In the verge of the first debate amongst the Republican Presidential candidates, Donald Trump has a decisive lead - in both state and nationwide polls - over Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson and the rest of the prospective nominees. | Singlehandedly bringing the topic of Illegal Immigration to the forefront of the national debate - Trump has been in the crosshairs of the established political class and the mainstream media. Being called everything from a racist to a rapist in recent weeks since announcing his candidacy, Trump has divided republicans, libertarians and independents, sparking a massive debate. | Love him or hate him, the ten billion dollar man doesn’t seem to be going anywhere and Trump’s entry into the political fray has certainly shaken things up. Stefan Molyneux and the Freedomain Radio team discuss the prospects of a Donald Trump presidential run, the possible pros, the cons, the effectiveness of political action, the impact of voting vs. not voting and what Trump’s unexpected surge in popularity means for the United States as a whole.
And Mike and I all work together on this philosophy show.
And Mike has been pulled in a direction we can only describe as Boromir-esque, if not downright Mordorian.
That's a good thing about it.
Yeah, so we're all voluntarists, or you could say stateless society advocates looking for a society without government.
And I've been pretty critical, to put mildly, of engaging in political action in the past.
And Mike is...
It's sort of changing the gravity well.
It's like, which planet, which star is this planet going to orbit?
And it has to do with one, I think you pronounce his name, Trump?
Tramp?
Tramp?
Trump.
Lady and the Trump?
No, no.
Mr.
Donald Trump.
So Donald Trump is, for those of you who don't know, he's an American multi-billionaire who's, you know, had his ups and his downs.
He's a reality TV star with his Apprentice show where he challenges people to grow their businesses or be fired.
And he claims he's currently worth about $10 billion.
He's declared bankruptcy a couple of times.
He's been married, I think, a couple of times.
Although his first wife has just come out and endorsed his presidential run.
So he is a Republican candidate for the presidency.
And he is currently like...
He's ridiculously ahead.
Is that right?
In the Republican primaries, he's ahead in every state.
He's ahead overall.
He's leading amongst Hispanics.
He's doing very well in the polls, which is shocking considering all the stuff that they have thrown at him over the course of the last, well, ever since he announced his candidacy, essentially.
And he's not just leading by a bit.
Like, he's at 24.
Who's the next...
Oh, I don't have the most recent.
I mean, there are Iowa polls, there's New Hampshire polls, there's all that.
But he's got a double-digit lead in many places and many different polls over people.
I don't think anyone else is out of the single digits, and he's 24, right?
A couple, like Scott Walker's doing okay.
Jeb Bush seems to be the number two solidly in most polls.
He was essentially expected to be the frontrunner.
But, you know, he's the establishment frontrunner, and Trump's just kind of blown past him, which everyone's still a bit shocked about.
But, yeah, my name is Mike, and I have a problem.
Help?
It's not so much a problem.
It's a fetish for aging real estate tycoons who look like they have squirrels stapled to their heads.
I'm sure there's a subreddit for that, but we appreciate you coming forward.
Because, Mike, you're tempted to engage in the political process, right?
This guy is, like, very interesting to you.
Now, I mean, the first thing that I really heard about him was this immigration stuff wherein he said that people who are willing to break the law and come across the Mexican-American border illegally have a disproportionate number of criminals with them.
And it's always hard to find facts, of course, about undocumented or illegal immigrants, but he seems to be correct in some ways, right?
I mean, that there is a disproportionate amount of crime among the illegal immigrant population.
And I think just in the state of Texas alone, there have been 3,000 murders that have occurred as a result of illegal immigration.
And, you know, America went to war on 9-11 for that number of bodies.
So his criticism that there is more, like there's a lot of criminals coming across the border, Not that they're all criminals.
Of course, that's just the boring straw man that everyone throws up who's against him and doesn't want to look at the facts.
But we did do some fact checking on that, right?
Yeah, there does seem to be some significant evidence behind what he's saying.
And there's been a lot of news reports as well of various specific incidents, which probably wouldn't have got the coverage if it wasn't for the fact he was talking about this.
But before we talk about the immigration thing, let me put in a few more caveats and prefaces here just so people understand more about where I'm coming from with this.
Before you do, let me poison the well real quick and call this conversation an intervention.
That's fair.
That's very fair to you, right?
Well, no, I mean, this is part of the thing, too.
It's like, pull me back, pull me back from the precipice of the ring.
I mean, I don't think for a second that political action in any way, shape, or form is going to lead to a free society for all the reasons that have been talked about on the show ad nauseum long term.
But as, you know, of the three of us, I'm the one that does live in the United States, and it's a minor point.
It's not a huge point.
But...
The Donald Trump thing, I am intrigued fundamentally because he is one of the first people that's coming out and actually speaking truth to power on a large stage.
And this doesn't mean that I agree with everything that he's saying, but it is kind of refreshing to have someone that is not the stereotypical cookie cutter politician.
That's, you know, let me get a focus group for everything that's going to come out of my mouth, not answer a single question.
And, you know, just bullshit people ad nauseum.
I mean, he's coming out and he's saying, what do you think?
Some of it's incredibly unpopular.
Some of it people fervently disagree with.
Some of it I fervently disagree with.
But it's interesting to have a politician where I for once actually think I understand where he's coming from and where he stands.
You know, like if you're going to have a tyrant in charge of an army, I don't know.
I feel a little, little more okay having like, I think I understand the tyrant.
Versus, this is just a crazy person that's going to do whatever they want on a given day based on what political interests have funded their campaign, and I have no idea what's going on.
So, if there are a few issues, like the illegal immigration issue that you mentioned, there was no discussion about this, essentially, on a national state.
Before Donald Trump, like a bull in a china shop, kicked the door in and...
And said what he said.
And the fact that he has now turned that, which, hey, the fact that there are criminals coming into the United States, as someone that lives in the United States, I don't really like that.
That's concerning.
And I understand immigration in and of itself is a huge topic in question for libertarians and anarchists.
I mean, in a free society, immigration is called moving.
So people go where they want and not a problem.
But if you're going to have a welfare state, if you're going to have all these status policies, which we do have in the United States...
If you just let anyone come in and, you know, just walk into the country, you're going to go bankrupt pretty quickly as your welfare programs and welfare rules expand exponentially.
And, you know, if you're going to do the status thing, you've got to kind of close your borders and have some semblance of law and order in that respect.
So...
But, yeah, he...
No, go ahead, sorry.
Well, he started this conversation, and I... I can't think of a single example where there's been someone that has started what I think is an important conversation about this.
I mean, this was kind of a no-go area.
You just don't talk about this stuff because minority groups and that will come out.
You'll immediately be branded a racist.
We've seen this a lot in the news over the course of the last couple years.
Anyone talking about racially sensitive potentially issues just immediately branded a racist.
Racist and thrown into the fire with media scorn everywhere.
And it's nice that someone, frankly, has the balls to bring up necessary and important subjects and make them a subject of national discussion.
I mean, hey, what are the facts?
Let's look into this.
Let's see what's what.
If there is a problem, let's see if it can be corrected.
Let's look at it.
But previously, it wasn't even being looked at.
So the fact that he has made it a topic of conversation and something that people are now able to talk about, And maybe we can prove it wrong.
Maybe not.
Maybe there's information that comes out and says, hey, there's not some criminal people coming across the border.
At least now we can have the conversation because of something he did, which, you know, he's taken a whole lot of hits, taken a whole lot of scorn when he was pretty successful doing what he was doing.
He was getting a lot of attention, he was getting a lot of praise, he was getting a lot of adulation, and now he's in the crosshairs of everybody, including the Republicans.
And I just, I don't know, there's some respect there for taking some bullets to talk about some stuff which no one else was willing to talk about, and being a charismatic public figure, he's been in the public eye for decades, and...
Having a few money in the bank of $10 billion or however much it is, not needing to worry about, can I fund my campaign?
If I say this, am I going to get a lobbying gig if this doesn't work out?
Or am I going to get a cabinet position or this or that?
It's just, this is a very unique situation where you have someone that is charismatic, who's a public figure, who people naturally have gravitated to on television and are aware of, has a high enough profile, that's actually spending his own money and bucking the system to a degree.
And those qualities have not been present in any politician, certainly in my lifetime that I've seen.
And the bravery in talking about stuff that isn't popular...
I appreciate.
I mean, I think we do that a lot in this show.
And it's just fascinating to see someone talk about this kind of stuff on a national stage and the ensuing shitstorm that erupts around them when they try to do it.
So, again, I don't think we're going to get to a free society because Donald Trump.
That's no.
But I do think it's interesting.
And I find myself more intrigued by politics these days than I have ever.
Ever?
I mean, certainly since, you know, accepting the realities of the state, whether it's libertarianism, voluntarism, anarchism, call it what you will.
So, and surprising to me, I did not think like, yeah, you know...
If the vote was close in New York, where I live, and it won't be close in New York, Democrats win New York always, would I cast a vote for Donald Trump?
The fact that I would even ask myself that question was like, help somebody!
Help me!
Help me!
But I feel a ton of appreciation for someone willing to take some shots to talk about important stuff.
And that being said, there's some stuff that he said that I really disagree with.
But I do feel like I understand his position and where he's coming from on a lot of issues in a way that I don't with any other politician.
Well, if he can be popular with you, right?
And again, we're just using these phrases very loosely.
