can't get on the ballots that. So, they're going to do a virtual roll call on August 7 and snuff out any delegates changing their mind before the convention because the DNC is authoritarian by nature, so they just can't help themselves. But with a straight face, they'll say they're wanting to protect democracy and these same guys who wanted to keep their job because Biden hired them were willing to totally risk democracy and have given Donald Trump about a 99% chance of winning. 

 

M. Tracey: So Cenk this was a letter that Joe Biden delivered to congressional Democrats on July 8. This is the same day that he had his infamous Defiance Morning Joe column. Here's what he wrote in that letter. And maybe I'm on my usual because I actually read the letter and I remember it. It was only a couple of weeks ago. I know everything. We just throw down the memory hole at warp speed nowadays.

AD_4nXcV274TzX4CUmAEes6Z8TdsC5J7_FepRfjbn5Hibrd3ewyCjpoEeeBK3BF7gCgB9TxtHPiWsChwzoZhOmSquOW7feBnIW98L3BAMmBLpUiGJM9LP2e3RxktRgorgag42kfUkiGwn6xHzBQo2BSnxv8RyzwHKjG_Xz6bYro4Qg?key=RYmctqW0yAzME3e7eAn-bg

AD_4nXe_o76QC9N41hmkRxAlnhOl1LwuB88MPWDEwZu8gWNx-sRIWIRFOJn20RZjSYsI2sLoPVm9Q2mEVCy_X5ve6DNXdzSWHwuNthvKMYocZPZBf3UGkJa9fJnVKPh_xyb7IgZ7mTYmFNEANsvqp7WVr5dW-xYD9K1xlisx3MQUjg?key=RYmctqW0yAzME3e7eAn-bg

But he says, “It was their decision to make. Not the press, not the pundits, not the big donors, not any selected group of individuals, no matter how well intentioned, the voters – and the voters alone – decide the nominee of the Democratic Party.” And this is the kicker: “How can we stand for democracy in our nation if we ignore it in our own party? I cannot do that. I will not do that.” 

So how are the Democrats, with a straight face going to start screaming, as they have incessantly forever. You apparently agree on the substance of this point; I might quibble a little bit, I think a lot of the rhetoric around democracy and Trump overturning it tends to be a bit histrionic and overblown, but that's like more of a substantive conflict we may have. But in terms of the consistency of the Democrats own messaging, Joe Biden himself is the one who said that it would be undermined if they allowed this insider putsch to go forward. So, are we just going to memory hold this letter? Is Joe Biden really now going to be so cast by the wayside that everybody supposed to forget? Ezra Klein, not Matthew Iglesias, Thomas Friedman, The Washington Post, Vox, name your Democratic aligned pundit or media outlet, are they all going to forget that? You know, two and a half weeks ago, Joe Biden said that if you go through with this ouster of me, it means that our own party, the Democratic Party, is thwarting democracy. I mean, I feel crazy. 

 

Cenk Uygur: Yeah. Look, Joe Biden wrote that same letter for the same reason that he said, You know what? I demand to have a primary in Florida. I can't believe they canceled that election. And I demand that all everybody be put back on the ballot in North Carolina and Tennessee during the primaries. And I demand that we do debates during the primaries so the candidates can be tested and that the voters get what they want – Oh, right. You didn't do any of that? No. He's monumentally full of crap. He loved that. The primary was totally authoritarian, totally rigged, to not only make sure that he was a candidate, but that he was protected and hidden in a basement and that he wouldn't have to actually run against any of us. I mean, look, they were hiding him from me, Marianne Williamson and Dean Phillips. They knew he was going to lose! If you can't beat us in an open debate or in an open and fair contest, of course you're going to get your ass handed to you even by a moron like Donald Trump. So, that letter is garbage. It's trash. He never meant a word of it. So, I don't really care about that letter just because I already know that Joe Biden's a hypocrite. But look, that goes to the point that I'm making. So, I'm one of the few people who actually believe it, because I think Donald Trump had fake electors and, and that's a real coup attempt against democracy. And he's a spoiled little brat, and he wanted to take his toy and go home when he lost. And so, he's a super dangerous guy to have in charge and just never believed in democracy. Praises dictators at every check. So, but I have proven that I'm not a hypocrite on that, that I actually believe in democracy all the way through the process. And I actually believe that he's a danger to democracy. That's why I did the desperate thing that I did, which helped a little bit in setting the party in the right direction. But everyone else who pretended this is the most important election of our lifetime and democracy was on the line. They're like, yeah, we don't mind losing as long as we're obeying Joe Biden. Those guys apparently never meant…

