Why did Andrew Cuomo tell me to Google "Hasan Piker 9/11"?

Who is Hasan Piker?

Hasan Piker is a political commentator and live-streamer, known for his progressive and left-wing perspectives. He has a large online audience, particularly among younger viewers, where he discusses current events, politics, and social issues.

Hasan typically streams for 8+ hours a day, several days a week. During a livestream in 2019, he said this:

Shortly thereafter, Hasan apologized for the comments:

Why would someone say "America deserved 9/11" in the first place?

No one deserved 9/11. But it happened, and we should understand why someone, in a state of frustration, would make an offhand comment like that.

To understand why someone would say "America Deserved 9/11", we should examine the events leading up to that tragic day.

Leading up to 9/11 was decades of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East that created the conditions for the 9/11 attacks.

What did the U.S. do to provoke such a harsh response?

• U.S. Support for Authoritarian Regimes: For decades, the U.S. provided financial and military support to authoritarian governments in the Middle East, prioritizing stable access to oil over democracy and human rights. This fueled widespread resentment against the U.S. government.
• The Soviet-Afghan War and the Creation of Al-Qaeda: In the 1980s, the U.S. CIA, along with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, funded, armed, and trained a global network of Islamist mujahideen fighters to expel the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. This program, while successful in its short-term goal, directly empowered the very Islamist extremists who would later form Al-Qaeda and turn against their former benefactors.
• The Permanent Presence of U.S. Troops in Saudi Arabia: After the first Gulf War in 1991, the U.S. established a permanent military presence in Saudi Arabia, home to Islam's two holiest cities. Osama bin Laden repeatedly cited this "occupation" of sacred land as a primary justification for his declaration of war against the United States.
• The devastating impact of Sanctions on Iraq: Following the Gulf War, the U.S. led the push for comprehensive economic sanctions against Iraq. These sanctions are estimated to have contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians, including half a million children, a fact that was controversially acknowledged by then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. This humanitarian catastrophe was used as a powerful recruitment tool for extremist groups.

The attack on 9/11/01 can ultimately be explained as blowback. Blowback is a term coined by the CIA to describe the unintended consequences and retaliation a country faces for its covert or foreign operations. In other words, America fucked around and innocent civilians paid the price.

If we had a foreign policy driven by peace and mutual respect this attack would have never happened.

But what specifically caused Hasan Piker to say "America Deserved 9/11?"

Much of Hasan's livestream content involves reacting to political news and popular videos. In the clip where he makes the "9/11" statement, he is reacting to an episode of the Joe Rogan Experience podcast. Episode #1337 is an interview with Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R). Hasan was specifically reacting to the comments Crenshaw was making starting around 11:30 in the episode:

Crenshaw's explanation reduces a complex geopolitical conflict to a simple story of religious fanaticism. By attributing the 9/11 attacks primarily to "Islamic fundamentalism" and "emotional reasoning," he dismisses the specific, documented political grievances that Al-Qaeda itself has repeatedly cited. This "clash of civilizations" narrative is not just an oversimplification; it is a form of bigotry that blames two billion people for the actions of a few. More importantly, it prevents us from understanding the real world.

Democrats and Republicans like to believe the world is black-and-white. That there are clear "good guys" and "bad guys" and that the United States is always the "good guy". That's not how politics works in reality. Life isn't that simple! To understand why people, nations, etc. do what they do we should avoid jumping to conclusions and instead examine the material conditions that contributed to the situation in the Middle East.

What are the material conditions that led to U.S. operations in the Middle East?

To understand why the U.S. pursued the policies it did in the Middle East, we need to look at the underlying material conditions aka the economic and strategic realities that shaped political and military decisions. These were not random acts, but calculated actions driven by core national interests as defined by policymakers.

• The Geopolitics of Oil: Oil is the lifeblood of the modern industrial and military machine. Following World War II, the United States, as the rising global superpower, recognized that controlling access to the world's largest known oil reserves in the Middle East was essential for its own economic prosperity and global dominance. This policy was famously articulated in a 1945 State Department memo describing Saudi Arabian oil as "a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history." Ensuring stable, friendly governments in the region and preventing any rival power (like the Soviet Union during the Cold War, or later, China) from gaining influence became a cornerstone of U.S. strategy.
• The Cold War Framework: Nearly every U.S. intervention in the Middle East from the 1950s through the 1980s was viewed through the lens of the Cold War. This created a "with us or against us" mentality. The U.S. frequently supported authoritarian monarchs and dictators (like the Shah of Iran or the Saudi royal family) not because they were democratic, but because they were anti-communist and willing to guarantee U.S. access to oil. Simultaneously, the U.S. worked to undermine, overthrow, or contain nationalist or left-leaning governments that threatened to nationalize their oil industries or align with the Soviet Union.
• The Military-Industrial Complex: In his 1961 farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned of the "unwarranted influence" of the "military-industrial complex." This refers to the powerful, self-reinforcing cycle of financial and political interests between the Department of Defense, weapons manufacturers, and their supporters in Congress. A permanent state of military engagement, with a need for bases, arms sales, and intervention, creates immense profits and political power. This complex has a vested interest in a forward-deployed military posture, which in the Middle East meant a constant market for weapons and a justification for a large military budget.
• The Dollar as the World's Reserve Currency: After the 1973 oil crisis, the U.S. struck a deal with Saudi Arabia known as the "petrodollar" system. It ensured that oil would be sold exclusively in U.S. dollars. In return, the U.S. offered military protection and arms. This created massive, perpetual global demand for U.S. dollars to purchase oil, which allows the U.S. government to borrow money at lower interest rates and run large deficits. Maintaining this system requires maintaining U.S. influence over the key oil-producing states in the region.