But if he can be popular with you, that really helps understand why he might be so popular with other people who would be much more inclined to be pro-political, right?
Well, I mean, there's this talk of this silent majority...
That has kind of abandoned politics.
And I think a lot of people have just, you know, every politician is the same.
Obama comes in and he promises this.
And there was lots of enthusiasm and lots of excitement, especially amongst the younger generation.
And then he gets in and it's more the same.
And a lot of the shit that he said was going to get done didn't get done.
And a lot of those promises that didn't get kept.
So people are going like, okay, you know, this was like the politician.
This was the John F. Kennedy of our era.
And...
Nothing has really changed.
Yes, we have some Obamacare, which if you have to actually pay for it, oh my god, the premiums going through the roof.
There's other stuff that has happened, but it hasn't exactly worked the way it was promised.
We're not saving those thousands of dollars on insurance premiums.
I'm paying them every month.
I'm aware of this.
Well, government spending has gone through the roof.
Welfare spending is up by a third.
Deficits and debts are exploding.
This is the least transparent organization in terms of after promising to be the most transparent organization.
Foreign policy is a disaster.
They keep getting dragged into wars.
I mean, it's a complete catastrophe.
The Obama administration is, even by the standards of the state as a whole, It is a complete catastrophe.
But, you know, a guy's a community organizer.
You put him in charge of the biggest economy in the world.
What do you think's going to happen?
My Smurf didn't run Intel very well.
Gargamel is at the border.
I think that's racism against blue people who are short.
Now, so Stoyan, what's, you've got, so Mike lives in the States.
I live in Canada.
Stoyan lives in England.
He's, I think, allergic to sunlight.
That's where he goes to saddle.
I live in fog.
He's actually got gills, because I remember growing up in England.
But so your view from across the point, Stoyan, what do you think of the Trump phenomenon, not just in Mike's brain, and perhaps underwear, but in the culture as a whole?
Well, initially I didn't know much about the guy when Mike first brought it up.
I was like, who the hell is Donald Trump?
And then he shared a few interviews with me and I watched him.
I don't claim to know that much about the man, but I was a bit concerned and intrigued at the same time.
I think the first interview I watched with him was with Anderson Cooper.
And in it, they talked about how Donald Trump plans to solve a lot of issues, and one of them was ISIS. And the thing that to me was concerning is when Anderson Cooper asked him, how are you going to deal with ISIS, which is clearly a big problem at the moment, he said, I'm going to bomb the oil fields.
Now, he had a reason for that.
He said that would deprive them of the resources.
To fund their operations.
And then he continued and said, and I'll give the oil fields to Exxon and other companies.
And Anderson Cooper replied, well, won't you need to protect them with the US military?
And Trump said, oh yeah, we'll surround them with a perimeter.
And to me, that was the point at which I thought to myself, all right.
This one, I shared it with Mike.
He was a bit startled.
But I asked myself, alright, is this guy a Hitler or a Churchill?
You mean in terms of decisive action against that kind of stuff?
Yeah.
Because clearly, this is one of the things I've been thinking about.
When people, especially in the West, have a lot of empathy and they're up against a lot of people who have been raised incredibly poorly and abused to horrendous degrees, when they're up against those kinds of people, you need someone to engage them on the same level field.
In other words, the pacifist English society had to face Hitler at some point and Chamberlain was not the one who was going to do it.
So they elected Churchill, who was quote-unquote the warmonger.
But Churchill got the job done.
And we can talk about how it was set up and it shouldn't have been a problem in the first place, but you had to deal with Hitler.
And now you have to deal with ISIS, you have to deal with illegal immigration, which it's not just the criminality that is a problem.
These people come from very traumatized backgrounds too.
Well, actually, you don't have to deal with it because currently it's like, let's not say that there's a problem and therefore these beheadings and stuff aren't happening.
I mean, that seems to be the approach.
Wait, do you mean with ISIS or immigration?
Well, with both, actually.
You know, I mean, there's not a problem.
If we don't say there's a problem, let's just pretend it doesn't exist, stick our fingers in our ears, put our head in the sand and go, la, la, la, la, la.
I mean, realistically, it's like the debt, right?
I mean, if you postpone it, you know, it gets worse.
If you postpone dealing with it, dealing with it in whatever context, but some answer has to be made.
Because right now, with regards to immigration and foreign policy, everyone's in the worst of both worlds in that they're involved, but they're not committed.
to solving the problem and so sorry sorry and you were going on with so obviously bombing the oil fields will provoke some sort of response and of course America I would say so.
Sorry?
I would say so.
Yeah and there's going to be some escalation and it's going to come out of nowhere I don't know if they're going to poison the water supply or some sort of dirty bomb or there'll be some kind of escalation bombing the oil fields you know Welcome to vivid sunsets and very little sunshine in Europe for the next couple of years because that would do a huge amount of pollutants in the air.
Engage in the US military out there.
They'll just be subject to the same war of attrition that has been going on for the last decade, almost and a half in the Middle East as a whole.
I haven't heard him talk much about ground wars.
No, no, but you've got troops in the area protecting.
And so people will cut off their supply, they'll poison their water, they'll try and pick them off from a distance.
There's always troops coming in and out, and those troops will be attacked and subject to IEDs and so on.
So they'll just be the usual war of attrition that goes on whenever a superpower moves into the Middle East.
It's just nickel and dime them until their economy collapses.
I guess that was sort of the Soviet Afghanistan experience in the 1980s.
So the idea that there's this big decisive thing.
I mean, Churchill won, so to speak, and the Germans and the Japanese were beaten because they bombed their living shit out of the home countries.
I mean, that's how, if you want to win against them, they've been sort of, as some people have said, well, they've been meek as lambs ever since.
My sort of theory is, generally, if you only attack The disposable males, the culture doesn't change.
Once the women get bombed, then the culture starts to change.
But that's sort of an unproven hypothesis that I'm just sort of mulling over.
So, you know, if you're going to be a Churchill, then you have to...
if you want to sort of erase warmongering from a particular culture, the example and the evidence seems to be you have to literally bomb the civilians into multi-generational submission and create such an aversion to war in the country that you're fighting that it's simply unthinkable for them to go back to war. the example and the evidence seems to be you have This happened, of course, when France was the center of World War I.
Hello Kitty.
I mean, people, of course, remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but there were giant firestorms in Tokyo that killed even more civilians as a result of massive B-52 bombing campaigns in the mid-1940s.
So, I mean, if you want to go and create a war aversion, you have to literally kill civilians.
I'm not talking about the ethics of it, which is a whole other question, but the practical results.
And my concern with the Donald Trump thing is that that might just be more poking of the hornet's nest.
Well, you know, even if we just accept, what do I know about military action and the appropriate steps to take?
I have no idea.
I have no idea.
You know, within the statics contest, again, removing the ethics from it, I don't know what's the best to achieve a certain result.
But I do know that, okay, why is there an ISIS to begin with?
I mean, it goes back a long way about U.S. foreign intervention and that type of stuff.
But...
The recent flare-up has a lot to do with the Iraq war going in, removing Saddam Hussein, and everything that ensued since then, which has just been a disaster and a half.
And they armed them in Syria.
They gave them bombs and weapons to fight in Syria, and then they turned them as they did, the Mujahideen did in the 80s, they turned them against Americans.
So this is the result of previous interventions.
I'm not sure that one more is going to solve the whole problem.
Well, part of what I was saying is Trump was out and talking about the danger of going into Iraq long before we went into Iraq, essentially saying what happened was going to happen a decade ago.
And I kind of get the feeling with him like we're not going to create the next problem or stir up the next hornet's nest.
There exists a giant hornet's nest.
There exists a pretty radical element that is...
It has a strong and fervent hatred of Americans.
Any president's going to inherit, any person's going to inherit, that exists.
We can't get rid of that right now.
But I kind of have a feeling that Trump will be less likely to jump in and create additional problems the next ISIS 10 years down the road, as opposed to many other politicians, which let me just walk into this hornet's nest, stir it up.
And oh, shit, look, look, there is an immigration problem 20 years from now.
You know, like this, a lot of this stuff, it's prevention.
You know, if you would have said, yeah, we have secure borders in the United States or, oh, we're not we're not giving welfare to illegal immigrants.
If you would have done that early on, then you wouldn't have the immigration issue and the elements that you have now.
This wouldn't even be a topic of conversation because there wouldn't be a problem.
People that want to come in and do so legally and have something to provide to the overall economy, great, awesome, fantastic.
But the reason you have this problem now is because the prevention wasn't done, the early steps weren't done, and these things were allowed to balloon into massive problems.
So the fact that massive problems exist, I mean, Trump's one of the few guys that seems to understand the origin of a lot of these massive problems, and I get the idea that, and I could be completely wrong about this, of course, but compared to like Jeb friggin' Bush or something, or Hillary Clinton,
I have some hopes and some thoughts that of all the available candidates, even if he is the worst, or is the best of a bad lot, That he's less likely, based on some of the stuff he's said in the past, as a businessman too, you kind of have a better understanding of forecasting risk and consequences of actions, the unseen costs in the future of your current actions.
I think he's a better person to be in that position than anyone else.
Just for that reason.
What's the next ISIS? What's the next illegal immigration where there's all types of stuff coming across the border and it's unchecked and uncontrolled and now we have to deal with a problem potentially in the United States?
What's the next thing that having someone that's business competent in there will see and not stir up and create himself?
