All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Jan. 22, 2024 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
46:52
20240122_piers-morgan-uncensored-neil-degrasse-tyson-and-do
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Netanyahu Rejects Palestinian State 00:05:05
Tonight on Piers Morgan Uncensored, Netanyahu doubles down on refusing to accept there must be a Palestinian state.
With his personal popularity plunging, his reputation for security in ruins, has Bibi given up on peace will debate.
A British trans golfer makes history in the US securing a spot on a prestigious tour specifically designed to provide opportunities for female players.
Is this golf moving with the times?
Or should ladies golf mean people who were actually born ladies?
Our stargazing superstar Neil deBras Tyson returns to Uncensored with a cosmic take on artificial intelligence.
Live from the news building in London, this is Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Well good evening from London.
Good to be back in our capital city.
Welcome to Piers Morgan Uncensored.
There could be no meaningful and lasting peace in Israel without a two-state solution.
That is surely a fundamental fact.
It means both sides in this intractable conflict recognize another's right to exist.
It means that Palestinians have the same rights as Israelis enshrined in law.
It douses the flames of burning resentment which rage across the Middle East and so much of the Muslim world.
And in doing so, it would ultimately make Israel a safer place.
But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has abandoned all pretense of a two-state solution.
With increasingly ascendary rhetoric, he's made it crystal clear that he sees only one state, from the river to the sea.
I clarify that in any arrangement in the foreseeable future, with an accord or without an accord, the state of Israel must have security control over the entire territory west of the Jordan River.
That's a necessary condition.
It clashes with the principle of sovereignty.
This weekend, Netanyahu doubled down again.
President Biden spoke to him for the first time in a month, emerging optimistically from the phone call to say a two-state solution is still possible, even with Netanyahu in charge.
But then Netanyahu responded by posting this.
I will not compromise on full Israeli security control over all the territory west of Jordan, and this is contrary to a Palestinian state.
And the hardliners in his own party are backing him to the hilt.
They say that even discussing a Palestinian state is rewarding violence and putting a price on terror.
But that is the textbook rhetoric of an occupying power, and it's precisely the dynamic that has radicalized Palestinians against Israel.
There is no moral defense of Hamas and no justification for its barbaric attack on October the 7th.
I've made that repeatedly clear.
But there's also no defense of calling Palestinians human animals, for claiming there are no innocent civilians in Gaza, or for saying the common goal of all Israelis is to erase Gaza from the face of the earth.
All genuine comments made by supporters of Netanyahu since the war began.
Netanyahu looks increasingly like he's clinging to power and pandering to the hardliners in his cabinet to keep his job.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehu Barak today told Netanyahu in the name of God go, warning that Israel will sink in the Gaza mud for years to come if he continues to lead the country.
Protesters today stormed the Israeli parliament to demand Netanyahu's government does more to secure the return of their loved ones, still held captive by the very people he vowed to eradicate.
Yes, Israel must defend itself.
Every country has that right and a duty.
He's right about that, but he must also recognize that the war cannot go on forever.
Hamas is both a proponent and a product of oppression.
Without freedom and rights, more radicalization will surely follow.
One of Israel's most distinguished leaders once wrote that an open-ended, all-out war in Gaza would be hollow and self-defeating.
The Hamas leaders would come out from their holes and declare victory among the ruins, he said.
Who was it that wrote those words?
Benjamin Netanyahu.
Well, joining me first to discuss this is Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev.
Mark Rega, good to see you and a belated happy new year.
We haven't spoken this year.
A lot has happened since we last spoke.
I have a simple question following Benjamin Netanyahu's rhetoric in the last few days, which is, what gives Israel the right to believe that it should exercise this kind of control over Palestinians' right to have their own state?
The right of self-defense, the right of my country to live.
in security, the fact that we have to base peace on realities and not some sort of pipe dream.
And the reality will always be for the foreseeable future, that Israel lives in a tough neighborhood.
And any peace understandings reached that don't take that into account and aren't built solidly on security and an infrastructure of security, no such peace can survive.
Right, but is this open-ended then?
Is this forever?
Is Israel's position now a totally implacable, there will never be a two-state solution?
Because Benjamin Netanyahu's words certainly suggest that.
Security Without Ending Occupation 00:15:10
So you've seen, and you know, that over the last half decade, we've seen peace break out between Israel and a series of Arab countries, the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco.
You've seen talk of a peace agreement with Saudi Arabia, which the Saudis, despite the current fighting, have still said is on the table.
Now, we believe as Israel moves and is accepted more and more by the Arab world, and this is ultimately a very, very positive process, that that will also affect Palestinian opinion.
And the sort of extremism that Hamas represents will be destroyed in this war, will be discredited, and that'll give room for moderates.
And we want to see the Palestinians join the circle of peace, but a peace that is based on reality, not on pipe dreams.
How many Hamas terrorists do you think you've killed?
So there are a couple of hundred that we killed on our side of the border on that first terrible day of October 7th.
And in the following days, immediately after that massacre, we had to take them out, those people who invaded our country and so forth.
