Transcription
So, this guy Medi uh Medi Hassan did an interview with Professor Jong, and I'm just going to go ahead and go through this and show you guys what exactly what's going on in this interview and kind of give my thoughts on the whole deal here and what's going on. So, um, let's go ahead and start the video.
Back in 2024, Chinese Canadian educator Jiang posted a video on his YouTube channel, Predictive History, where he laid out three big predictions: Donald Trump would win the 2024 election, the US would then go to war with Iran, and ultimately the US would lose that war. Since then, the self-styled professor, who says he uses game theory to analyze the past and predict future geopolitical events, has become an internet sensation and has even been dubbed China's Nostradamus. But he's also faced some criticisms over his predictions, and many would say pretty out there conspiracy theories.
Two out of three of Jiang's big predictions have come true. But how much of that is his own geopolitical foresight? And how much of it simply comes down to luck? How much does the Chinese government control or even influence what he says, what he predicts? I decided to not just speak to Schwein Jang, aka Professor Jiang, about Iran and the state of the world, but also to challenge him a bit. Here's our interview.
Shu Chin Jiang, thank you so much for joining me on Zateo. Um, you have said you >> So, I just want to say off the bat, um, I don't know who this other guy is, but I can already tell that he just wants to be a pain. And maybe he's just doing it for views. Maybe he's doing it for legitimate reasons. He wants to try to find some kind of come some kind of truth and he's just not taking it at face value because someone has a name or following. So I don't know, but let's go ahead and see. >> He said >> use game theory to predict future geopolitical events. For those who have never heard of game theory, please do explain what it is and how it helps you explain what's happening with Donald Trump and with Iran in particular.
>> Right. So game theory applied to geopolitics means that we see each individual nation state as a player in a zero-sum game to maximize um its uh individual interests. And so each player would have its own characteristics, its own strengths and it would adopt a OMA strategy in order to win the zero-sum game.
So how does that apply in the Middle East right now?
>> Right. So um United States is attacking Iran and these two nation states have different strengths and weaknesses. So America has um the world's greatest military. It has supremacy. It it has tremendous technology um and has unlimited funding and so Iran is adopting an asymmetrical strategy of um holding the global economy hostage, meaning that rather than attacking United States directly, which it cannot defeat directly, it is instead um controlling of Hamus, which is strangling the global economy and it's attacking the GCC nations um the infrastructure of the GCC nations in order to force Trump into the negotiating table. So that is the atmical warfare of Iran.
>> Yep. And that's actually what you see. I mean, we see um Iran attacking Dubai, attacking Qatar, attacking Kuwait, attacking Saudi Arabia. But what it is is um the USA has bases in these countries. So um they're attacking exactly where they're being attacked from. And I guess that's where it comes from. And then you got the straightfor you. Um, maybe they'll get into that later, but they're holding the Strait of Hormuz um hostage because it's attacked it to inflict pain upon the US because they live heavily off of oil and oil is a good mechanism that if they can hold on to then it can cause some damage and some pain.
You've also predicted that the US, you had three famous predictions in 2024, that Trump would get elected, that he would start a war with Iran, and that he would lose a war with Iran. Based on what you've seen over the past month, do you still stand by that prediction?
>> Yes, I do. Um I think that after a month, I think that um Iran clearly has the strategic advantage. And what I mean by that is that Iran is very clearly able to articulate its uh military objectives and it has a very clear strategy of how to obtain these military objectives and it is working uh very hard and very meticulously to obtain these objectives. This is a complete opposite of America where Trump has failed to articulate an end goal. Um, and right now it seems that the administration, the Trump administration, um, is unable to articulate both a strategy and a purpose to the American public, which is causing, um, most Americans to not support this war. It's also causing low uh, soldier morale among the American forces.
What do you think happens next if slash when Iran wins?