Well, he's not just business competent.
Sorry, Stoyan, I'll shut up in a sec.
But, I mean, he's not...
I mean, he's successful on television.
He's obviously successful in business.
And he's also a successful author.
A wildly successful author.
And I think a pretty good public speaker.
A very good public speaker in many ways.
I don't think...
Even people that hate Trump, I don't think, are going to refute that.
I mean, he's a very captivating personality to watch.
So, as far as...
A very competent person in the White House is tempting, because the cheese-eating dunderheads that have been cycling through that, they've just been so terrible.
The people who end up in power, they're Not very successful people.
You could sort of argue, well, Reagan in the past, at least he had a successful movie career, and then he was governor, and he did something well.
Successful movie career versus I've created a $10 billion business, essentially.
Yeah, I mean, so he is a multi-wildly competent human being, and his finances reflect that.
So to me, it's just like, could we get somebody who's actually really good at something into the White House?
That is a fascinating question that is almost worth playing out just as a theory test.
But sorry to start.
So you had obviously issues with him bombing the oil fields and installing the U.S. military as a permanent defense of the oil fields because, of course...
That's exactly what has been done in the past by Britain and other colonial powers.
It doesn't work out well.
What else did you get from the speeches that you've seen?
Well, I also wanted to be fair to the guy because my initial response was, yeah, is he Hitler or Churchill?
But at the same time, that is not exactly a fair comparison either because both Churchill and Hitler had a very prominent background in the military.
So they were military guys and they have said...
Stuff has been said about Churchill that he was wildly competent too, but his competence was in the sphere of government, which I don't consider.
I'm competent in manipulating people.
I'm fantastic at robbing people.
I don't think that's a positive.
But he was a successful historian and author.
His history of the English-speaking peoples was wildly successful.
Yeah.
He was a very influential writer.
That's true.
But at the same time, Trump doesn't have that background.
So it's not fair to compare them directly to them.
And what Mike was saying about the hornet's nest is that once you stir it up, it doesn't help to pretend that the hornets are not going to sting you, which is what a lot of people seem to be doing.
Yeah.
Ignoring them is not going to help either.
Well, if you ignore it and the problem gets worse and it builds and, you know, I hate using the term fringe elements.
But, you know, if these groups get stronger and then it's like, all right, 20 years from now, we'll deal with it.
It's like, you know, if you would have stopped the Nazis early on, you wouldn't have had to fight the war that you would have fought on such a grand scale.
You know, if you nip stuff in the bud early on, It's a whole lot easier.
If you rip the Band-Aid off right away instead of going one hair at a time, we're ignoring the Band-Aid as there's a festering wound underneath.
It's, I mean, in, again, anarchists, this is weird to say, but if you're going to deal with a problem, I mean, I prefer to deal with problems right away as opposed to just ignoring them or putting them on the back burner for our children to deal with.
Well, and this is a perspective that if you're going to go to war, you can't go to war halfway.
Yeah.
I mean, that's just the worst of everything.
And I think ISIS is an example of that.
And again, this is outside of the ethics of the situation.
I'm not going to keep repeating that.
But if you are going to go to war, then you stop at nothing until you have achieved complete and total victory.
And you have crushed your enemy.
Historically, that's the only way to actually prevent recurrences of war.
It's a complete, decisive victory.
You know, one of the reasons Germany was willing to go to war in the Second World War was it was never invaded or bombed, really, in the First World War.
And it just keeps the warmongers alive when they haven't suffered the consequences of their decisions.
Sorry, go ahead.
Yeah, that was it.
I was telling Mike that it's very hard for me to put my finger on Trump, which is not usual.
We've had conversations about many people.
We've done truth about presentations.
We've analyzed a lot of personalities in history.
And usually I have a pretty good sense of who the person is right away.
Whereas with Trump, it's a bit more difficult.
Not a bit.
You mean what his character is or what his motives are?
Yeah.
And where he's going to take the country, even if he makes it to that point.
Do you think that his motives could be positive?
Again, do you think that?
I mean, no, but like we got to be open to all possibilities, right?
If we're examining this, look at the challenge from every angle, right?
Is it possible that his motives are positive?
Like that he's not just some power-hungry group, whatever, right?
But he genuinely is concerned.
You know, he's got, I think, a couple of kids and they're going to have to grow up in the society that he leaves them with or that his generation leaves them with.
Is it possible that he sees America going in the wrong direction and he really wants to turn it around for reasons that are positive?
I believe so and maybe for different reasons.
He seems to be quite infatuated with himself and I think leaving that kind of legacy in history to him would sound quite appealing and that is irrespective of the fact that it would benefit other people.
I think he may be doing it for the right reasons.
He may want to really, really help not only the United States, but the mess that has come out of the Iraq war has spilled over Europe and the entire world at the moment.
So if he does succeed, it would be a legacy that, one, would post his own image, which I think he would appreciate, given as Mike said, he quite likes himself, let's put it that way.
Which may not be a bad thing.
No, that's not a bad thing at all.
I think Hillary Clinton really likes Hillary Clinton.
At least Donald Trump's honest about the fact that he's like, yeah, I've done some stuff.
I'm happy being Donald Trump.
In some ways, it's honest and it's kind of refreshing.
And his high opinion of himself is not without reason.
Yeah.
He is a wildly successful man in a wide variety of fields.
He is very intelligent.
He is an excellent negotiator.
He is a very good writer, a very good public speaker, a very competent businessman, and he's thought deeply about politics and written and talked about it for many decades.
Of people in the world who have a justifiably high opinion of themselves, he wouldn't be way outside the pack.
Absolutely.
Yeah, I agree with that.
And you know what, too, and this is something I had to check myself on, too, because I felt like, oh, the tone, and there's some stuff he comes off like, you know, he's, I don't know, the arrogant thing, whenever people use that against you stuff, it's always like a complete non-starter.
It's like, oh, that's not an argument for anything.
Yeah.
I'm sorry, what?
People have called you arrogant.
People have said that I'm arrogant, that I'm megalomaniacal, that I have a very high opinion of myself, that my goals are lofty to the point of insanity.
Wow, you've got to point me.
I'm sure that's just one post, one place on the internet.
You've got to point me at that, because I had no idea.
I'm a glass houseist with stones.
I'm like Billy Joel on an album cover at the moment.
I'm like, oh yeah, that Donald Trump, he's way too full of himself.
He really thinks he can have a positive effect on the world.
That's crazy.
Oh wait, hang on.
See, that's the exact thing I came to with the tone thing, because I initially had that too about him.
And I was like, well, you know, let's look at the practicality.
He actually said this in a recent interview, which kind of clarified it for me.
Because people are like, oh, your tone, you know, are you going to change your tone if you get elected president or if you make the general election or any of this stuff?
And he's like, you do realize there's people being beheaded.
You know, there's Christians being beheaded.
And, you know, are we talking about tone in regards to that with the people that are doing the beheadings?
I mean, is tone, my tone, really the problem here?
And it's like, well, you know, that's kind of a very good point.
There's a lot of problems.
We're not like, I'm concerned about ISIS's tone.
It's like, no, they're beheading people.
Oh, that's this disproportionate moral outrage in America just for a tiny deviation.
You know, illegal immigrants kill thousands of people, murder thousands of people in cold blood in Texas alone, but one guy shoots a lion and everybody goes insane!
So, I just wanted to point out.
Priorities.
Everyone's got them right.
Priorities.
Priorities.
So, I mean, he's arrogant or he's, you know, his tone.
I mean, that's a complete non-argument to me.
And again, it's something I had to fight in myself because it's like, this man is very confident.
He definitely likes Donald Trump.
I think he's got good reasons to like Donald Trump.
No, I'm not saying that's a bad thing at all.
Yeah, but it's, you know, I felt that pull in that direction, too, to be like, oh, he seems very, you know, is this just narcissism?
Yeah.
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
Certainly, compared to what, right?
Compared to the other politicians that are going to be on the stage?
You know, Jeb Bush, big fan of Jeb Bush.
What the fuck has Jeb Bush done?
I have no idea.
First of all, he just looks like a big pile of well-groomed tapioca to me.
Like, he's just so formless and such a blob.
It's like, I don't care how nice a haircut is, you still look like a pudding monster in pants.
I came out of the right birth canal!
It's true.
Can we just get another Bush v.
Clinton election, please?
Because nothing says progress like reliving the 90s.
Well, that's something, too.
It's kind of refreshing.
I mean, we were on the precipice of the expected Bush-Clinton election, which, let's talk about political dynasty!
You know, the idea that now you have someone who is an outsider, like a real outsider, not what every politician tries to do come election cycle.
I'm an outsider.
I'm a 10-term senator or something, but I'm an outsider.
Trust me, I'm a maverick, whatever the fuck that means.
This is a guy who is an outsider but does have a lot of successful skills that if you're going to have a state and you're going to have a president, you're going to want someone that's competent in economics, competent in business, understands the unseen costs of actions, is aware of monetary policy.
Oh my god, he's talking about inflation.
on national television in regards to China deflating its currency and outpacing us in some ways in that respect and the strong dollar and the pros and cons of that from an imports export standpoint.
It's like there's a lot of just sheer competence here about pretty difficult stuff that I mean, is Hillary Clinton talking about imports, exports and the positives of the impact of monetary policy and all that?
I haven't seen it.
She did an interview with some bike racks behind her recently in a closed store with a couple press.