Why is this being brought up by Cuomo?

Mamdani's politics (and Piker's commentary) are rooted in a structural analysis of U.S. foreign policy and its consequences.

Cuomo's ad attempts to reduce this entire complex framework to a single, decontextualized, and offensive-sounding phrase. The strategy is to make a nuanced critique of imperialism politically toxic, thereby avoiding having to defend the status quo or his own record.

In short, Cuomo is practicing politics-as-usual.

Let Cuomo win and you'll get the same failed policies holding you and your family back. The rich will get richer and it will keep getting harder to keep up with rising rents, more expensive groceries, and crumbling public transit.

Landlords support Cuomo.

The billionaires and Wall Street support Cuomo.

The Capitalist establishment supports Cuomo.

Zohran Mamdani supports you.

I want to help Zohran win

Join a Volunteer Event here.

How do I get involved in / learn more about left-wing politics?

We aim to organize our fellow workers by helping create tenant unions, unionize our workplaces, build mutual aid networks to help our neighbors in need, and much more. Our goal is to create a society where we the workers, not the billionaires, control how society is run.

The best way to get involved is to join a left-wing org in your area! The largest org is the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). This is a great start as this org has hundreds of chapters all around the country, so you're more likely to find a chapter in your area. DSA is considered a "big tent" leftist organization, making it a great place to learn more about all types of leftist politics as well as find like-minded people to organize with. More info at dsausa.org.

Another org that is worth checking out is Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL). Like DSA, PSL occasionally runs candidates for office and ran a Presidential slate that gained nearly 100k votes in 2024! They're growing fast and are definitely a group to watch. More info here.

What about joining the Democratic Party?

You should avoid working with the Democrats because the Democratic Party is against any left-wing or even Progressive candidates.

The idea that the Democratic Party is a monolith of the "left" is misleading. In practice, the party establishment has repeatedly acted to undermine, sideline, and actively work against progressive and leftist candidates within its own ranks.

• Top Democratic leaders have explicitly stated they want a strong Republican Party, undermining the notion that they see progressive politics as a legitimate alternative. Nancy Pelosi stated in a 2017 press conference, "We need a strong Republican Party." Similarly, Senator Chuck Schumer has expressed similar sentiments over the years. Source: The Hill: "Pelosi: US needs 'a strong Republican Party'"
• 2021: India Walton, a democratic socialist, won the Democratic primary for Mayor of Buffalo, defeating four-term incumbent Byron Brown. Instead of rallying behind the nominee, the state and national Democratic apparatus was silent or actively hostile. The incumbent, Byron Brown, then mounted a write-in campaign in the general election with support from key Democratic figures and donors, and ultimately won. The Democratic establishment supported the loser of a primary over its own nominated candidate. Source: The Intercept: "National Democrats Are Sabotaging India Walton in Buffalo Mayor’s Race"
• 2021: In 2021, a slate of DSA-aligned progressives won leadership of the Nevada Democratic Party. The national Democratic Party, through the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Senator Catherine Cortez Masto's camp, then created a parallel, well-funded political operation (the "Nevada Democratic Victory") that stripped the official state party of its resources, staff, and data. This effectively rendered the elected progressive leadership powerless. This is a clear case of the national establishment using its financial and institutional power to nullify the results of a democratic election within its own party when the "wrong" side won. Source: The Intercept: "National Democrats Freeze Out Progressives Who Took Over Nevada Party"
• 2020: The Iowa Democratic Party never released the full raw data or certified the final results of the 2020 caucuses after a disastrous app failure. While Pete Buttigieg was awarded the most state delegate equivalents, the chaos and lack of certification left a cloud over the process and fueled perceptions of an untrustworthy institution resistant to the candidates (like Bernie Sanders) who threaten its power. Source: Politico: "Iowa Democratic Party agrees to partially recanvass results"
• 2020: As reported by The Intercept, the Hillary Clinton-aligned group "Correct the Record" in 2016 evolved into "American Bridge," which planned a "counter-offensive" against Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in the 2020 primary, showing a pre-meditated strategy to defeat progressive challengers. Source: The Intercept
• 2019-Present: The DCCC has an official policy to ice out consultants who work with Primary challengers. In March 2019, the DCCC, under Chairwoman Cheri Bustos, formally instituted a new rule for its list of approved vendors. The policy stated that the DCCC would not contract with any political consultant or firm that works with a candidate challenging an incumbent Democratic House member in a primary. This created a powerful financial incentive for the entire ecosystem of pollsters, ad makers, and strategists to avoid working with progressive primary challengers, as doing so would cut them off from the vast business of the DCCC and its endorsed incumbents. By leveraging its financial power, the DCCC effectively starved primary challenges of the professional expertise needed to run competitive campaigns. It protects more centrist & establishment incumbents from internal democratic competition and ideological challenges from the left, ensuring the party's platform and leadership remain unchanged.
Source: Politico: "DCCC to blacklist vendors who work with Democrats challenging incumbents"

[Insert anti-Socialist talking point here]

My friend, you live in the most propagandized country in the world.

I highly recommend checking out this page for answers to your questions.

Another great resource is the Second Thought Youtube channel. This video is a good one to start with.

Solidarity forever <3

Disclaimer: This website is in no way affiliated with, sponsored by, or otherwise related to Hasan Piker nor any of the political figures mentioned above.