And since the operation in Gaza started, we think over 9,000 of Hamas's military fighters there, armed terrorists, we've taken out and killed.
Right, so less than a quarter of Hamas's believed force of 36,000 or so, depending on which numbers you believe.
But my point being, the amount of devastation, both in terms of human life that's been taken, including civilian life of women and children, over 10,000 children, it's believed, may now have been killed.
If you extrapolate this to the end of Hamas, which is what your mission statement is, to eradicate Hamas, these numbers are going to get to catastrophic levels and leave nothing left in Gaza, are they?
I disagree.
First of all, the numbers are Hamas numbers and have to be taken with a grain of salt.
Hamas would have you believe that, you know, the overwhelming people killed.
With respect, so are your numbers.
You don't know you've killed 9,000 Hamas terrorists.
Can I tell you, when we've made a mistake with numbers, we've corrected ourselves.
But you don't know you've killed 9,500, do you?
You can't.
No, that is the intelligence information that we have.
We think that's an accurate number.
It could be more.
It could be less.
But that's, I mean, people are always asking us for our numbers.
If we don't provide them, people say, what are you hiding?
Well, how many of you are...
These are the best numbers I've ever seen.
Just to push you on that, if you can be that precise about the number of Hamas terrorists, you must also know how many civilians you've killed.
So how many civilians do you believe you've killed?
No, but it's a little more complicated.
If a Hamas fighter is wearing civilian clothes, is he civilian?
If he's a 17-year-old man with an AK-47, a 17-year-old boy, I should say, with an AK-47, is he a child or is he a combatant?
In other words, Hamas plays with the numbers.
They want you to believe that they're all children, they're all women.
No, Israel does not target innocent civilians.
Israel does not target Gaza's civilian population.
We target Hamas.
Now, have there been civilians caught up in the crossfire between the Israel Defense Forces and the Hamas terrorists?
Of course there have.
There hasn't been a war in history without, unfortunately, people being caught up in the crossfire without civilian casualties.
But are we making in Israel an effort to avoid that?
Of course we are.
For us, every civilian death, that's a tragedy.
But for Hamas, who deliberately uses Gaza's civilians as human shields, it's not a tragedy.
It's their strategy.
They deliberately embed themselves under schools, under hospitals, in civilian neighborhoods, behind the UN campaign.
So let me, how does this war end?
Only today, you had dozens of family members of the hostages held by Hamas, still well over 100 being held, storming into a finance committee meeting in the Knesset in Jerusalem, shouting, you won't sit here while they are dying there.
So nearly half of those hostages are still not being brought back.
You've only killed, by your own figures, you've killed a quarter of Hamas terrorists.
So three quarters are still there.
Your mission statement is to eradicate Hamas.
The infrastructure of northern Gaza has been pretty much obliterated.
Similar thing is now happening in the south.
So I just ask you, what does victory look like?
How do you know when you've won this war?
How does the world know?
So in the northern part of the Gaza Strip, we've already destroyed Hamas's ability to organize to operate in large-scale military formations.
We've destroyed their battalions.
We've destroyed their brigades.
You still have the odd squad or two that can cause problems.
But as an organized military force, Hamas does not exist in the northern Carthage Strip.
In the coming weeks, we will achieve the same victory in the center and the south.
And then we'll move into a campaign of counter-terrorism, of counter-insurgency, because ultimately, Hamas will be defeated as a military machine and Gaza will be free of Hamas as a ruling power.
And I've said this before.
We simply cannot live next to this terror enclave.
Just as you wouldn't want to live next to some sort of ISIS caliphate on your border, we refuse to live next to this Hamas terrorist state on ours.
Ehu Barak, who ran Israel, says for another three months now, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has prevented discussion of the day after in the inner cabinet.
This is unconscionable.
The IDF cannot optimize the probability of winning when there is no defined political goal.
The absence of a realistic goal will end up mired in the Gaza quagmire, fighting simultaneously in Lebanon and in the West Bank, eroding the American backing, endangering the Abraham Accords and the peace agreements with Egypt and with Jordan.
This kind of conduct drags Israel's security into the abyss.
And he says this when Prime Minister Netanyahu's approval ratings are languishing in the early 30s, which is similar to President Biden's in America and is believed to be the lowest number of any incumbent president who's ever had to run for re-election.
So these are bad numbers.
You know, have former prime ministers of the country demanding that Netanyahu resign.
I suppose the obvious question is: why hasn't he?
I mean, would it not be easier for everybody if he stepped aside now and let somebody new come in and try to guide this to a conclusion which can actually work?
You know, it's interesting because I'm familiar with the polls that you cite and others.
But the truth is as following.
If you ask Israelis, do you support the war aims as articulated by the Israeli government, which is to have Hamas's military machine destroyed, to bring all the hostages home and to destroy this Hamas-ruled enclave on our south, destroy their political rule, you get overwhelming support from left to right to center?
80, 90% of Israelis.