She wasn't talking about anything important.
Oh, this is where she – hang on.
This is particularly delicious because she was talking about environmentalism and the need to conserve energy and particularly to avoid the use of fossil fuels.
She walked out of there into a private jet that burns like 330 gallons a minute.
They just throw lions into the engine or something like – Oh my god.
Throw them right into the engine and turn them into fuel immediately.
Yeah.
Man alive.
What I find interesting in particular is that Donald Trump Has had a career where the government has been in his way, whereas the other politicians, for the most part, have had careers where the government has been their propulsion to power.
Yeah, right.
I mean Hillary Clinton has benefited enormously from her association with Bill Clinton and the government, right?
They've made tens of millions of dollars in speaking fees and book fees, all of that.
So for Hillary Clinton and for Barack Obama and these guys, the government has been their Jetpack of power and money and prestige.
So the idea that they can have a negative view of the hand that's feeding them is kind of incomprehensible.
But can you imagine what it's like trying to build And get permits and deal with manufacturing and all the regulations and all of that, the environmentalism, the OSHA, all of the stuff that goes...
Donald Trump, I'm sure, has had this incredibly fractious and friction-tense relationship with the state his entire career.
And I kind of like someone who's really been annoyed by the state getting in charge.
That's interesting to me.
I have a lot of respect for people that are capable of getting shit done.
Even if it's shit I fervently disagree with.
There's a measure of respect there for it's like, well, you were able to accomplish that.
You said, I'm going to do this, and then you did it.
You made it happen.
That's not a trait that a lot of people have.
And there's a measure of respect for anyone who's able to follow through on what they say they're going to do, in my mind.
So if it's stuff like I want to build this amazing hotel and amazing casino.
Can you imagine what it's like to build something of that magnitude in New York or Chicago or one of these bureaucratic statist hellholes?
I cannot fathom the amount of red tape and bullshit you need to go through to get such a thing done.
And he's got a lot of that kind of stuff done.
That's, I mean...
Yeah, if you want someone to fight corruption, you want the guy who's been paying bribes, not the guy who's been receiving bribes.
Yeah, and I thought it was amazingly refreshing when he's like, well, you've given a lot of money to politicians.
He's like, yeah, I give money to everything.
Never know when I'm going to need to get something done in the future.
Never know when I'm going to need a favor or need to get something.
It's like, this is how the system works.
It's like, wow, someone's actually saying that on national television in front of a wide audience and getting lots of attention.
That's, uh, that's different.
Yeah, that's different.
I mean, compared to what?
Jeb Bush?
Fuck.
I'm going for the tapioca vote.
I've got it locked up.
So there's, unless you guys have anything more to say on that, there's another thing.
This is probably the biggest thing that I really don't like, that I've heard Donald Trump say that I want to put out there for people here.
I do have a bit more to say on immigration, but we'll circle back to that.
But go ahead.
Okay, well, what he said about Edward Snowden.
And...
Really, really opposed to what Edward Snowden did, which, you know, as a citizen, it's like, I'm kind of glad that now I'm aware of things that my government was doing that I didn't know about previously.
You know, he's moved the public consciousness, Snowden, that is, of, you know, some of the spying and the NSA activities that we didn't know previously.
And that's—and suffered tremendously for it.
You know, the guy was in a well-paying, somewhat cushy job, morally questionable, but— Cushy job.
And now he has to go live in Russia under constant threat of, will Putin like me tomorrow and send me to the gallows?
And Obama essentially wanted to prosecute him for...
I don't know what the classification would be, but he has a whole lot of very powerful people with armies and guns that don't like him now.
He hasn't really benefited a whole lot from this unless you consider having guns pointed at you and having to go hide out in other countries is benefiting.
People know his name, but is life a net positive as far as happiness because of this?
It's going to be tough to say that it is.
So I have a lot of respect for what Edward Snowden did at great personal cost to himself to expose what was happening.
And Trump does not like Edward Snowden or what he has said.
I got a quote here.
I think Snowden is a terrible threat.
I think he's a terrible traitor.
And you know what we used to do in the good old days when we were a strong country?
You know what we used to do to traitors, right?
That was in an interview.
And, you know, you know what we used to do to traitors.
I mean, essentially, it was the death penalty.
So, you know, if we're going to give traitors, I mean, let's look within the status context.
Who's the real traitors?
You know, is it the people that are selling children into slavery?
I'd say it's them over Edward Snowden.
If you're going to use that harsh tone with anyone, it should be the people that are selling children into future financial slavery.
And in that, just to be fair, in that he's no different from either the majority of the American population or every other single American politician I've ever heard talk about that issue.
Right.
He's very mainstream as far as that goes?
Right.
Yeah, with that, there is the compared-to-what factor in this realm.
It's not like there's another politician that I'm aware of that's like, yes, Edward Snowden, what he did was amazing, what he did was great.
I haven't looked into it, so I'm curious what Rand Paul has said about this, because if anyone of the political class currently is speaking in positive terms of Snowden, I think it would probably be Rand Paul, but I don't know.
Sorry, Mike, you wanted to say, yeah, so I don't obviously like that, but that's such a mainstream position, it's hard to hold against him personally, unless we're going to have wildly different standards, right?
Well, and there's this element of it, too.
It's consistent within everything else that he's saying.
I mean, Trump...
Is a very strong nationalist, just based on everything he said.
He talks about the trade deals and are they beneficial to America.
He talks about, you know, criminals coming into the U.S. from Mexico and other countries and the U.S. having to house them in their prisons and elements, talking about what is best for America.
If you're going to do the statist thing, I can understand The nationalistic mindset.
And that is a little, like, understanding where someone is coming from with a position that I fervently disagree with, to me feels a little more comfortable than the people that are just, I'm doing crazy shit!
You can't predict it tomorrow!
You have no idea!
So knowing why, and it being consistent within the overall context of everything else he's discussing, I mean, I hate the fact that he says that.
I really fervently couldn't disagree with the position more strongly, but I do understand where he's coming from within that context, and it's not like, this is a wildly different position than I expected you to hold, given everything else.
He's pro-military.
And the perception is that Snowden put the military secrets at risk, that Snowden put lives in harm's way and betrayed the trust that he'd been given with this information.
I mean, so from that perspective, I mean, he's pro-military.
And that is consistent with that position.
So yeah, if he was pro-Snowden and pro-military in a weird way, it would be more concerning.
Right.
There'd be like a disconnect in the positions there.
It wouldn't make any logical sense.
So it'd be like, okay, what the hell is that about?
But, you know, I mean, I do appreciate the consistency because a consistent politician, holy shit, like, you know, that doesn't happen too often.
John McCain, like, I can't believe Donald Trump said these things about immigrants.
Donald Trump four years ago, or John McCain four years ago, we're going to build the dang fence.
All these criminals coming in.
What the fuck?
What?
Yeah.
What?
He's not in any way the wind blows.
Sorry, Stein, go ahead.
No, no, it's just, can you be a bit more consistent?
Also, to be fair to him, he's trying to appeal to a Republican audience as well, and as far as I know, a lot of people disagree with what's known and dead in the United States, and I think most of those people are on the Republican side.
So if he wants to win those votes over, even if he's not that strong of a proponent of that proposal to, I don't know, execute Snowden for what he's done, he may be doing it just because it is a popular opinion to hold.
Yeah, I mean, I don't think the immigration thing, I don't think he knew ahead of time how popular it was going to be or how interested people were going to be in it.
He does not strike me as someone who's biting his tongue.
And I've watched quite a few interviews, because I'm looking for it.
Not a lot of spin.
Yeah, you know, it's kind of blunt out there.
I appreciate the bluntness.
After having the velvet glove, which is sticking a fucking knife in my back from all politicians, the bluntness, even if it's something I disagree with, it's like, I appreciate your bluntness.
At least I know where you stand or have a good feeling that I understand where you're coming from.
Now, has he talked about...
He talks about the trade deals with China, with Mexico, and so on.
And he says that they're just terrible deals.
America's getting...
Now, the guy who's written a great...
At least a very best-selling business book called The Art of the Deal.
The fact that he's even talking about trade deals, which the majority of American population have no idea about, and that would basically include me as a whole as well.
Has he talked about what he doesn't like in the trade deals?
I mean, because that's kind of cool that he could even bring these topics to the attention of Americans.
He does.
I don't really feel as if...
Well, he does to some extent.
I don't know.
Because, again, it's not something I am terribly familiar with on average.
So I really couldn't competently re-explain the stuff that he said about the trade deals.
A lot of it is general, and this is a criticism of him from people.
He says, like, I'm going to come in and I'm going to make it better with a lot of stuff.
Through sheer force of will, sheer force of personality.
And there aren't, like, this is the plan.
Step one, step two, step three, step four.
That's a criticism that's put out of him.
Granted, it's pretty early in this whole process as well.
But, I mean, what he says is, you know, instead of having, what was the political figure, was it a Kennedy that was put in charge of the Japan trade negotiations?
Oh, wait, no, was it Maria Shriver or someone like that who was put in, like, she basically was, I'm bored.
And so go be our ambassador to Japan.
She has no experience in business, no experience in negotiation, no experience in trade deals.
But, you know, she's got a name and she was pretty and bored.
So off she goes.
Yeah, I mean, like, his mindset seems to be, I'm going to get very competent people.
He even says, like, some of these people, these negotiators that I'm talking about are not nice people.