>> Right. So um even though Iran has the advantage right now, we still have to remember that America is the world's greatest empire. It has a lot of resources. It has a lot of uh firepower still not used. So um um I think the next step in the escalation ladder is that Trump will send in ground forces. So over 5,000 Marines uh and soldiers have been dispatched to the Middle East. This is already on top of the 50,000 American soldiers already stationed in the Middle East and most military analysts expect that um uh the Americans will launch an amphibious assault in order to control the sh of Hormuz. Now there are several options available to Americans um in order to control the sh of Hormuz. Uh the first option is to control Kark Island, which is the oil depart of the Iranians. 90% of uh Iranians oil exports um depart from Kark Island. Then you have Kasim Island, which is opposite the um sh of Hormuz, and then there's a naval base uh further down the coastline. And so these are the three options uh that the Americans have and it is unclear which option the Americans will ultimately choose. Um, but given the track record of the Marines, we can expect uh the Marines to have an early success. The problem with the strategy and the problem with America's overall strategy is what happens next? How do you maintain control over the territory that you've claimed? The reality is that the Iranians have been preparing this battle for about 20 years. They developed this um very effective asymmetrical warfare strategy of using drones and ballistic missiles from afar uh hidden in underground bases to um uh hit and strike American assets around the Middle East. This is almost like guerrilla warfare and historically um an imperial power has had great difficulties in containing guerrilla warfare. So unfortunately, the Americans don't have a long-term strategy of how to win this war. Trump is still hoping for a quick strike, a knockout punch, um, and he believes that the American Marines can deliver this knockout punch.
>> And that's one thing, you know, I don't understand because if I can come up with this, if Professor Jung can come up with this, and if other people can come up with this, knowing that Iran has been preparing for this exact moment for so many years, and then the opportunity actually arises, why can't Trump realize this? Why is he trying to to send 5,000 or 10,000 troops into a country knowing that that country has been planning for this moment for years and they have a million troops waiting for a ground invasion? What do you even get out of a ground invasion? I don't know. But let's keep going.
You uh have made a lot of predictions. Um, some have called you China's Nostradamus. How would you respond to those who say, "Sure, you guessed that Trump would win in 2024 and he'd go to war with Iran." But that wasn't based on geopolitical insights or game theory. Uh people who follow American politics or world politics could have guessed that. I think I and many others were warning that Trump could win in 2024 and that he would escalate with Iran as he did in his first term when he killed Hassim Sulmani.
>> Right. So I think that if you've been following the news very closely um then it was actually pretty straightforward to make these three predictions right because in Trump's first term as you mentioned uh Trump did have a history of escalating conflict with Iran. Um so um the biggest um escalation was when Trump ordered the assassination of Kasam Kasam Salmani. And quite frankly uh America and Iran should have gone to war uh during that that time. But because of deescalation efforts on both sides, we prevented World War II during that time. But um Trump was under tremendous pressure from his allies and uh from his donors to start a conflict in the Middle East. So if Trump had um had won a second term, then he would have started the conflict. I was pretty confident that he would start the conflict if he had won in 2020. Uh but uh fortunately he lost. And so that question then was what is the likelihood that he would get a second term? Would he win in 2024? And then as I watched the news, it seemed um pretty obvious to me that the Democrats um were hopeless, that they didn't that that they were not delivering on the promises that um there were a lot of issues uh for example, what was happening in Gaza, the war in Ukraine that was making um American voters um disillusioned with the Democratic um establishment. Um, and so I thought that Trump would have very good chance of winning 2024. And if he if he won 20 24, I think there's a very strong like likelihood that he would attack Iran. And so all three predictions have panned out.
>> Just on your predictions, >> I'm going to say something because when all of that was happening, when he killed Sulmani um and then uh you know, the elections came again, Biden won, and then after Biden, he got back in. Um, I had the idea that what they were going to try to do is instead of attacking Iran uh directly that they would arm um Syria and use Syria against Iran or Iran um like they've done in the past. You know, they arm rebels to fight against the actual target that they're going for. That's how the Syrian war actually happened. They armed ISIS and other groups in order to fight against Bashar al-Assad. Um, in the end, Bashar al-Assad stepped down. It did take some time. Um, but instead of having US troops, they decided to just use, you know, arming an opposition. And I feel like that could have been uh something that they would work towards to do in Iran. I don't know if that would happen, but that's just my thoughts. But let's continue the video.