I heard today the leaders of the Israeli Labour Party, they propose no confidence in the government over economic issues, but they don't propose no confidence on the waging of the war and the war aims.
On the contrary, Israeli society is united that Hamas must be destroyed as a political and military force.
And you can understand why, because when Hamas crossed the border on October 7th and started killing us, they didn't ask us if we supported Netanyahu or we opposed him, if we're left or right, if we're religious or secular, if we supported judicial reform or opposed judicial reform.
Hamas just killed everyone they found.
And I think for Israelis, we have our passionate debates in this country, just as you have in Britain and people have in democracies around the world.
Of course, we have our passionate political debates.
But ultimately, I think October 7th was a moment when Israelis understood, you know, we have enemies and there are people, young soldiers now fighting in Gaza against Hamas.
Some of them are left-wing, some of them are right-wing.
They're of different political opinions, but we understand as a country, we have to get this done.
Hamas must be destroyed.
It must be removed from power.
We must do everything that we can to get the hostages home.
You always get sent out, Mr. Regev, to defend Israel, and you do so every time.
And I give you credit for that.
Benjamin Netanyahu, despite repeated requests from this program, to do another interview, I interviewed him in March.
Nothing, hasn't given a single interview to a non-American television network.
Is it not time that he answers some tough questions himself?
Well, he's answering tough questions every week to the Israeli media, which you know is just as tough as the British media or the American media.
He's been doing these regular press conferences and asking, answering journalists' questions.
But ultimately, I mean, he's focused today on winning the war.
And I see him go in and out of war cabinet meetings.
And this is the big picture because ultimately, it's important that people understand what Israel is doing and why we're doing it.
No, I understand that.
But he has given another question.
The most important thing is to win.
Yeah, but he's given a number of people.
The most important thing is to win.
He's found time to give interviews to American media.
I think he should give one to European media.
I would just like to once again, given that you do come on every time, that we ask you, and I give you credit again for doing that, if you could just pass on that request.
And I think you should.
I promise to pass on the request, sir.
Thank you.
Good to talk to you, Mark Regev.
I appreciate it.
On sensor, next, is there any hope left then for a two-state solution with Benjamin Netanyahu in charge?
Mustafa Barghuti and Douglas Murray return to debate that next.
Welcome back to Petersburg and Sensor.
After doubling down on his rejection of a two-state solution, pandering to hardliners in his party, has Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu given up on peace and should the rest of the world give up on a two-state solution as long as he remains in power.
Join him to debate this as the author of The War on the West, Douglas Murray, and the Palestinian National Initiative Leader, Mustafa Barghuti.
Mr. Balghouti, let me start with you.
Your reaction to my interview there with Mark Regev.
Well, my reaction is that Mr. Regev speaks about Palestinians have to give up, give up what I don't understand.
And he wants peace.
He wants security without ending the Israeli occupation.
He ignores the basic facts, which is that Israel has conducted ethnic cleansing against 70% of the Palestinian people, forcing them to become refugees and is depriving them from coming home for all these 75 years.
Second, he's ignoring that Israel is conducting the longest occupation in modern history, 56 years of occupation of West Bank and Gaza.
He's ignoring the fact that we are all suppressed by Israel, not only in Gaza, but also in the West Bank.
We are being killed in the West Bank.
We are being killed in the Gaza Strip.
He speaks about that the numbers of victims is incorrect.
I mean, this is very silly because I think the Health Ministry has issued the names of everybody that is killed with their ID numbers and their age and everything.
So unfortunately, unfortunately, what we've heard is the same thing that Israel has been doing for all the last 75 years, repeating the same thing and expecting different results.
A very wise Jewish man by the name of Albert Einstein said something very wise.
He said, it is absolutely insanity to keep repeating the same thing and expect different results.
Well, actually, Israel thinks...
Actually, I can tell you he didn't actually say that, but it's a quote often ascribed to him.
But the point is there.
Douglas Murray, the point is correct.
Okay, I'll take the point.
There's no record of him ever saying it.
Let me ask you, Douglas, about this.
You and I debated this a lot.
You have a very firm position completely behind Israel, which I completely understand.
There's anything that's going on now in terms of the withdrawal of so much support now from allies of Israel, does any of it give you pause for thought about how this actually ends?
Because I'm not sure the Israeli government knows how this ends.
And that concerns me.
Well, I think the Israeli government knows better than most people, certainly most pundits, about how it might end.
I think that there are several things I have to say in reply to Mr. Barghouti, by the way.
First of all, when I was on this show last with Mr. Barghouti, he said that he hadn't said something he said, and we actually had to issue a confirmation on the program subsequently, that he had, in fact, said the words that he had denied saying, but that had come out of his mouth, praising the so-called martyrs.
Let me say two other things.
Firstly, on the question of the West Bank, frankly, in Israel, there are very few people, very few people in Israel who believe that even if you can have a two-state solution, now is a good time to talk about it.
I was in the Knesset, the parliament, earlier today, and among other people saw the head of the left-wing opposition, Mr. Lapid.
He doesn't believe this is the time to speak about a two-state solution.