 

M. Tracey: So, let's delve into this notion that Donald Trump represents some profound threat to democracy. This couldn't be more standard rhetoric among Democratic partisans. And you say you believe it. I believe you that you were sincere in your contention on that and I will also acknowledge that you're consistent in matching your actions with your words, because you took the rather drastic steps you've been running yourself to try to make clear that you thought the threat was so severe that it compelled you to throw your own hat in the ring. So, I fully acknowledge that. But I don't know. Should we step back for a moment? Does Donald Trump throwing a hissy fit after the 2020 election and trying to come up with cockamamie theories as to how Mike Pence could potentially take a different set of electors than the one sent by the states, and that was denied by Pence, and then he, you know, he whips up a mob of yahoos who really had no ability or even seeming intention to overthrow the United States government, I mean, temporarily delaying a legislative proceeding on January 6, 2021 – never even had the ability or the possibility of in any way implementing a coup in the United States government. That's outlandish rhetoric to underscore the preexisting grievances that people have about Donald Trump. So, I agree – and people on the right get mad at me all the time because I don't buy into the election fraud stuff that I don't feel has ever been remotely empirically proven – but Donald Trump throwing a tantrum and then leaving power? And now running again. I mean, so let me ask you this. What would Trump do if he were to win this time that would actually sabotage democracy? Would he not obey the Constitution and leave power after a second term? Would he defy the 22nd amendment? I think that's the correct amendment. Like what tangibly would he do that would flush democracy down the toilet? That's what I'm not clear on, the specifics of what people are alleging when they make this argument. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
2
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Answering Your Questions About Tariffs

Many of you have been asking about the impact of Trump's tariffs, and Glenn addressed how we are covering the issue during our mail bag segment yesterday. As always, we are grateful for your thought-provoking questions! Thank you, and keep the questions coming!

00:11:10
In Case You Missed It: Glenn Breaks Down Trump's DOJ Speech on Fox News
00:04:52
In Case You Missed It: Glenn Discusses Mahmoud Khalil on Fox News
00:08:35
Listen to this Article: Reflecting New U.S. Control of TikTok's Censorship, Our Report Criticizing Zelensky Was Deleted

For years, U.S. officials and their media allies accused Russia, China and Iran of tyranny for demanding censorship as a condition for Big Tech access. Now, the U.S. is doing the same to TikTok. Listen below.

Listen to this Article: Reflecting New U.S. Control of TikTok's Censorship, Our Report Criticizing Zelensky Was Deleted
QUICK: Ask Questions for Today's Mailbag!

Glenn will be discussing the Israel-Iran conflict and a Trump Administration official who is in an awkward political predicament, so questions on other topics are more likely to be chosen.

Seymour Hersh said the US will commence action this weekend.
https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/what-i-have-been-told-is-coming-in

Cool Episode of ‘The Why Files’……

post photo preview
U.S. and Israel vs Iran: Repeating War on Iraq Scripts; Overwhelming Bipartisan Consensus for Israel's Wars
System Update #469

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

AD_4nXeYkVcgzcgVgwTH4HsgQ-PsjfJnkkerEMKzJUBNbex49ctiCfUGCSwgs9h6Vn3qKESfxyvgEpfVQz8nobvNvfVrE9z8iBrAZvKRdf7iPZ-2Qov6I426kA0Sqc0Yy6Oh5amLisL1-RzSK5ykf5mGHyE?key=aMiM9imCrTsNamRKd6Vfew

The war initiated by Israel against Iran last Thursday was dangerous from the start and has each day only become more dangerous. President Trump has boasted of his pre-war coordination with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He's already been using U.S. military assets to protect Israel. He's now even re-deploying aircraft carriers in the Pacific, where we're told they are guarding against America's greatest enemy – China – now to the Middle East, where Israel has demanded they go to support its war. 