>> I just want to be clear here. Nikki Haley was key to your prediction about Iran. You said Trump would pick her as his running mate and as vice president. She would pressure Trump into war with Iran. She's a notorious hulk. Uh but he didn't pick her. And his current vice president, JD Vance, is widely seen as a skeptic of this war. So you admit you got that wrong.
>> Yes, absolutely. So um um so I was thinking of what Trump's electoral strategy would be in 2024. And I think that if he picked Nikki Haley, this would be a twin boost to his uh campaign because Nikki Haley would be very popular among neocons in Washington DC. She would also be very popular among suburban white women. That was key to Biden's victory in 2020. Um so I made the prediction that uh he would pick Nikki Haley, but at the same time um I was not completely sure about it. Um because I also felt that JD Vance also had a good opportunity to be um selected and I also said during my lecture uh making the prediction that Nikki Haley would be his running mate that depending on whether or not he picked Nikki Haley or JD Vance this would determine how we can um foresee or understand Trump's second term. And so um if he had picked Nikki Haley then he would have been completely full he would he would have been fully committed into the neocon project of regime change throughout the Middle East of supporting Israel of establishing American imperial power throughout the world. Um, he didn't pick Nikki Haley, instead he picked the complete opposite who is Vance, who has who is America First, who has always been skeptical of American uh imperial over overreach. But not only that, he also picked Telsey Gabbard to be his director of national intelligence. And so these are the two major skeptics of this war in the Middle East. And what I will say about picking these two individuals is that it shows that Trump has an off-ramp strategy where if this if this war goes sideways and and the American public is up in arms and uh he's losing in the polls, then Trump may decide to pivot back to America First and have JD Vance and Ty Gabbard elevated in the administration over individuals such as Marco Rubio and Peter Hexv. So that yeah,
>> I suspect he will blame Pete Hex if all of this goes sideways as it is. Um, where does China fall into all of this? You're >> you're a Chinese Canadian. >> Before I continue, I do want to say this. We're already see Trump already trying to put the blame on other people. Um, so that was a prediction there actually. But we already see him pointing the fingers like uh I think he said that Hex Seth was already, you know, or was the one that was more motivated to actually start an operation in Iran. Um, that he was more excited to do it. Basically saying that Hex Seth was the one more responsible for this choice to go into Iran. Um, I don't know what to say. The way that the Trump administration is going right now, um, it doesn't seem like really anyone knows what they're doing. But let's keep going.
A >> Chinese Can Canadian, you're based in Beijing. China clearly stands to gain from a failed US war with Iran. Uh how many how much of your views are reflective of China's views, ch the Chinese government's views, the CCP's views?
>> Right. So the official Chinese um Communist Party line is that China is committed to global peace and to global trade that benefits all. He China wants a win-win globalized system in which people are trading peacefully and which everyone is committed to world peace. And so China has come out vocally criticizing both Iran and the United States. United States for starting this war, but also Iran for attacking uh the GCC energy infrastructure. Remember that um uh China relies heavily on Qatar liquefied natural gas, as is the case with other countries in Europe. Um, so China looks at what's happening in the Middle East and China I think is working very hard diplomatically to come to an agreement. Unfortunately, right now, China doesn't have much leverage over either United States or Iran. In fact, many um analysts believe that this war was started in part to um economically strangle uh China because China depends on a lot on of its economy. Sorry, a lot of its economy is based on um accessing cheap energy from overseas. Uh specifically the uh GCC. Uh China imports 40% of its energy needs um from the GCC and so if um the GCC were to stop energy production, then the Chinese economy would be in a lot of trouble and this would give Trump a lot of um negotiating leverage over China in the upcoming talks scheduled for mid-day and I and I believe that what's going to happen is that because the Chinese are extremely pragmatic and very business-oriented, then I think that um Trump and China will sign a landmark deal where China agrees to buy a lot of energy from North America.