You wouldn't want to sit next to them at dinner, but they're very good at what they do as far as negotiating.
And I'm going to take those types of people, people that you don't even know about, that are good in this field, because I have this experience, and we're going to put them in charge of making these deals.
Which, if you're coming from a nationalist standpoint, if, you know...
And you're going to have trade deals like this.
Hey, free trade is the absence of any government regulation if you want to have free trade.
A free trade deal is bullshit on its head.
But if dealing within the statist context, if you're a nationalist, you're going to want to have trade deals that don't hinder or damage your country.
So the idea that you'd have good negotiators working on them with other countries, that makes sense to me in that context.
And that's mostly what he's talking about.
I think you had something there.
No, it's also to bring up an earlier point.
It is incredibly refreshing.
We often joke about how incompetent politicians are and how they're not an expert on anything.
And to have a guy who is incredibly experienced in making deals talk about a trade deal.
That is somewhat new to politics as far as I know.
Most of them are lawyers.
What do they know about trade?
What do they know about the healthcare system?
Mm-hmm.
Lawyers are someone's son, you know?
Yeah.
Yeah, this guy's got a payroll in the thousands, of which healthcare cost is an enormous part.
I mean, he's obviously not an expert in healthcare, but it's a huge part of his business decision-making process to deal with healthcare costs, which has not been the case with anyone else of recent memory that I know of.
Well, here's another criticism of him coming from a more libertarian side.
He does seem to be for some semblance of universal healthcare in some way.
And that hasn't been a big issue that's been brought up with him.
But he has talked about it to a degree, which certainly is a contrary position for a Republican candidate to take.
And, you know, certainly I believe he's talked about repealing Obamacare, which certainly hasn't done anything to make healthcare cheaper in the United States, but he does seem to be for universal healthcare in some form.
But that hasn't been sussed out to any degree in any speeches or any interviews that he's done as of late.
So that's something also to keep in mind that's like, yeah, that's not good.
That's not good.
But is it better than what we're going to have?
Again, compared to what in this status paradigm?
Not expecting the state to fall tomorrow.
Would you rather have a universal healthcare system, which is a bit more efficient, or would you rather have Obamacare, which has more layers of bureaucracy?
I mean, as someone who does pay insurance premiums, I don't know.
It's an interesting question.
I think that the phrase that keeps popping into my head is buying time.
Yeah, that's a great way to put it.
I mean, because again, I don't think Donald Trump getting elected is going to change the political system for the future, and we're going to lead to a free society on the back of Donald Trump and his amazing hairdo.
It's not going to happen.
It's not going to happen.
God, I mean, it seems like shit.
Looking at the news, it's just getting worse and worse and worse, and there's more problems, and then it's like, let's go over here and do this!
Problem!
Wow, saying let's in the context of, you know, I'm going over to Iraq and doing this, but, you know, the political class and...
The military and these trade deals and Iranian negotiations and all this stuff.
I mean, it just seems like there's more and more problems getting kicked up day after day after day.
It'd be great to just have someone who wasn't kicking up additional problems that make the world more unstable and more dangerous, let alone potentially being able to act decisively if you have to do something to deal with problems that already exist.
Even if it's just prevention in the sense that I'm not going to go do random stupid shit which is going to make the world less stable.
Yay!
I'll take that from a, maybe we can get some more years before, you know, what happens?
You know, some giant terrorist attack or some war or, you know, the collapse of the United States from an economic standpoint, which is pretty inevitable, regardless if Donald Trump gets in or not, just because of math.
But can we buy time to get a generation or two of better parenting in place so that when the collapse happens, it will go the right way?
And he's certainly someone who doesn't seem to be prone to biting his tongue.
If he meets resistance in the political process, is he going to have a frank conversation?
If you're going to have a politician that does good, I always thought you'd want someone who has frank and honest discussions with the American people about, okay, we want to do this.
Everyone agrees that this is what we should do.
For example, the drug war.
You know, everyone agrees that, for the most part, that the drug war has been a massive failure by any statistical measurement.
The drug war has been a massive failure.
But no one, you know, it's like, well, younger people in general tend to say, let's legalize drugs.
Conservative Christians are like, no, let's not do that.
But no one's actually talking about it.
It's like, okay, we're aware this drug war has been a failure.
We're aware that we have a prison-industrial complex.
We're aware of all this.
Are we going to actually do anything about it, or are we just going to stick our head in the sand and ignore it?
And he seems to be the type of person that, okay, we're going to do X, because X is the best for X, Y, and Z. That's the best reason.
What is preventing us from doing X is this.
I mean, that's that is what a president should do to have a positive impact is say, hey, look, this is a giant mess of bureaucracy.
Look, we can't do this because of the union.
We can't do this because of these politicians naming names that are putting up the roadblock and they're receiving funding from this company and they're not passing this because of this.
You'd want someone that exposes the political process for the shell game that it is and explains why stuff isn't getting done.
So the public puts the public pressure on the impediments and the roadblocks.
And it can be, in some ways, it can be a massive educational campaign to the corruptness of the system.
The downside of this is someone doing this, is that going to make people think, well, now the system is good because we have man in there saying things about negative of the system.
So now, if Donald Trump's successful, you're going to have more people...
Whether genuine or not, mimicking and parroting the language of Donald Trump, and is it going to give people a more renewed sense of faith in the state as a whole, and delay essentially the revolution of realizing, yeah, we don't need to point guns at people, and we don't need to steal money from people in order to have win-win interactions.
It's kind of the antithesis of win-win interactions.
So that's the big ultimate, hey, educational campaign.
Hey, is there going to be buying time, or is this going to swing the other way and give people a renewed faith in the state, which will then lead to more problems, more, you know, hornet's nests being kicked over by whether it's Trump or people in the future.
Because of this renewed faith in the state.
This is a massive catch-22.
Yeah, I was thinking about it still.
It's like, what if he's wildly successful?
What if he fixes all those problems?
That's kind of scary to think about, right?
Yeah.
It still doesn't make it immoral.
Look, if he did, I would take it.
Well, yeah, that's the thing, right?
But at the same time, it will be used as an example.
It still doesn't change the moral aspect of it.
It's still immoral.
Absolutely not, but do you want a medicine?
And I know that this is challenging relative to what I said before, and I'm aware of that.
We'll talk about that another time.
I don't want to hedge it.
It's just a big topic.
But again, in the fantasy that he gets in and he does improve, The standard of living.
He improves economic security.
He negotiates better trade.
He gets better people coming into the country, into America and so on.
Let's say that we cast skepticism and reasons.
He gets all of that and America starts doing a lot better.
This constant stagnation of income is reversed.
People start to have money and job security improves and workers get better benefits because more companies are competing for them because of economic growth.
All of this sort of stuff starts to happen.
Doesn't that buy time for money?
A peaceful society to continue to make its case, right?
I mean, if the economy collapses tomorrow, it's too early for what we're doing to have moved the needle enough that we're going to emerge from that with a free society.
So can they sort of keep the predators at bay until we finish sharpening our swords, so to speak?
Well, and a counterpoint to what I said about if this increases faith in the state, I mean, government doing badly Has not decreased people's faith in government overall.
It hasn't.
I mean, it's not like people are like, well, this government thing isn't working.
Let's look at these other options.
No, people just drop out of the system and become passive and inert.
which isn't good either.
So, you know, renewing faith in the system, people seem to have the undying faith in the system, irregardless of how well it's doing, as far as the goodies it's providing them and how their standard of living is.
So the idea that we would, even if they think of that as the worst case scenario, that somehow increases the faith, it doesn't really change the practicality, because until children are parented without an authoritarian structure, without spanking, without aggression, until the win-win negotiation is going on with children, until the win-win negotiation is going on with children, we're not going to have the rise of people that say, hey, we don't need this authoritarian structure based on win-lose interactions.
We can have win-win interactions and negotiate without the cost overhead.
The quality of people's childhood is not going to increase during an economic collapse.
Sorry, Stoyan, you were going to say?
No, we're just saying just to support what Mike said.
We're assuming here that the fate in the system is predicated upon the success of it.
And if that was true, as Mike is saying, the world would be a whole lot different.
We would have a lot more donations, is actually what I was going to say.
Now, let's circle back to the immigration thing for a sec.
I mean, the first point I want to make is that I'm thrilled with someone who's not afraid of the media because that's been a huge stumbling block for Republican politics for the past couple of generations.
It's the Republicans are terrified of the media and they throw the Republican voting bloc under the bus in order to appease the media, to not be called racist, to not be called sexist, to not be called elitist, to not be called white privileged minors or whatever.
And so the fact that you have somebody who's genuinely not afraid of the media and who, through not being afraid of the media, is showing the media to be a paper tiger, because the media all explodes with outrage and rage.
Oh, he said this about John McCain.
Oh, he's saying this about immigrants.
He's done!
And his polling numbers go up.
Yeah, and his poll numbers keep going up.
So what he is is a living testament that hopefully will give some courage to other people.
The media is a paper tiger.
Just because the media gets mad at you, that's just a bunch of whiny mama's boys, basically, who are generally on the left.
Trying to pretend that the pen is mightier than the truth.
And so the fact that he's not afraid of the media and the fact that the media, the disapproval of him, it only seems to serve to enhance his reputation is fantastic.
You know, it's like what one man can do, another can do.
Hey, this guy's not harmed by this weapon, so I guess I don't have to be scared of this weapon anymore.