Just a few minutes ago, President Trump ordered the 16 million people who live in Tehran to immediately evacuate a city where it's now 2 a.m. 

With Israel, as always, demanding more. Now, they want the U.S. planes and bombs to destroy Iran's underground nuclear facilities for them. The former Israeli defense minister went on CNN just an hour ago and told President Trump in the U.S. that it's our obligation to fight this war with them. And for them, President Trump has repeatedly opened the possibility of even greater U.S. involvement in the war. 

There are so many aspects of this new conflict worth covering and dissecting –and we will do so throughout the week – but tonight we want to focus on the amazing ease the U.S. government has in convincing its population to support whatever new war is presented to it. Over four years ago, intense war propaganda from the U.S. political class and media persuaded Americans to want to fund and arm the war in Ukraine – a war that is still dragging on with no favorable end in sight – and overnight huge numbers of people in the United States have suddenly become convinced without having ever said so previously that war with Iran is some sort of moral imperative as well as a strategic necessity for the survival of American citizens of the United States. 

No matter how debunked, discredited and disgraced that Iraq war narrative has become, as long as one just waits 20 or 25 years, then, apparently, that same script just works like magic all over again. You just haul it out, fearmongering, and huge numbers of people respond by saying, "Yes, let's go to war, let' kill people." 

We'll examine all of that, as well as the standard bipartisan unity in support of new American wars and especially wars involving Israel, you hear Democrats almost unanimously, either staying quiet or praising President Trump, with just a few exceptions from both parties. And we'll look at that as well. 

AD_4nXeYkVcgzcgVgwTH4HsgQ-PsjfJnkkerEMKzJUBNbex49ctiCfUGCSwgs9h6Vn3qKESfxyvgEpfVQz8nobvNvfVrE9z8iBrAZvKRdf7iPZ-2Qov6I426kA0Sqc0Yy6Oh5amLisL1-RzSK5ykf5mGHyE?key=aMiM9imCrTsNamRKd6Vfew

AD_4nXdXi3PHhIfI5UY5jue2s_VN_Dre1s5GH_qzxPS39EBWpyASwtOnszEASDMpdRuJzVlrD4idh5uDoPcdU38-w-kpHnSvAo9rtxSpcN4lW-sAiALyp2wxVRGqfHoLUqaYrKPxb_-HZMv3-aKzQLw90g?key=aMiM9imCrTsNamRKd6Vfew

If you're an American citizen as an adult, you have seen the United States repeatedly go to war. Anyone 18 or over has seen the United States involved in all sorts of wars and that's after the Iraq war, which is now 22 years ago. Essentially, if you're American, it means forever, for a long, long time, for many decades, that you are a citizen of a country that's always at war. 

After World War II, there was a very visible and clear pattern, which is that the U.S. government convinces its citizens, enough of them, to support the war at the beginning. They deluge them with war propaganda, which is extremely strong, primal, tribal and enough Americans initially support the war to let the U.S. government politically go and drop bombs or finance some other country to go drop bombs for it. Then, after six months, a year, or two years, or four years, polls show that Americans overwhelmingly oppose the war that they were convinced to support. Going back to the war in Vietnam, throughout the 1980s’ wars, the War on Terror in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Syria, in Libya, the financing of the war in Ukraine, Israel's destruction of Gaza, bombing Yemin and now this new war that the United States is becoming increasingly involved in, in lots of different ways and we're only on the fifth day.

You just see so many Americans on a dime the minute a new war is presented to them, with whatever pretext can be conjured, even if they're exactly the same pretext that most Americans lived through watching proved to be complete lies the last time it was used in 2003, even though it's exactly the same script, exactly the same pretext, coming from exactly the same people. You can get enough Americans to immediately stand up and start cheering for death and destruction and bombing. Not all, a very substantial minority oppose it, I think if the U.S. overtly gets even more involved in the war in Iran, obviously anything resembling ground troops entering Iran, but even perhaps prolonged bombing of Iran as well through U.S. jets and bombs, as President Trump has indicated and Israel has demanded, maybe some of that will erode, that support will erode. But all that's needed is enough support at the beginning of the war to let the government start it. And once the U.S. government enters the war, it doesn't matter anymore whether the people continue to support it; then it's just already done. All the normal arguments are assembled about why we can't stop, why we can't cut and run, why that would be appeasement, etc., etc. All the same scripts all the time, used over and over, and even though they get proven to be discredited, or unpersuasive, or full of lies, you just use the same ones each time. And that's how the United States stays as a country at war.