Why?
Because if you gave a state to the Palestinians, and don't forget, Israel did give a state to the Palestinians in 2005 in the Gaza, and look what we got from it.
The world got its money ransacked, the Hamas leaders making themselves fantastically rich and then sending rockets into Israel.
So the first thing is, even the most left-wing figures in Israeli politics don't think this is a good time to talk about the two-state solution, because among other things, it would suggest that there was a reward for the terrorists of October the 7th.
And the reward for the actions of that day was to double down on giving the Palestinians yet another state.
The second thing that has to be said about that, if I may, is that on the subject of the West Bank, if you go to the West Bank, as I was again the other night, and if you stand in the hills overlooking Israel, you will see from those hills the lights of Tel Aviv, the city I'm standing in at the moment.
You'll see the lights of Haifa, and you'll see the lights of Ben-Gurion Airport.
Now, knowing what Israel knows about what Hamas did with the Gaza, making it into a military infrastructure and firing rockets at southern and central Israel, why on earth would the Israelis give another piece of territory which they didn't have security over in the West Bank to another Palestinian faction, which would have the ability to fire similar rockets at every single part of Israel?
And I need to add one other thing quickly.
On the subject of the Palestinian Authority, many people outside Israel seem to think that the Palestinian Authority is, as it were, the peaceable wing of Hamas, or is the sort of Sinn Féin to Hamas's IRA.
That is not the case.
The Palestinian Authority, as well as being a deeply corrupt entity, which I don't need to tell Mr. Barghouti about, he knows well about that, as well as being a deeply corrupt entity, the Palestinian Authority that is funded by the Israelis, as well as the Europeans, the British, and the rest of the international community, pays salaries to terrorists.
It pays salaries to the people who kill people in Israel.
The Corrupt Palestinian Authority 00:15:00
And that is something absolutely impossible to make peace with.
I just heard Mr. Barghouti use the word disgusting.
So, Mr. Barghouti, over to you.
It is disgusting.
It is disgusting.
Well, Mr. Gober Stirmorgan, I think you have to be fair.
You can't bring Mark Regev and give him like 10 or 15 minutes and then bring another pro-Israeli and make him share the time with me.
You have to be fair in giving me enough time because what we've just heard is absolutely rubbish.
Absolutely rubbish.
Just repeating Israeli propaganda, just repeating false, and I don't agree with him that he has verified what I said.
I don't agree with him totally.
And he is repeating the same aggressive and fascist speech.
They don't want two states.
What do they want to do with the 7 million people?
Palestinian, 7 million Palestinians live on the land of historic Palestine, equal to the number of Jewish people.
What is the solution?
They don't want a two-state solution.
Fine, let's have one democratic state with equal rights for everybody.
But no, Netanyahu and his fascist government, he has fascists in his government.
He has Smotrich and Bing Vir who call themselves fascist.
These people don't want to see a two-state solution, don't want to see one democratic state.
So their solution is exactly what they are trying to do in Gaza now, which is genocide and ethnic cleansing.
Genocide.
It is genocide what's happening because we are talking about 32,000 Palestinian people killed, including those under the rabble, and 64,000 people injured, 63,000 people injured.
That is 4% of the population.
If that had happened in the United States of America, you would be talking about 12 million people killed or injured.
Is that acceptable?
Okay.
Is it not that Israel occupying the West Bank?
Isn't the United States of America saying that there is occupation?
Okay, that's Barghi.
I hear you.
I'm going to go back to Douglas.
So Efrey Mervis, the UK's chief rabbi, has said that using the word genocide to describe Israel's actions in Gaza is an increasingly frequent, disingenuous misappropriation of the term.
He said the use of the term was a moral inversion which undermines the memory of the worst crimes in human history and designed to tear open the still gaping wounds of the Holocaust.
Douglas, we can't hear you.
I don't know if you can hear me, but we can't hear you.
There might be a sound.
Douglas, I've got you back, I think.
Okay.
Let me just say, can you hear me now, please?
Yes, I can hear you.
Can you hear me now?
Let me just quickly say this about the genocide thing.
Of course that's the case.
Mr. Barghuti likes to throw around the word fascist.
Fine, I'll throw it back at you, Mr. Barghouti.
Not just a fascist, but an apologist for terrorists.
Fine.
We can all throw around slurs at each other.
But more important is the fact that you said that I had told lies.
Unlike you, I don't tell lies.
I'll tell you why.
I'll tell you why.
Unlike you, unlike you, I don't speak out of two sides of my mouth.
I'm speaking out of one side of my mouth, and it's direct at you.
So let me just correct what you just said.
You said what I said were lies.
Fortunately for you, I have here with me the amended Palestinian Prisoners Law of 2004.
Now, Mahmoud Abbas, who now runs the Palestinian Authority, signed this into law.
This means that, and I'm quoting Article 2 here, prisoners, anyone incarcerated in the occupation's prisons for his participation in the struggle against the occupation by the Palestinian.
Let me finish my point.
They are freedom.