Because people who live inside the world of politics and the public life, the media is always around them and the media shapes a lot of opinions around them.
But outside of that bubble, people hate the media in general.
Like America, you look at sort of trust in the media, it's like, it's ridiculously low.
I mean, people genuinely hate the media.
So if the media hates you, you've got to be doing something right.
So I think that is important.
The fact that he's bringing up this debate on immigration is long overdue.
Long overdue.
Like as recently as 1965, America was pretty homogenous when it came to culture.
And, you know, since Kennedy, Ed Kennedy put in the 65 Immigration Act, which he promised would not change the American demographics in any substantial manner, American society has wildly changed and it's not been debated.
Because anybody who tries to bring up any debate about it is instantly screamed down as a racist and blah blah.
So the fact that this is something that needs to be discussed about.
The fact that people who vote generally Democrat are pouring over the border is cheating in politics.
That is buying off the judges.
That is not fair.
That's even worse than targeting the Tea Party groups through which Obama stole the election.
So the fact that different cultures, I mean, do libertarians genuinely think that people raised in the socialist hellhole and traumatic childhoods of Mexico are going to come across the border and vote libertarian?
They're not.
There's giant waves of people coming in from Mexico and other South and Central American countries They're not coming in because they want to establish a free market paradise.
And they're not coming from a place where there is less authoritarianism in the parenting, which is going to leave them more likely to be open to win-win negotiations in a non-authoritarian structure.
Yeah, just because they're running away from an abusive authority doesn't mean that they're not going to recreate it.
I mean, that's like saying some teenage girl who runs away from an abusive household is just going to automatically end up in a happy and peaceful marriage.
They tend to bring their trauma with them and recreate it.
And Stoyan, you brought up a point which I'd really like you to expand upon because it's been going round and round in my brain for the last couple of weeks about the disparate or opposing childhood experiences of the immigrants versus a lot of the Western natives.
Yeah, we already know that those people are not doing well.
You just have to look up the news, the bloodshed that is going on in Mexico.
That is not the outcome of a peaceful society.
We know that childhood shapes the kind of society that comes out.
And given the amount of bloodshed and the violence and the criminality that is going on, by proxy, we already know that childhood is not great.
And we did a bit of research and apparently it's spanking and just spousal abuse even is rampant in Mexico.
Yeah, what was the number?
We looked up and was it a third of pregnant women are beaten by their husbands?
Yeah, I think it was something scary.
Yeah, and that releases hormones, the stress hormones cortisol that fundamentally can alter the baby's brain and render it traumatized even before being born.
Childhood sexual abuse is rampant in certain areas of Mexico.
Up until the late 1970s, the topic of child abuse didn't even exist.
In Mexico.
And childhood is fairly wretched throughout almost all of Mexico.
These are very traumatized people in a culture that barely recognizes that trauma, flooding into Western society, which has had peaceful childhood and childhood rights, you could sort of argue, for at least 150 to 200 years.
It has been a focus, and that progress has been really slow and painful.
But at a time where in Europe, some countries had already banned spanking.
The topic of child abuse didn't even exist in Mexico.
They are centuries behind the West when it comes to respecting the rights of children.
And having all of these traumatized children, grown up or not, come pouring into a country that's tried to work on respecting child rights for the last couple of hundred years is a fundamental incompatibility.
I don't want to equate a country to one's personal life, but we know that we wouldn't allow those types of people in our homes.
We wouldn't want to be friends with them.
We could have sympathy for them, but the best thing to do is not import traumatized people, but export peaceful parenting to their country.
Especially when they can have power over your life.
Especially when they're...
It's not like we haven't had examples of angry mobs burning down But also difficult childhoods as we've studied for the most part.
Yeah, I mean, as far as spanking rate in the US, based on Elizabeth Gershoff's study, the black children are the only group that spanked more than Hispanic children.
It pretty much goes Asians spank the least, whites spanked next, and then Hispanics and black children.
So, importing people that have been raised in authoritarian structures, that have seen, witnessed all kinds of violence, and have been raised with violence in their household, That's not going to lead you to a more free society any quicker.
Yeah, to take an extreme analogy, if you have a peaceful and happy home with your wife and your kids and your friends, and then you invite two drug addicts into your house, does your life get worse or do their lives get better?
Do they become healthy or does your life just get thrown into chaos?
And when you bring traumatized, dysfunctional, acting out people into your society, they don't get better.
Your society just gets worse.
And it's tragic, but there's no magic wand to fix people.
And in fact, they may dig down even more.
Because now they would have to defend their historical prejudices and their experiences against something that tells them this is not the norm.
Like whether that's the culture around them, whether that's the people who tell them this is not the norm.
What you have experienced is not the norm, which would kick up all kinds of defenses.
So they may dig down even more.
Yeah.
And you could make the case that if you get a very small number of traumatized people coming into a healthy society, at some point, they will join the norms of the parent society or the society they're going into.
If one Mexican person moves to Japan, at some point, they're going to adapt to the Japanese way of life, their kids or their kids' kids or whatever.
But if, you know, if 20 million Mexicans move to Japan, then they can create their own subculture where they don't have to adapt to the parent culture.
And that is a real challenge.
And this is why America took this pause from like the mid-1920s.
They took a 40-year pause from immigration.
The idea being, look, we've had a lot of immigrants come in.
We're going to need to give them time to absorb them into the culture as a whole and to have them understand the complicated 2,500-year Western history of reason, evidence of limitations of political power, the separation of church and state, of the peaceful raising of children, of respect for women, which is not very high in South and Central American cultures.
They need time to absorb the values that people in the West have spent thousands of years and millions of lives have been spent to nurture, protect, and grow these values.
So we need to take a break so people can adapt and absorb these values.
But if wave upon wave of traumatized people whose culture is the complete opposite of the culture that produced America in many ways, they keep coming into America.
You know, I've used this analogy before, but if you take the entire population of Japan And move it to Mexico, and you take the entire population of Mexico and move it to Japan, those two countries will be unrecognizable immediately.
And just to support this with a bit more evidence over the past couple months, I've been reading stories, especially in European outlets, about radicalization amongst Muslim youths in Europe.
In other words, those are Young people, young Muslims, whose parents had immigrated to Germany in the United Kingdom, yet they're still tempted by ISIS and their message.
Those are people who have been exposed to the more peaceful ways of the Western society, yet they travel back to Iraq and all the other places which are related to ISIS, and they join the militant gangs.
After having grown up in a culture that supposedly should counter that naturally, it doesn't happen.
It doesn't happen unless there's a serious commitment to change.
And we know that takes a long time and a lot of work.
And that has to do with needing to integrate into the economic sphere.
In particular, when you get waves of immigrants coming in who can be shielded from the need to participate in the larger economic life of the society through welfare and other forms of public assistance, it's even worse.
There's a class, I think Tom Sowell talks about this, there was a class of Germans who moved to Russia in, I think it was the late 17th, early 18th century.
No, sorry.
Yeah, that's right.
They moved to Russia and they were administrators and bureaucrats and so on and they stayed for about a hundred years, right?
Then, of course, they all fled as the revolution occurred in sort of 1917 and slightly before.
And they had remained entirely German for a hundred years living in Russia because there were enough of them that they became sort of an insular society.
They never learned Russian.
They continued to celebrate their German holidays and they continued to worship in their own Protestant way rather than joining the Russian Orthodox Church There was zero integration and that's the same race over a hundred year period because there were enough of them that they moved a little slice of Germany over to Russia for a hundred years and then they fled and ran back to Germany and There was no integration whatsoever and that can certainly happen When you have enough.
And you just think about this.
If you go and move to Korea, do you immediately become just like the Koreans?
Of course not.
I mean, and particularly if there's enough of you and you're shielded by welfare from the economic value of participating in the larger economy.
And of course, when you get enough, you can all trade amongst yourselves and create the sub economy and so on.
It does not allow for the transmission of values from the dominant culture to the minority culture.
And those are all big issues that Americans have to face.
I mean it's not just the United States, let's be fair, Europe is dealing with a lot of that too, but in the United States at least there is Donald Trump.
That to me is from the perspective of an outsider, at least there's Donald Trump who talks about it.
Publicly.
Right.
And that to me is also quite refreshing.
There is no such personality around here and usually when there is, it is the fringe radical elements in society.
Whereas now you have a successful man who is open about it and is not afraid, as you said, of the media.
Oh, if you could create a Frankenstein monster in a lab to potentially have some impact on the political system in a positive way, I mean, you'd want someone with the qualities that Donald Trump has.
The fact that he has $10 billion has been incredibly successful in business.
He knows all the bureaucracy.
He knows all the problems in trying to get stuff done in this country.
He's familiar with monetary policy.
He's familiar with international trade because he's dealt internationally with a lot of his business.
I mean, he's – and he's a public figure that people know and have strong opinions about and gravitate to and a charismatic personality.
I mean, getting like one of these traits in someone, I immediately think, and people have made this comparison to Ross Perot and when Ross Perot ran, because Ross Perot also had a lot of money and therefore was able to self-finance his campaign and get a different perspective out there, but...
It's not like Ross Perot was a charismatic figure.
It's not like Ross Perot in the face of media criticism was as fiercely speaking truth to power in the way that Donald Trump is about some of these issues.
And he had a funny voice that could easily be made fun of.
And he called up lots of charts.
Like the same thing with Sarah Palin.