We've been hearing a lot of people saying, “Look, I'm happy that Israel is bombing Iran, as long as the U.S. has no involvement in the war, we don't enter it, we don't have to pay for it. As long as it's not our war, I'm fine with it.” But, of course, the entire Israeli military is funded by American taxpayers. Every time Israel has a new war, the weapons that it uses come from the United States, transferred to Israel. We pay for their wars, we arm their wars, we support diplomatically those wars and we use our military assets every single time and our intelligence apparatus to support and enable the war, as the United States is already doing. We already have multiple new U.S. military assets ordered to the region by President Trump. They're already active in protecting Israel from retaliation. President Trump openly said that he is considering the possibility of involving the U.S. even more directly in this war with Iran: "We're not involved in it. It's possible we could get involved. But we are not at this moment involved," the president said. (ABC News. June 15, 2025.)

That all depends on what you mean by ‘involved.’ We're paying for the war, we're arming the war, we've deployed military assets that are actively now trying to shoot down missiles coming from Iran as retaliation for the Israelis launching a completely unprovoked attack on Iran, based on the claim that Iran was about to get nuclear weapons, just weeks away, something they've been saying for 30 years, as we've shown you many times, same thing that was said in 2002. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
U.S. Involvement in Israel's Iran Attack; the View from Tehran: Iranian Professor on Reactions to Strikes; CATO Analysts on Dangers and War Escalations

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

AD_4nXd1VoS9xg7si8ZviLBfSqd9c5_FMQdODz9RYxLWVBvtebHFOs0oWtttaWP_7qvL_VZdS0enruALLjYbkU-CdLQUDxNECHRbc5Y9OjrLuK-6y6Uq602-Q9fTzTYkN5_S0oVACoqvAhTWU86eCRc8vZU?key=lmRJixp6Jlz5wRA3fSBDAg

Today's most important news is obvious: Israel last night launched a major military assault on Iran, targeting residential buildings in Tehran, where military commanders and nuclear physicists live with their families, as well as bombing multiple nuclear facilities throughout the country. 

Triumphalist rhetoric flooded American and Israeli discourse almost immediately, until just a little bit ago, when a barrage of Iran's ballistic and hypersonic missiles began hitting Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and other major population centers. Escalation seems virtually inevitable at this point. The level of escalation – always the most dangerous question when a new war has started – is most certainly yet to be determined. 

Then there's the question of the role of the United States and President Trump in all of this. News reports from both the U.S. and Israeli media suggested this morning that Trump was working hand-in-hand with the Israelis to pretend that he was still optimistic about a diplomatic resolution with Tehran, but did so only as a ruse to convince the Iranians that Trump intended to restrain Israel and thus lure Iran into a false sense of security when, in fact, Trump was not only green-lighting the attack but actively working with the Israelis to launch it. President Trump's own statements today proudly boasting of the success of the attack, along with his own concrete actions such as ordering U.S. military assets into position to yet again defend Israel, strongly bolster those reports and clearly indicate a direct U.S. involvement in this war between Israel and Iran, a U.S. involvement that already exists and will almost certainly continue to grow over the next few days and perhaps few weeks and even months. 