They are given a salary by the Palestinian Authority.
Oh, you think they're freedom fighters?
Well, let me tell you another couple of things then.
Because everyone watching pays their taxes, and some of their taxes go to the Palestinian Authority.
Here's the budget that Palestinian Authority in 2018.
This is the PA's own budget, Mr. Barghouti, so don't lie about that.
$162 million was allocated to the prisoners and released prisoners ministers.
In 2018, in 2018, approximately $193 million was given by the PA to families of the martyrs.
There is an increasing list, depending on how many Jews you've killed, of the amount of money you get.
Is the Palestinian Authority doing that or not, Mr. Barghuti?
Because I have their budget in my hand.
Okay, Mr. Barghouti, out of respect for fairness, answer that question.
Yeah, but I'm sure your guest has to be a bit polite.
You can't keep saying that.
You can answer that one question.
Well, I will answer it.
Yes, they support the prisoners' families.
They support as a form of social security support.
They support the, I mean, nobody.
Even if you consider, even if you consider somebody doing something wrong, you cannot punish his children and his wife in an act of collective punishment.
This is the people who do the terror, as you well know.
Mr. Barghouti.
You said something wrong also.
Palestinian authority really does not.
I don't defend the Palestinian Authority, but I'm telling you, 90% of the Palestinian Authority budget comes from taxpayers, from Palestinian people.
And only 10% comes from the Israeli government.
No, no, no, no.
And Israel is committing piracy, stealing our taxpayers' money, preventing health people from getting their question.
Preventing the Palestinian Authority from...
You shut up, please.
Let me answer.
Can you shut up?
Don't interrupt me, please.
Well, you don't interrupt you each time.
You shut up.
You are not the one who is asking me the questions.
You're not the anchor, so shut up, please.
And let me answer.
I am saying what you are doing here is to mislead the discussion.
Ask, the main discussion here is: is there Israeli occupation of Palestinian land or not?
If people are occupied, what does international law say?
International says law says that people who are under occupation have the right to struggle against their occupiers.
No, no, it doesn't.
No, no, no.
That's what the UN says.
You can't deviate the discussion.
And the main fact here is that the problem we have is that Israel is occupying Palestinian land.
And Israel is oppressing Palestinian people.
Since 1967, Israel conducted 1 million arrests against the 7 million people who are living there.
How could this be acceptable?
What we see here is the war.
Just to be clear, I am the anchor.
I am the anchor, and I'm now going to Douglas respond to that.
Douglas.
Two things.
First of all, Mr. Barghouti.
Let Mr. Murray speak, please.
Mr. Barghuti doesn't want to be able to do it.
Mr. Barghuti.
Mr. Barghouti, let Douglas Murray respond.
Don't talk over him.
Yeah, okay, fine, please.
Mr. Barghuti doesn't want a two-state solution because he doesn't want a Jewish state.
He wants the river to the sea to be a Palestinian state, ruled by him and his corrupt friends.
But secondly, he cannot answer the question I've put to him repeatedly.
This is the PA budget.
It rewards terrorism.
And let me just finish, Mr. Barghouti, since I allowed you that right in the end.
This budget not only extends to rewarding the people who carry out acts of terrorism against Jews and the families of people who do, thus incentivizing terror.
And that's the Palestinian Authority.
The Palestinian Authority has also now the Palestinian Authority has also now committed to pay salaries to the fighters and the terrorists of Hamas from October the 7th and their families.
So tell me, please, Piers, or Mr. Barghouti, where is the good negotiating partner on the Palestinian side here exactly?
Well, I tell you what, I'm going to do.
I'm going to wrap this by saying this.
I don't think there is a good negotiating party on either side.
I don't think you can possibly have peace with Hamas still in place.
I don't think we're going to achieve peace with Benjamin Netanyahu in charge of Israel and his hardline right-wing cabinets.
So if you want my honest view, I think we need a completely clean broom of leadership.
And that's the only way this is ever going to get resolved.
But I appreciate you both for coming on together and debating it passionately.
Thank you both for your time, Mr. Barghuti, Mr. Murray.
I appreciate it.
And so next, a new rising star on women's golf.
Once again, you guessed it, used to be a biological man.
My pack takes a swing at that in a moment.
A very exciting moment because I'm rejoined with my old pack for the first time this year.
Talk TV contributor Esther Krakow, so is Editor of Delhi American and McGuire and Twitter journalist Ava Santina.
Have you missed me?
Yeah, don't lie.
We're going to start, just to promote something that's coming up.
I'm going to show a little bit of a great interview I've done with the astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, did it in New York last week.
He's one of the great minds of the world, talking specifically about AI.
That will all be available on our Piers Morgana Center YouTube channel.
Well worth a watch.
It's about 35, 40 minutes, I think.
And we're going to show a little bit of it after the pack to give you a flavor, but well worth watching that later.
Let's start with Keir Starmer, who's clearly in the box seat now to get re-elected unless something extraordinary happens, which he might well do.
He's issued a woke warning, vowed to back woke charities that as he waded into culture wars.