A lot of people genuinely think that Sarah Palin said, well, I can see Russia from my house.
Which she never said, right?
That's something that Tina Fey said when she was making fun of Sarah Palin.
And so in the same way, like Saturday Night Live made a lot of fun of Ross Perot, and that's where people got their impressions of him from.
But people actually have had direct experience, living room experience with Donald Trump for many years, because what he's been doing The Apprentice for like 15 years or 18, like it's just been going on and on.
I don't think it's been 18, over a decade at least, I'm pretty sure.
A decade at least.
And so people have had like direct in the living room experience of Donald Trump, which of course nobody knew Ross Perot from a hole in the ground.
So he was easier to mock because people didn't have historical knowledge of him.
But Donald Trump has been in people's living rooms forever.
And he's very, very popular.
I mean, you can't run a success.
And he points out in his speeches, you know, other people have tried to replicate the success of The Apprentice and they've all failed.
And so it's his charisma and his likability factor that has a big impact.
And so the media doesn't have someone whose perception they can shape, whose initial impression they can shape, because he's very well known to the American public.
I mean, he's been known since the 80s to the American public.
He's been an American public figure for decades.
And in people's living rooms on television.
And so when people try and pay him as a buffoon, as an idiot and stuff like that, that was easy to do with Ross Perot, who was short and had a kind of whiny voice and used a lot of charts and so on and didn't have a lot of charisma and was unknown to the American public.
But, you know, it's easy to slander someone that people barely know.
But if you've known someone really well, you can just dismiss that and the media look crazy.
Ridiculous.
And the fact that the media is shooting and their arrows are shattering, like I was reading this thing in the New York Times that they've gone back to some of his depositions from court cases from years ago, and they've gone back to his wife and his divorce proceedings.
They're trying to dig up whatever dirt they can.
I mean, it's so pitiful.
I mean, engage the man on the facts.
God, it makes the media look like just a bunch of neckbeard trolls, which they are, in fact.
But it really exposes the media.
I think that the Donald Trump campaign is going to be the death knell of mainstream media.
I know that's a bold prediction.
But I think that, because it used to be that the mainstream media would report on his speech.
But now people can go and see the speech for themselves and compare it with the mainstream media's reporting of it and just go, I can't go to the mainstream media anymore because it's all so twisted and hateful and vile.
And there's another point too, which is we often talk about the mainstream media and government as separate entities, whereas I think they're more along the lines of what the church and government were prior to the separation of church and state.
So breaking up the power of the media is actually a positive thing.
Oh, well, I mean, that's one of the reasons why there's the vociferous hatred of Trump from just, like, every side of the spectrum from a mainstream media standpoint is because this is not politics as usual.
This is different.
This guy may impact our cozy little system that we have.
where, you know, everyone kind of is within the predefined box.
And yes, things get very testy during elections because everyone's trying to win.
But, you know, we're not going to bring up the big elephant in the room like illegal immigration.
That's just on the no-no list.
And it's kind of understood.
There's certain things that we're not going to go into because mutually assured destruction or we just it's, you know, just it's not in our interest.
And no one wants to cross the unwritten rules and the unwritten lines that exist because if they don't win, they'd like the lobbying job or the cabinet position or they'd like to become a consultant or a talking head on Fox News or MSNBC or something like that.
So everyone stays within these predefined little boxes politically and everyone that is even on the stage has received massive amounts of campaign financing from All the groups that serve to benefit from corporate power and, oh, government power, influencing their corporations and their interests in a positive way.
I mean, this is the first time where there's anyone that seems to be, like, a genuine outsider.
Well, at the same time, like you said, Steph, let me finish this point.
Sorry, sorry, go ahead, go ahead.
The genuine outsider, while at the same time he's been on your television and people have been reporting on him for an extended period of time, for decades, you have some idea in your mind as to what Donald Trump is, whether good or bad.
And even if it's vociferous hatred, that's a lot better than indifference when it comes to politics.
I think you've got a whole lot better chance of convincing people to come to your side if they vociferously hate you sometimes and if they're completely indifferent.
Completely indifferent.
So, like you mentioned, Steph, these media personalities, they've had this guy on their show for years, and they'd hobnob with him, and they'd smile, and they'd talk about whatever they're going to talk about, and The Apprentice, and oh, when you fired so-and-so, wasn't that something?
And then it's like, now he threatens our interests.
Let's violently turn on him.
And these people that previously were having pleasant conversations with Donald Trump and smiling and schmoozing and all that are now vociferously denouncing him.
It's like, wow, if that's not a bigger illustrative example of what the media is, shh!
Change on a dime because you threaten my interests.
Oh, God.
I don't know what could expose people to the evil of the media.
And some of the recent stuff that's been thrown out against Trump, even liberals and people that hate Trump are looking at this going like, this is just shit.
I mean, this is just nonsense you're muckraking trying to drag him into.
And it gets dismissed, and it's not sticking, and everything they throw at him, he's like some bizarre superhero that you try and take him down, shoot a missile at him, and he absorbs the energy and somehow gets stronger.
That seems to be what the media hatred and attacks have done to the guy.
And it's what an illustrative example of what the mainstream media is, how quickly they can turn on someone that threatens their interests, and My God, this stuff isn't working anymore.
Is there a silent majority of people that are sick of this media stuff?
Are they sick of politics as usual, with politicians that never answer questions, never actually say anything, and it's just a bunch of good old boys doing their thing?
Donald Trump seems to be an indication that there's a lot of people that are sick of it, and that being brought to the attention in a greater sphere, I can't...
There's some immense positives there.
I just looked it up.
Yeah, he's better at the media than the media is because he's more experienced and he's been more successful in the media than most people in the media.
So trying to use the media to attack Donald Trump is, you know, like trying to use solar power to attack a solar-powered robot.
It just makes him stronger.
And the illegal immigration, too...
It's so destructive to the black community.
It just drives down wages.
Now, big business loves it because it keeps wages low.
You get more and more unskilled people pouring in looking for jobs.
It depresses wages.
That's just supply and demand, right?
And so the fact that he is talking about immigration, big businesses give lots of money to Republicans and Democrats in order to avoid talking about illegal immigration.
And this is what...
People have pointed out that there's this double vice crushing out the middle class, right?
Because the Democrats want illegal immigrants because they reliably vote Democrat, and big business wants illegal immigrants because they drive down wages, which enhance their profits.
And the blacks in particular get caught in the middle and really, really dislike it.
And of course, if the left cared at all about the blacks as they consistently claim to do, then they would be reducing the number of unskilled people pouring across the border and out competing.
So I think all of that stuff is it's important.
And the question is, too, like you can't get rid of the welfare state right now.
I mean, if Donald Trump went up and said, I want to get rid of the welfare state, he would crater.
Like, I mean, there's just no amount of charisma that can overcome that.
But he can go up and talk about getting rid of illegal immigration or closing the border or whatever.
And there's lots of people who cheer.
Back to America.
Yeah.
And there's lots of people who cheer.
And what that means is, if you get enough illegal immigrants coming in and their welfare participation is far higher than the domestic population, if you get enough illegal immigrants coming into America, you will never be able to get rid of the welfare state.
And so if you want to get rid of the welfare state, you can't get rid of it now.
It's politically impossible.
Too many people are dependent.
But one thing you can do if you have the long-term strategy of getting rid of the welfare state is control illegal immigration.
So that there's fewer people with their growing dependence on the welfare state, so at some point you might be able to move that needle.
So that's an important thing.
Sorry, Istojen, I think I interrupted you.
Oh no, that's exactly what I was going to highlight.
It's a step towards removing it.
You can deal with the problem when there are so many people that are dependent on it.
Their lives are dependent on it.
They have made decisions that were based upon them receiving welfare.
So those people are going to vote against you.
No way.
And I was just saying, I looked it up.
Because we talked about a silent majority, only 55% of Americans participated in the 2012 presidential election.
Only 55%.
We don't know where the rest are.
They may be indifferent.
Lord, if you're getting someone like me quasi-interested, I mean, you can't have someone that's more opposed to the political spectrum than me.
And I'm intrigued.
So they may indeed be...
Well, maybe not a majority, but a large chunk of Americans who are very concerned about these things.
And there's no one who represents them in politics.
And he's going to get them interested in political stuff.
And then we're going to be able to talk to them.
And they've got some knowledge base.
At the moment, lots of people don't care about politics and won't listen to this show because they think it's a political show or whatever.
They don't care about politics.
He's going to get them engaged in the political system.
And the same thing happened with Ron Paul, to be fair.
Ron Paul got a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't be interested in the political system engaged in the political system.
And, you know, again, I haven't changed fundamentally any of my opinions about that.
But I will say that I'm glad he's in the race because he's bringing topics to the forefront that really need to be talked about.
Again, I'm with you, Mike.
He's not going to bring about some libertarian paradise, but if he deflates the power of the media and he gives people courage with regards to speaking truth to power, and the real truth to power at the moment is not It's not the government.
The real power is the media and their capacity to just lie about people and slander people and dig up dirt and just that general yucky, mean girls, vicious, sociopathic, muckraking, two-faced, weasel, backstabbing bullshit that they generally enjoy.
So anybody who deflates the power of the media or who reveals them to the paper tiger, I'm behind.
I'm glad he's in the race.
You know, we're going to cover this stuff no matter what.
But it's a hell of a lot more interesting with the Donald around.