You're full of praise for China's role in trying to get peace in the Middle East. Uh here's what I don't get. You were caught filming protest by Chinese workers famously in 2002 as a freelance journalist at the time. Uh you were suspected by the Chinese government of spying. You were deported from China. Reporters Without Borders protested your deportation at the time. How did you get back into China? And why is it some of your critics say you have so little to say about China's role?
>> Now, this guy has definitely done his research, right? I didn't even know any of this about uh Professor Jung. Um, I mean, he really went in deep to try to get this information to attack him with. It sounds like he's using it to try to discredit him. Um, but what I see from Professor Jung is he isn't trying to lead people into, you know, like some type of cult like following. He's trying to get people to be more creative in their thinking, more imaginative, uh to be more um critical in their thinking as as opposed to taking things at face value. But he's come at a different angle that really has nothing to do with the subject at hand. It sounds like this guy, he's just trying to find a reason to discredit him, which is kind of fishy because who is he behind or who helps fund him? I don't know much about him. Maybe you guys know, you can drop down in the comments, but let's go ahead and keep the video going.
>> Uh, >> in all of this geopolitics, is it because you're not allowed to currently?
>> Right. So um when I started as a young journalist um I was subcontracted by by PBS to do a documentary on China's WTO entry. And one major issue about China's um WTO entry of course is worker rights. And at this time in China there was a major restructuring of the state-owned enterprise system. So I was dispatched to northeastern China to film a worker protest. Unfortunately, the place was swimming with um police spies and I was arrested and interrogated for two days. I was held in com NATO for 48 hours, which is the maximum um um by Chinese law. And um I signed a confession saying that I was a reporter and working in China illegally as a reporter and the decision was made to deport me without charging me with um any crime. And so I was allowed to come back into the country, but I was deported. Um, so that was the story.
>> If they suspected you being a spy, how did they let you back in? China's not known for being that trusting. [snorts]
>> They suspected me of being a spy, but after a 48-hour investigation after um uh doing a thorough background check on me, they concluded that I was not a spy and I I was a journalist um um working to film in a in a worker protest.
>> But it wasn't just 2002. In 2017, we checked, you wrote an op-ed for CNN.com, headline, "China's media enables tyranny and corruption." In that piece, you praised the US media as the world's free speech defender of last resort. You said, "In China, power trumps truth." And China's Communist Party, you said, maintains its iron grip on power by controlling what's said in the media and what's taught in the classroom. Do you stand by those views from less than a decade ago?
>> Like I said, it sounds like this guy is just trying to attack him and discredit him in this interview. Um, none of it really is about the topics at hand. Um, but I'm interested to see how Dr. Jang actually responds. So, let's take a look. a decade ago.
>> Um, so in 2017 when I was asked by CNN to write an op-ed um I did stand by those views at that time because um like everyone else in 2016 when Donald Trump won the election I thought this would be very bad for uh American democracy because he was clearly not uh a believer in free speech. Yes, he called the um news media uh fake news. And so I wrote the op-ed for an American audience saying like the greatest treasure um the greatest wealth of America is the First Amendment, the right to speak whatever you want. And I contrasted that with China where you're not allowed to say whatever you want, where you are very much monitored uh by uh the government. Um, even today I do not have a Chinese online media presence. I do not say anything online. I do not talk to reporters from China because I'm conscious that whatever I say online could be used against me.
>> But hold on. They allow you to be on this show. They allow you to be on YouTube. You get past the Great Firewall that you criticized in that CNN piece. How come?