He's been on about this for a while, Kevin, saying he thinks this woke stuff is all culture war stuff.
Your thoughts?
He's backed the National Trust and the RNLI, the Lifeboat Charity, two of the most trusted bodies in Britain.
I think it's a no-brainer from him because most people think the cost of living, what's happening to the health service, public services, law and disorder, they're all more important issues.
He said very little about this in the past.
He's run away from it, but he's all of a sudden seen an opportunity because I think people are fed up with divisions and particularly attacks on five million peers.
But they're also fed up with the woke nonsense.
Well, yes, and I think the thing is...
I'm trying to categorize it all as kind of insignificant.
I think it does it a disservice.
That's what's been going on.
Well, this is the thing.
I think he shouldn't have said anything, actually, because he's picking a battle he cannot win.
And ultimately, this man has the luxury of believing that this is just cultural war stuff.
It doesn't really affect people.
There is a reason why people are getting upset about this.
There is a reason why when the leader of the opposition doesn't want to say what a woman is or can't define it, people get upset.
If you don't want to talk about it or address it, fine, but don't effectively turn your nose up at people who take this important.
Yes, the cost of living crisis is very important, but also so is kids' education.
So is what what's happening?
By the way, So is fairness and equality in women's sport.
And I'll bring Avery in here.
The NXXT Women's Classic at Mission in Resort in the United States.
Haley Davidson has just managed to, sorry, I've got the 100-day cough.
Has managed to secure her spot on the prestigious Women's Epson Tour.
All sounds perfectly fine until you realize she's a biological man.
Adams Apple.
Right.
And I want to play a clip from Caitlin Jenner, who used to be Bruce Jenner, who won the Olympic gold cathon and plays a lot of golf.
This is what Caitlin said to me about this.
I play a lot of golf.
Yeah.
And at our club, I mean, I play with the women a lot.
By the way, Pierce, the women are a lot more fun to play with than the men, but the conversation's much better.
But they always ask, you know, say, hey, we've got a tournament coming up.
Yeah, we've got a tournament coming up.
You want to play with us?
And, you know, when I'm there, I say, oh, that would be fun.
But then I never show up.
Why?
Because it's just, honestly, I would never want to take a trophy away from one of the other.
I love the ladies at our club.
They're wonderful.
I wouldn't want to take...
I can outdrive them by 100 yards.
My arms are longer.
I'm 6'1.
So it just wouldn't be fair.
Wouldn't be fair.
So why are we allowing it?
Why aren't women screaming from the rooftops at this constant erosion of their rights in sport?
I don't know.
Which Keir Starmer would doubtless categorise as culture wars.
I feel sorry for this golf player because I think that she's been put into a tricky position where she is clearly excellent at the sport and she has not been accommodated.
So she's not able to physical advice of the kind Caitlin Jenner just perfectly articulated.
Here's a picture of this transgender golfer.
Let's be a little bit careful about Caitlin Jenner because...
I guess the second and the third who are biological women.
Let's be a bit careful because Caitlin Jenner, I mean, as a big fan of keeping up with Kardashians and I did all of it, she does have some ingrained misogyny, as we used to see with Bruce.
I certainly stands up for women's rights more than many women.
Look, look, I'm a big believer in women's rights, but I will agree with you on Keir Starmer.
I will say, I will agree with you on Keir Starmer.
So this big speech today that he gave on Culture War, I thought it was very fluffy.
I thought it was a bit weak.
It didn't really have any substance to it.
If you were going to come out and condemn the culture war and say that you don't want to get involved in the war and work, then you need to be strong in your conviction.
And I don't think Keir Starmer has decided where he is on the trans discussion, where he is.
Is he an ally?
Is he not?
We don't know.
And I think he realises Middle England is not having any of this, by the way, and doesn't view it as culture war.
They see it as an actual attack on rights to fairness and equality.
And do you not think that voters would like to see strength in conviction?
So if he came out and he said, I am a trans ally, then you know where he stands.
Like you've said, you can support trans rights to fairness and equality right to the point they erode women's rights to fairness and equality.
The two are not incompatible.
I think that's where he's gone now.
He saw what happened in Scotland with Nicola Sturgeon, where you had a rapist who raped away from the state.
That's where they made all of the sexism.
I want to segue into two political candidates, one in the States, one here.
The one here is Susan Hall, who's a Conservative candidate to be mayor of this great city.
One of the great jobs in politics in the world, right?
This was her interview with my great mate, Nick Ferrari, on LBC today.
She's just so toe-curly.
I have to play a bit of it for you.
How much do you pay to get on a bus currently?
I don't use them.
I use trains all the time.
You don't know what a bus fair is?
No.
Who owns the bus fair?
It's not very clear.
So you're saying that the two local authorities shouldn't have to bear the whole cost, and people who live in Sitcup and Highgate should have to pay to repair a Hammersmith Bridge.
But what's the starting salary?
I don't know what the one is now.
They're being given a 5%.
Oh, I probably should know what nurses earn and teachers earn.