I'll tell you, because we were talking about, oh, presidential election coming up.
You know, we can do, like, profiles on various candidates and their positions and explain why positions won't work and stuff.
And looking at the field, like, you know, six months ago, it's like, oh, my God.
Like, this is going to be painful.
Yeah, we've been drawing, like, short straws.
Who gets to do that?
Who gets to take that bullet?
And now, I mean, and I will say too, now that even a guy like Bernie Sanders being in the race, and we've put together something on Bernie Sanders that we'll release in the very near future, but even the fact that there's an outright socialist in the race talking, it's like, this is certainly making things a little more interesting.
So, from the outsider, potentially, standpoint, well...
Bernie Sanders, who's been a politician for many years, it's hard to call him an outsider, but from bringing interesting discussions and dialogues to a national stage, I find it interesting.
And this is a big thing.
I mean, I'm expecting a lot of people, and I could be wrong, and I hope I am.
I'm expecting a lot of people to be very mad at me for talking about my intrigue in the Donald Trump candidacy.
Just being honest, man.
I know, but I'm expecting a lot of people to be very angry at me for talking about this.
And, you know, if you do want to discuss this with me, you can call into the show, mail me at Operations of Freedom Aid Radio, even if you just want to send me feedback.
I'm curious what people do think.
I'm expecting people not to like this.
And I don't...
This doesn't really change...
My intrigue with Donald Trump doesn't fundamentally change anything about me, or my positions, or anything.
Like, what am I going to do now that I find Donald Trump intriguing?
I'm going to probably watch more Donald Trump interviews on YouTube.
Which may be you, or may make it stronger.
Yeah, and...
We're going to cover the presidential campaign and presidential politics anyway, and it's not like it's Trump 2016, let me get my campaign button right now.
I'm still an anarchist.
The political process isn't going to change the system.
It's not going to lead to a free society.
That's not going to happen.
It's multi-generational change fundamentally based on peaceful parenting and win-win negotiation with children without raising them in an authoritarian structure.
So it's like fundamentally nothing has changed in my mindset.
I just find this, you know, someone that's actually got shit done in their life and been a success speaking truth to power in a big stage and making a whole lot of politicians and corrupt, evil, monstrous people uncomfortable.
I find that interesting.
And there may be some tangible benefits on the side to that as well.
So I'm just...
I just want to stress, too, nothing has changed.
There's no fundamental...
I've thought about this, too.
What really has changed in my mind because I find Donald Trump interesting?
Has my position on any issue changed?
No.
No, it really hasn't.
I'm just aware that if...
Okay, if we're going to put on the, we're in a status paradigm hat, which, we are in a status paradigm.
The majority of the people are in a status paradigm.
What would you want?
What would you want?
Would you, do you want, do you want Hillary Clinton?
I mean, I don't.
As someone that lives in the United States, I don't.
That's, that's rather horrifying to me.
Eight years of Obama has already made a lot of the stuff that I pay for a whole lot more expensive.
And maybe that would have happened with a Republican, because many of the Republicans are exactly the same as the Democrats in oh so many ways.
It'll just go to war or something else instead.
But, yeah, nothing has changed.
It's intriguing to me.
This is so unexpected that I would find someone running for the political office of President of the United States intriguing.
And I would watch interviews with them.
And I think the only reason that that is intriguing is because it's someone who isn't a politician.
And someone who Frankentrump, like we mentioned...
If you had to put a bunch of qualities together for someone who was going to be in this position that may have a chance to do some positive stuff, it would be someone that possesses all the stuff that Donald Trump has, which there ain't a lot of people Fitting that description and those qualities around,
much less those with any type of moral courage or willingness to put themselves and their cozy life on the line, to go from being someone who is a darling, could get on any show and be talked about positively with the general media chit-chat and watch your show and all that stuff, to now someone who is vociferously hated by a large segment of the establishment of He's sacrificed quite a bit to do that.
So the amount of people willing to do that...
He's talked about this too.
He's been told if you do something, if you're successful in life and you do a lot of stuff, those types of people don't and shouldn't run for political office because they're just going to disrate you from every stance.
So you get unknowns that haven't done anything.
You get George W. Bush's kid.
Not George W. Bush's kid.
George Herbert Walker Bush's kid.
You get the dynasty politicians or you get the bought and paid for people that are thrown up there or...
Whatever.
You get a governor that hasn't done shit which has driven his local economy into the toilet because, you know, he's got experience managing something.
You don't get people that actually have accomplished anything successful.
Would you rather have Hillary Clinton or would you rather have the CEO of Amazon?
I'd pick the CEO of Amazon.
Is the CEO of Amazon going to run?
No!
He's not going to run.
Donald Trump is.
He's got business experience and a lot of intriguing qualities.
And I appreciate that.
Even if it's someone that I disagree with their positions, the fact that they will put themselves and their life on the line, their public life and persona on the line to do something that they feel is important, I respect that.
I really do.
So I wanted to have this conversation and talk about this.
I always say, wouldn't it be so great if on a public stage we could have these important conversations about things like immigration and bring a wide variance of viewpoints and arguments and bring the best evidence to bear and just talk about this on a worldwide basis and have these discussions and people could pay attention and debate stuff wouldn't it be so great if on a public stage we could have And to me, that's what this is.
This is something I'm expecting people to not like, the fact that I have this enjoyment of what Donald Trump is doing right now.
I don't expect people to like it, but it's an important conversation to have, and I want other people to have important conversations.
And so it's like, well, if I want other people to have important conversations about stuff that may be unpopular, I should probably have this important conversation and put myself out there as someone who has these thoughts and arguments.
And please, if there's anything here that I've said that you find fervently disagreeable, I would love to talk about it more because, again, it's an important conversation.
Let's have a debate.
let's have a discussion it's uh i've really enjoyed just talking about it now much less the further discussions that come into the future so let's just put that out there i'm I'm expecting a lot of aggression.
Hopefully that's not the case.
Be nice to Mike.
He's just being honest.
We ask listeners to be honest.
I'm fascinated by your fascination.
And I'll watch the speeches and I'll absorb and I don't exactly know where I stand as yet.
I'm still continuing to gather information.
Mike, is there anything you wanted to add to close up?
Oh, it's been something I've been mulling over, a theoretical.
And when I was thinking about Donald Trump, Atlas Shrug popped up in my mind.
And I thought to myself, what if Dagny Taggart became the President of the United States in the universe of Atlas Shrug?
What would happen?
And in the Iranian world, there was this relentless push of the masses towards the left until the utter destruction of society.
That may not be true.
There may be a swing back.
Into more conservative values that has been going on in the United States quietly, mainly because the media will not report on it.
And that may buy us a little bit of time to spread our message because I mentioned this in an earlier conversation with Mike.
There does seem to be a little bit of despair, especially lately as we've been looking into the economic destruction that is just looming over the country.
We don't have enough time.
We released a video that we passed a quarter million subscribers.
That is not enough.
That is not enough.
And if he buys us time, that may be a good thing in the long run.
I've not decided what I said on the question of Donald Trump, good or not, yet.
But as Steph said, I'm curious about Mike's opinion of him.
And we'll be watching the interviews that Mike will inevitably share with me.
LAUGHTER Every day.
As soon as he wakes up.
With the little hearts.
You know, N plus, D, T, forever.
Carved in a tree.
I'm going to open a Tumblr blog with my Donald Trump fandom.
I heart the Donald.
But again, it's a compared to what thing, too.
It really is.
I can look at some positives that may come out of this, and the negatives, there's the counterargument to if he gives people more faith in the system, because the government failing hasn't exactly eroded people's faith in the overall system.
It's not like we have a progression towards a minarchist government or an anarchist state.
We're not going to, given what we know about parenting and authoritarian structures and early childhood and its effects on that kind of stuff.
I'm not seeing a whole lot of immediate negative for sitting back.
Again, it's not like...
It's not changing anything.
I'm intrigued.
And I want to share my intriguement about this because the last thing I ever expected was to ever be interested in a political candidate ever again in my life.
Ever, ever, ever, ever.
And life is full of surprises.
Just when you think you're out, they keep pulling you back in.
So, yeah, I just wanted to share this with everyone, and a lot of people are like, what do you think of Donald Trump?
What do you think of Donald Trump, everyone?
Well, this is what I think about Donald Trump currently, and reserve the right to revise this at any point in the future.
Yeah, and let us, like everyone, you know, in the comments below or whatever, let us know what you think.
Share your outrage, your sympathy, your curiosity, your healing tips for ridding yourself of the demonic possession of political charisma.
Whatever is on your mind.
You know, it's a very interesting...
Aspects to what we're doing here.
And I'm certainly, you know, Mike has the most at stake in this.
So I'm willing to follow Mike's interest here and keep examining, exploring the topic.
But yeah, like this, share it, subscribe.
Of course, if you'd like to donate to any more rigorous intervention involving huge amounts of sodium pentothal, you can go to www.com.com.
No any good treatment facilities.
We'll have an aversion therapy, you know, like squirrel tail plus electric shock, squirrel tail plus electric shock.
And then we'll see how it works when he sees the Donald.
But no, I'm fascinated by Mike's fascination.
I defer to his exposure to adverse consequences in this area.
So we'll keep following it.
We'll keep talking about it.
And yeah, thanks very much for talking about this.
Yeah, thanks everyone.
Really enjoyed the chat and look forward to continued discussion in the future.