>> This guy is something else, man. I'm telling you, he's just cutting them off and trying like, "Oh, oh, I got you there. I got you." That's hilarious. Look, the reality is that the best way to understand my situation in China is I'm essentially a Martian on Earth talking to Martians back at home in Mars. Like, I am not part of the Chinese system. I'm on YouTube, which is blocked in China. I I >> How are they allowing you to be on YouTube? This is what I'm not understanding. If you're blocked in China, why do they allow you to become You're very prominent now. You're famous in the West. I'm sure the Chinese government has noticed that. Well, most Chinese um will have access to a VPN device and that's what I use in order to um access the internet.
>> You wrote for CNN that the Chinese government has built a Great Firewall to monitor and control their citizens' pursuit of truth. Um, does China control what you say? Now,
>> China does not control what I say because again, I'm not talking to Chinese people. I'm talking to Westerners.
>> Hold on. That's that's what most people would say is China's great benefit. They might see, your critics might say, they're using you as a propagandist to come and say this stuff about Iran and the US on behalf of China. That would be what your critics would say.
>> Look, the reality is that this is a fair and legitimate criticism that I've been contemplating for the past 3-4 weeks because, you know, when I first started this YouTube channel like 2 years ago, I was expecting 5,000 uh viewers who would have a passion for learning, who would be as engaged with literature and geopolitics as I was. And over the past month, I've blown up all across the internet. And I don't think this is organic, but but so I wonder if there are [clears throat] some governments or some entities that believe that my message should be amplified. Um, it is it is possible I'm a useful idiot and I suspect that there are many entities around the world who would like to amplify my message, including the Chinese government, but also including the Russian government, including some aspects of the American government, including um some some some people who are hostile towards war.
I appreciate your candor. You said you blew up on the internet. uh you did go viral over your Iran predictions, but on your YouTube page, as people now start to acquaint themselves with you and familiarize with your work, uh people have been slightly surprised to see some of your other stuff. You have a series of lectures focused on secret societies where you argue that groups like the Illuminati, the Freemasons, the Jesuits are at the center of world control. People would say you sound kind of crazy when you talk about the Illuminati. It's the kind of thing you hear in Dan Brown novels, [clears throat]
>> right? So I'm trying a new approach to pedagogy and to scholarship which is speculative uh which is speculative an >> So I want to pause it there because he says something that struck me. He said he doesn't think his growth is organic, meaning that it's possible that someone else feels that his message is valuable and that it should be amplified. Meaning he doesn't think that he just was doing YouTube videos and it just blew up because it blew up. It blew up because there was a hand behind him. He doesn't know who it is, but there was basically help behind his videos being found and amplified inside the algorithm on YouTube, which is interesting. Um, that he acknowledges that. Um, I I honestly I don't even know if his goal was even to blow up as big as it was. He I think he was just doing YouTube videos and it just happened to be this way. Um, after, you know, some mystery person or organization decided, let's amplify this message because this needs to be heard. Something to think about.
>> Now, what's this? So, um, I went to Yale and I received a very rigorous classical education. I'm very happy and proud that I went to Yale. But what I discovered in life um as I stumble through life is that what I what I was taught at Yale doesn't really apply to uh real life. People with the most rational logical arguments don't usually win. And people who are the most progressive, most enlightened aren't usually the ones in power. So I was determined uh just for my own personal benefit to devels insight into how power works in the world. And so I started um something called Predictive History. And the very idea of Predictive History is this: How do we know if our understanding of history is correct? And the answer is well, we can make predictions based on on our historical framework and using and seeing if these predictions work out or not uh validate our historical models. So what I've discovered is that if you have a combination of game theory, um, historical patterning and eschatology, then this gives you a pretty deep insight into how the world will turn out. And secret societies are very much an important aspect of eschatology.
I'll come back to secret societies. A couple of things you mentioned there. Uh, you said uh you were at Yale. Uh, just to be clear, your degree was in English literature, was it not at Yale? It wasn't in international relations or national security. You're an English lit graduate and you're not a professor. I know it's your YouTube Monica, but you're a high school teacher. You're not actually a professor,
>> right? So, um, when I went to Yale, I was actually a math and physics major. I was cleared a math and physics major, but the Yale English department was very strong, and so I switched majors. Uh, so I both I have actually both a math background as well as an English background. Uh, that's why my uh system of analysis can can seem strange to people because because I'm combining a multidisciplinary approach to my thinking. Um, yep. And I'm not a professor. I'm not a professor. But, but I never said I was professor. It's the internet who called me.
>> Hold on. Hold on. You don't call yourself Professor Gang on your YouTube channel.
>> I do now. But when I first started out, if you go way back to my early >> Doesn't matter. When you first started out, you do call yourself Professor Jang and you're not a professor.
>> Look, look, there's a guy on the internet who calls himself the god. Have you interviewed him yet? Um, and asked him why he calls himself the god. I think I I I'm good friends with a radio host called Charlemagne the God, but no one actually thinks he's a god. People actually think you're a professor. Just sticking with your analysis. You just said speculative analysis. To many people, that sounds like you're just making it up. You're speculating. That's funny how he's like, "So, you're not a professor, so we so we can't listen to you because you're not a professor. You're actually a a math teacher." like he's it's like he's trying to degrade him and break him down like you know you're not a professor no one should even listen to you you're not a professor but he's like well you know I actually went to Yale I studied this and this and this and you know despite him not being a professor it's not even really that important what's import what's important is the actual message itself and whether it makes sense or it doesn't and whether if you personally can go in and challenge it yourself to come up with a different result. But I mean, the whole process of you doing that is is the whole reason that he's doing these to get you to be able to go in and critically analyze and and think about uh the way that he's processing this. Basically, he's just teaching you how to think. So, whether he has uh an actual title or not of professor, I think is beyond the point. It doesn't even really matter. But I think he's just trying to make a point like you're not a professor, you know, just trying to find a reason to attack him. That's all. That's how I see it. But let's keep going.
>> Look, I I think that the problem with education is that it focuses too much on facts, too much on rigor, and not enough on imagination.
On facts. Do you hear yourself? It sounds you I mean, what do you mean too much on facts? Look, look, I I know this sounds strange, but there is a difference between facts and truth, right? Facts are what can be independently verified by other sources. Truth is a deep understanding of the world that allows you to understand why things are the way they are as well as well as make certain predictions. We used to be a people, a human species that was very focused on truth seeking. uh and and that's why religion was so such an important part of our lives because um God um prayer was was very important to help us understand um our place in the world, where we came from, what we're doing here, and where we're going. And now we just focus on facts, on making sure that you're you can memorize the all the elements of the periodic table, on um making sure that >> When you talk about when you talk about secret societies, I guess people want to say, well, where's the factual evidence? Where's the evidence? You said I the Jesuits control the Vatican. First of all, there's nothing wrong with Jesuits. Good people. I know many of them. Second of all, there's only ever been one pope who's a Jesuit and he's gone. So, people would wonder like facts are important to your evidence. And people would say that it's not just fun and games when you're doing speculation on YouTube. Uh, they look at some of your rhetoric and they see that you don't just criticize Zionism or Israel as many people legitimately do. You talk about this pretty far-right concept of Pax Judeaica, a new world order centered around Israel. Uh, you have a video called Dawn of the Jews in which you seek to answer the question, why is it that Jews are so dominant? Surely you understand why a lot of people think at best you're trafficking in pretty anti-Semitic tropes and at worst you're a card-carrying anti-Semite when they see that stuff.
>> Okay. Well, that is a very strong accusation. So, can you please tell me uh what specifically I've said that you find offensive?
When you do a video called Dawn of the Jews, why is it that Jews are so dominant? You don't find that offensive?
>> I never said Jews were dominant. I what I said in my lecture was that the Jewish identity was created by the Persian Empire in order to better control the Levant. And if you read the Bible, that's exactly what what you can derive from it. If you go to my lecture on the Jews, you will see that I use the Bible as my primary source and then I analyze what the Bible is saying. The problem is that most people don't read the Bible.
>> But people who came up with Pax Judeaica are not biblical scholars. They're the modern white supremacist far-right.
>> Sorry. Sorry. What is wrong with the term Pax?
>> You tell me. What does it mean?
>> It just means that um this that um there is an entity in the Middle East um Israel that is able to dominate the Middle East very much along the lines of Pax Americana um and Pax Britannica and Pax Israel. You said Pax Judeica. That implies all Jews. You know the tropes about Jews running the world. I wouldn't be okay if you said Iran is dominant, Saudi Arabia isn't dominant, PAX's Muslim. In fact, you know that there are many racists in the West who do believe that Islam and Muslims are trying to take over the world. I find that equally offensive.
>> Right. So, um, so I'm using a Latin convention and so the Latin convention would be Pax. It would not be Pax Israel. I mean, it I mean like >> But you know where this concept comes from. It exists in far-right online circles. It's not some academic term. Do you believe that the Greater Israel project is a far-right conspiracy theory?
>> No.
>> What is it then?
>> I think it's a very real project being carried out by the Israeli government. I just don't call it Pax Judea.
>> Right. Okay. So, the difference between the Greater Israel Project and Pax Judea is this. Greater Israel Project is what uh the Israelites believe that Yahweh their God promised to their ancestor Abraham in the Bible. And this extends from the um uh now to the Euphrates. And I could have just used Greater Israel Project, but I want to differentiate uh because I believe that Pax Judea is not an empire run by Jews for Jews by Jews. It is an empire run by transnational capital and secret societies in order to create an AI surveillance state throughout the Middle East. They actually [clears throat] listen >> Just to be clear and this is speculative analysis. This is not based on facts as you say.
>> So it is it is based on speculative analysis based on history, historical patterns. It's also based on connecting the dots because if you just look at what Netanyahu says, if you actually just go and watch on YouTube,
>> I know what Netanyahu says. We're in agreement on how bad Netanyahu is, how expansionist he is. I'm talking about the language you use, the milieu you're in. Let me ask you this before we wrap up. What are your own politics? Where do you place yourself on the political spectrum?
>> I believe I've always been on the left. Um um so I I believe that wealth redistribution is very important. I believe in freedom of speech. I I am anti-war. I'm anti-empire. I believe in individual autonomy. Um and so unfortunately, I used to be left, but I think that like like given my uh preferences, given my politics, I believe most people would consider me on the far right nowadays. And that's unfortunate. That is unfortunate.
Last question. Uh you made three very famous predictions in 2024. What is your big prediction now for 2026? We'll see what happens. We can test it out at the end of the year. Well, I've made three predictions about how this war will progress. Okay. So, my first prediction is that the United States will use ground troops and that I'm with you and and and I believe that this ground troops will be a quagmire for the United States and that they will have to call a national draft. Okay, that's my first prediction. Okay, >> My second prediction and this is very important is that Israel and the United States will not use a nuclear weapon in this war. I think that the talk of nuclear weapons is fear-mongering. I don't think we will escalate to that point of nuclear weapons.
>> I hope you're right. I worry about nukes. I hope you're right.
>> And my third and most controversial prediction is that I believe that during the course of this war, somehow someway, uh, the Alexic Moss will be destroyed.
>> Wow.
>> Um, yeah.
>> Well, that would be a disaster. Um, God forbid. Uh, we will have to leave it there on that rather dark prediction. Uh, Shuin Jiang, I appreciate you taking time out. I appreciate you taking my questions. Thank you so much.
>> Thank you.
>> All in all, this was a good interview. Um, I got a lot from it. I hope you guys actually got a lot from it as well. Um, I feel like the other guy, um, this interview wasn't necessarily about the topics at hand. It was more or less trying to discredit Professor Jung. Um, which I don't feel like he should feel discredited in any kind of way. um when you get to a certain level, there's always going to be those kind of people that want to feed off of you and uh just want to discredit you, you know, and be the one to be like, you know, I'm me and you're beneath me, you know, those kind of people. And I think that's what this