It's £36,000.
Trump's Conservative Donors 00:03:27
You did initially think the 2020 election was stolen.
No, I never intended to go into this sort of level of politics.
If not, I probably would not have had a Twitter account.
I mean, it just went on and on and on.
That was kind.
That was kind.
There was a bit where she was asked whether Sadiq Khan is right to try and give young people in London visa lists.
She could not go to Europe.
Well, it was a moronic answer.
You should say, no, we want to keep our talent in the middle.
She doesn't even know which council is in charge of the Hammersmith Bridge.
Sadiq Khan.
Honestly, two councils.
But serious point, though.
I mean, look, you're a conservative.
How have the Tories come up with this absolute clause?
Well, because they're...
Because they're candidate.
If I'm Sadiq Khan, I'm rubbing my hands.
Yeah, what talented person would want to join the Conservatives' Party right now?
Look at the caliber of the Trump.
I vote for you over her.
They don't vote in our value.
I'll vote enthusiastically for Sadiq Khan.
But if he and Esther cause Esther Robertson, but if he was going to construct an opponent to beat, it would be Susan.
Yeah, exactly.
Because she's in charge or would be in charge of transport.
She would be in charge of the police.
Didn't know what police kept saying, didn't know what a bus fare was, doesn't know who runs the bridges.
She didn't have a gooby-doo.
Ava, talking of which, a campaign that have gone up in smoke, Ron DeSanctimonious, as Donald Trump used to call him, he's now retired to the nickname after DeSantis pulled out the American presidential rest.
I thought DeSantis was going to be the guy.
I thought he was picturing himself as the sort of Trump without the baggage.
It turns out none of these Republicans could stop the Trump train.
He is running them all over.
I think a lot of his donors expected that he would have at least slightly competed with him.
Can you imagine if you're one of the people who sank millions into the future?
You know what?
Maybe the problem.
I think his team, more than anything else, this is actually what they made him say in his resignation video.
Winston Churchill once remarked that success is not final.
Failure is not fatal.
It is the courage to continue that counts.
It's one problem.
Churchill never said that.
It's a bit like that quote from Einstein about a deficit.
He never said that either.
I mean, these things do gather their own momentum.
Christopher would have said, stay there.
He was like, we will not flag and fail.
He was like, I'm in the pub to talk about it.
Churchill had a really bad question.
But here's the question.
Here's the question for you again.
For you lefties over here.
I used to be, but I'm now right-wing because I don't like the woke stuff.
Right.
And that's now, you're seeing a real movement in America, Bill Maher and other people like that, who don't identify really to the left anymore because it's moved so far.
We're now seen to be conservatives.
You'll come back.
You'll come back.
I don't see any way Trump doesn't get the nomination now, which is an amazing comeback, whatever you think.
It's incredible.
But also, I don't really see any way a doddery, apparently half-dead Joe Biden beats him and stops him getting back in the White House.
No, but of course, Trump himself was pretty doddery.
He confused Nikki Healy with Nansen.
He's nobody.
He does come off.
He's nobody.
But I agree.
At the moment, if I put my 20p, my 10 cents on a Trump presidency, which I do not want to do.
Which is alive.
Yeah.
I mean, I think the big question is for British Conservatives who align themselves with that side of politics.
This is going to be a really trying time for them because they're now going to have to think about their foreign policy, particularly how we're going to fund Ukraine in the coming weeks or coming months.
If Trump is to get into the White House, that money is not going to Ukraine anymore.
You know what?
I watched the head of JP Morgan, Jamie Diamond.
Tribalism Feels Childish Today 00:04:49
Very interesting last week.
He gave an interview to Fox Hugh Was.
And he said, the thing about Trump is his supporters, they're not all these whack jobs that they're being painted all the time.
They actually think he did a pretty good job on the economy.
He was tough on immigration.
The southern borders out of control.
They thought his foreign policy was pretty sound.
He didn't go to war anywhere.
They actually put the rhetoric to one side and liked what he did.
And he made a very good point.
You cannot demonize 70 million Americans.
There is a reason why they're choosing him over the walking corpse that is Joe Biden.
You have to give credit where credit is due.
Quick question.
Who's going to win the US election?
I reckon Trump.
Trump?
Trump at the moment.
He did set up a war.
You'll remember Trump, but he did set up a war.
Traditional Star Wars.
He planned the withdrawal of Afghanistan.
Who's going to win the election?
Trump's going to win the election.
Trump, Unbelievable.
We come back in the century.
Uncensored next.
Thank you, Brad.
The astrophysicist, Neil deGrasse Tyson, returns to give us his big-brained cosmic perspectives on artificial intelligence, war, and the art of folding laundry.
That's after the break.
Welcome back to Uncensored.
Astro visitors Neil deGrasse Tyson's one of the planet's brightest boffins when he comes looking out at the night sky and making sense of it all.
In his new book, Starry Messengers, however, deGrasse Tyson says himself a new challenge, taking a cosmic perspective on problems and issues facing human civilization here on Earth.
I sat down with him to find out more.
Great to see you.
Thanks for having me.
Here on your side of the pond.
Yes, yes.
You've got another brilliant book out, Starry Messenger, Cosmic Perspectives on Civilization.
Yeah.
As always, I have to ask you of the trip.
Just released in paperback, just a week ago.
I think I talked to you when the hardback came out.
Just in a nutshell, for those who haven't read this or any of your stuff, what is the simple normal person's version of what this is about?
Things look different from a cosmic perspective.
And I think I quote Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell in this book.
He looked back and he said, you develop an instant global consciousness, a people orientation, an intense dissatisfaction with the state of the world and a compulsion to do something about it.
From out there on the moon, international politics looks so petty, you want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter million miles out and say, look at that, you son of a bitch.
Can I say that?
Absolutely.
This is uncensored.
This is uncensored.
You just did.
So he was feeling the cosmic perspective.
When you're that high up, you don't see the national borders, and we're just one species down there on this spaceship Earth alone in the darkness of the universe with no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves, as Carl Sagan had poetically referenced.
And so you're changed.
And so what I attempt in this book is to take places where we have arguments over holiday dinners when the uncles and cousins and aunts come in and say, what would that look like from a cosmic perspective?
And half of those arguments evaporate in that instant because like, what are you fighting about?
Like, really?
Can't you see why we are more the same than different?
You don't see that because our tribal urges will pick every little thing that you can possibly say is different.
Is your skin differently reflective of sunlight than mine?
Well, let's make a big deal of that.
Do you worship different gods or no gods or any?
Let's make a big deal of that.
Oh, you sleep with this person and this instead of that person of our own species.
Let's make a big deal of that.
Why are we so flawed, human beings?
I think that feature mattered to our survival 100,000 years ago, 50,000 years ago.
Because you don't know if another group that showed up on the horizon, will they harm you, take your resources or not?
You don't know that.
But you do know that other people in your tribe, they smell like you, they kind of look like you, and it's easy to distinguish them from the others.
So that may have had survival value 50,000, 100,000 years ago.
But today, when we have civilization and society and our intellect to know and understand our DNA, it's quite, I don't want to call it childish.
Well, yeah, okay, I'm going to say it.
This tribalism in the world feels childish to me.
What would an alien say?
They come say, oh, you're all the same species?
You say, yeah, yeah?
Okay.
And you're fighting for these reasons?
But you're the same species, right?
Human Oversight For AI Decisions 00:03:17
What are you doing?
Why?
And then they'll run home and report there's no sign of intelligent life on earth.
Just saying.
I did the last, like I mentioned to you before in a previous interview, I did the last television interview with Professor Stephen Hawking.
And it was a fascinating insight into that remarkable brain that he had.
But one question really stuck with me.
I want to answer it.
I said to him, What is, in your estimation, the biggest threat to mankind?
And he said, when artificial intelligence learns to self-design.
Just consider that right now, AI is basically everywhere.
There's no tech company that isn't fully exploiting the value of AI to their business model.
In my field, which is not even a corporate entity, it's just science.
In my field, astrophysics, we've been using AI at any possible point that it could advance us.
We use it.
And we've been using it for decades.
Why aren't you terrified of it?
Because you're very positive about AI.
Let me, okay, there are people who will read you the Riot Act about the future of AI, and many of them are deep in the field.
So I'm not here to undo their concerns.
All I would tell you is AI in its sort of restricted form, where I have a task, I don't want to do it.
Let a machine do it, and let's teach it and have a machine learn what it is I need it to do and have it do it.
That's kind of how AI has manifested in society.
Why do you not fear that AI can become genuinely sentient and start making decisions completely on its own?
Yeah, it depends on.
You can make a decision, but how much power are you going to grant it?
All right?
I mean, look, I don't want to put words in your mouth here, and I certainly don't compare my brain to yours.
However, my simple thing is that.
However, my simple mind says to me that as with the internet, as with all great new innovations, but particularly with AI, given its enormous power, I can absolutely see all the positives, especially in science, in medicine, all these things.
And there's an existential risk on the other side of that.
How are you not as scared as I am about that?
Yeah, so I think any technological advance has always had a dark side in the hands of nefarious actors.
So I don't, yes, AI poses an existential risk.
So too did nuclear weapons, right?
So too do weapons in general.
All right.
And so I was on a board that served the Pentagon, a defense innovation board it was.
And we confronted this issue with AI in the military.
And we arrived at the conclusion that if a kill decision has to be made, a human being needs to be in that loop.
You cannot have AI make that decision without a human being participating in it.
Recognizing that AI is inevitable in that world.
And so, but you want to put in some constraints.
And yes, this is not the rogue actor, right?
These are rational people making these decisions.
Well, you can watch the full uncut version of that interview with NordGrass Tyson on our Piers Morgan uncensored YouTube channel right now.
Become a subscriber while you're there and join 2.3 million others.
That's it from me.
Whatever you're up to, make sure it is uncensored.
Good night.
Export Selection