We’ll speak to Professor Mohammad Marandi, who is in Tehran and has heard and witnessed a lot of what happened but also has some unique analysis from his role as an American Iranian scholar of foreign policy and to scholars Justin Logan and Jon Hoffman, from the Cato Institute, one of the very few think tanks in the United States, which has long counselled restraint and non-interventionism in U.S. foreign policy. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
Federal Court Dismisses & Mocks Lawsuit Brought by Pro-Israel UPenn Student; Dave Portnoy, Crusader Against Cancel Culture, Demands No More Jokes About Jews; Trump's Push to Ban Flag Burning
System Update #466

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

AD_4nXejs0DWGiP8ieMfNSDSHxWeGpA0bYQ2sB6GX53BerQgLDbevN48qlCXkh11p78EUWG7xmSLMCw_dta-m52iwfsgIA3W2CeT9zra6jIl7Krf7sFz7NI2c-vDb2dnkU0ifL9MRhw4ltCOYIB3YKvkIQQ?key=UyjQkErH6uhdu9Xo5Lcq4g

In the first segment, we’ll talk about the victimhood narrative that holds that American Jews, in general, and Jewish students on college campuses in particular, are uniquely threatened, marginalized and endangered. One of the faces of this student victimhood narrative has become Eyal Yakoby, who is a vocal pro-Israel activist and a student at the University of Pennsylvania. 

In 2024, he was invited by House Republicans to stand next to House Speaker Mike Johnson and he proclaimed: I do not feel safe. He said it over and over. “I do not feel safe” has kind of become the motto for his adult life. Now, he seized on those opportunities by initiating a lawsuit against the University of Pennsylvania seeking damages for what he said was the school's failure to fulfill its duties to keep him safe. Mind you, he was never physically attacked, never physically menaced, never physically threatened, but nonetheless claimed that the school had failed to keep him safe and told the congress in the country that he did not feel safe. 

The federal judge who is presiding over his lawsuit, who just happens to be a Jewish judge, a conservative judge, appointed by George W. Bush, not only dismissed Yakoby's lawsuit as without any basis, but really viciously mocked it, depicting his claims as a little more than petulant entitled demands from a privileged Ivy League student who wants to not be exposed to any ideas or political activism that might upset him – sort of depicting him as the Princess in “The Princess and the Pea,” Andersen’s literary fairytale about a princess who's so sensitive to anything that might concern her, that she's even unable to sleep if there's a pea buried beneath the seventeenth mattress on which she sleeps. 

This judicial decision is worth examining not only for the schadenfreude of watching one of America's whiniest pro-Israel activists be exposed as a self-interested fraud that he is, but also for what it says about the broader narrative that has been so relentlessly pushed and so endlessly exploited from so many corners, insisting that the supreme victim group of the United States is, of all people, American Jews. 

Then: speaking of extreme entitlement, Barstool founder Dave Portnoy made quite a name for himself over many years by ranting against the evils of cancel culture, championing the virtues of free speech, and viciously mocking as snowflakes and as people who are far too sensitive anyone who takes offense at jokes, offensive jokes told by comedians. That is what made it so odd – yet so telling – when this weekend we watched the very same Dave Portnoy viciously berated one of his employees for disagreeing with Portnoy's insistence that while jokes about everyone and every group continue to be appropriate, there must now be one exception: namely, according to Portnoy, jokes about Portnoy's own group,  American Jews,  must now be suspended and deemed too dangerous to permit. 

AD_4nXejs0DWGiP8ieMfNSDSHxWeGpA0bYQ2sB6GX53BerQgLDbevN48qlCXkh11p78EUWG7xmSLMCw_dta-m52iwfsgIA3W2CeT9zra6jIl7Krf7sFz7NI2c-vDb2dnkU0ifL9MRhw4ltCOYIB3YKvkIQQ?key=UyjQkErH6uhdu9Xo5Lcq4g

AD_4nXeNPsWu8SYZVkQAs1AKBVzXSCqCNnJSXFRz97DnkaHGIxGix2Zh6YmbJTQCrmPrgX3vqBOePYDLHyYhwxRNyY7s7q2Ucj32uOVbkk6jWZgH6dWxrUKjcwab1q_D0yJ_S0Fv_z7W0ckJp94i_tscuw?key=UyjQkErH6uhdu9Xo5Lcq4g

There have been really a lot of radical and fundamental changes, first on the political culture and then in our legal landscape as a result of the attack on October 7, and particularly the desire of the United States – by both parties – to arm the Israelis, to fund the Israelis, to protect the Israelis as they went about and destroyed Gaza. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals