3147 The Donald Trump Immigration Controversy! | Bill Whittle and Stefan Molyneux
The mainstream media is in a frenzy over Donald Trump's proposal to restrict Muslim immigration into the United States - and the outrage crosses party lines. Stefan Molyneux and Bill Whittle discuss the reaction to Trumps proposal, historical precedent for restricting immigration, the goal of terrorism, the difference between various religions, the role of evolutionary differences and the ability of Donald Trump to easily expose the mainstream media. Freedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donateGet more from Stefan Molyneux and Freedomain Radio including books, podcasts and other info at: http://www.freedomainradio.com
Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain Radio here with Bill Whittle of Bill Whittle, which is kind of what you do to a stick when you get over 70, when your suspenders go right up to here and you start complaining about the kids leaving Frisbees on your lawn.
BillWhittle.com, a pilot, commentator, and I guess here we have two guys who once went to theater school solving the problems of the world.
So you really are in safe, if somewhat, mimey hands.
So good to chat with you, Bill.
How are you doing?
It's great to be here, Stephan.
Isn't that odd?
We both went to British schools, we're both theater majors, and here we are out here doing what we're doing here.
It's like looking into an upside-down mirror with this scrub in your hair.
It does give you a perspective onto the left, though, doesn't it?
I mean, when you go up around theater people and you just see how emotion-based this is and how utterly, utterly independent it is of factual basis.
I used to passionately believe in things I knew nothing about.
Hey, before we get started, I just want to say something here.
I learned early in this trade that you cannot read your comments on YouTube.
It's enough to drive you nuts.
Early on in this, I'm a pretty competitive guy when it comes to what I believe in and stuff, and so are you, obviously.
And early on, I had a friend who found a way to appeal to the one force greater than my natural inborn orneriness, which is, of course, my vanity.
And he said, hey, you know, Bill, Zeus does not come down from Olympus to argue with shepherds about the weather.
Welcome to my show!
I wanted to be a fighter pilot since I was 5 until I was 17.
I wanted to go shoot down communists and protect this country.
And for the 30 years after that, like most of us, we had the luxury not to worry about any of this stuff.
But from the time I've started doing this, I've been doing my best to defend American freedom.
And I wore the shirt today because this is what I personally believe in.
I believe in a very limited federal government.
I think this giant state needs to be put back into the government-sized box it came out of.
I want an army, a navy, an air force, and marines to protect this country from people who hate freedom.
And I want a little tiny government that does pretty much this.
It builds a couple roads between states, and it makes sure that it fairly enforces a very small number of laws to stop people who can't win unless they cheat or commit crimes.
And if that makes me a statist, I wish you'd find a really, really high building and jump off of it because that'll give you enough time and free fall to elf yourself on the way down.
If you call me that to your face, the evening is not going to end well.
I did not take that very well at all.
Nothing against you, Stephan.
Let's have ourselves some fun.
Some things you just have to stand up for and defend, right?
There are some things that are mortal insults to you, and you simply have to respond to them.
And now, of course, I'm going to get called it all the time, but at least I got my wish.
I'm afraid you're only feeding the wildlife on the internet.
Yeah, it's okay.
Fine.
I don't care.
I'm not paying attention anymore.
Right.
Well, we'll talk about that at some point.
But right now, I mean, I think that the hot news item, of course, is Donald Trump saying that he wants to put a moratorium On Muslim immigration into the United States, which, you know, is a man's opinion.
Clearly, of course, it's a man's opinion who's running for the highest office in the land.
So it's more than just some guy at a diner spittling up his coffee in outrage, which doesn't add up to much.
But it seems like the response is somewhat out of proportion to the practicality of the idea.
And I'm sure you're aware of what he said and what are your thoughts on it?
I saw something this morning on Instapunit where basically it was a letter written by a leftist reassuring the other leftists in this country that the election of Donald Trump wouldn't lead to an American Reich because of all the reasons that we're not likely to fall to an American Reich.
That she wrote, Stefan, was there was nothing in there that the actual Reich and Hitler's regime and Mussolini's regime was completely conducted by collectivists like herself who believed absolutely in socialism and this fascist idea.
The word fascism, as you know, comes from fascisi.
It's a bundle of sticks.
It's the definition of a collective.
The Tea Party and individualists and anarchists and libertarians are the precise polar opposite of these gigantic state models of terror and oppression.
And for her to say that the Republican Party, you know, there are reasons, there are still some protections left why we can't have a Republican Nazi regime here.
Number one, of course, is that you can't spell Nazi without National Socialist German Workers Party, right?
You can't even spell Nazi without that.
I do find it also interesting that those people on the left who are worried about a Trump fascist tyranny are the ones who are supporting this current president who is doing his level best to eliminate every single one of our Bill of Rights protections.
He wants the First Amendment restricted.
He wants the Second Amendment restricted.
He wants the Fourth Amendment restricted, Fifth Amendment restricted, Tenth Amendment restricted.
So let's just start from there.
The problem of totalitarianism in this country is not going to come from the Republicans.
It's going to come from the progressives that are currently in power doing everything they can to erode those freedoms.
That said, we can do an hour on this because I think this is a really core foundational issue that deserves serious discussion without all of this hysteria.
Islam, it appears to me historically and culturally, Islam appears to be unique in the world in that the core religious beliefs, and by the way, one of the things that makes Islam unique is it's not just a religion.
It is a social political order that has religious overtones, needless to say, and religious motivations, but that religion pushes those directly out into the public life.
It's the only religion that calls for world conquest.
It's the only religion that calls for domination.
It calls for the secret truce, the Hudna, the Takaya, all of these opportunities to overthrow the infidel.
And it's the only religion that divides the world into Dara al-Islam, the house of submission, and Dara al-whatever the one is I've forgotten, which is the house of war.
You either submit to Islam or you're at war around the world.
They're at war with everybody.
So I think we have to have a start on this discussion about how do these two fundamental ideas, which are in opposition to each other, get resolved.
Not only American freedom, we talked about that last time, we talked about how American ideas of freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and so on, and gun rights for that matter, are antithetical to Islamic beliefs.
Not just different, they're antithetical.
Now we have to ask ourselves, how does our fundamental belief in being a nation of immigrants who become new people, e pluribus unum, how do we take that fundamental principle and apply it to a group of immigrants who, in my reading of history, are unique in history because they're commanded to change, take over and conquer are unique in history because they're commanded to change, take over and conquer whatever lands Whether they do it or not is, of course, the issue.
Well, my argument has been that to call Islam a religion is like calling communism an economic theory.
That's right.
And communism is, of course, an ideology that sought world supremacy.
It was international world communism.
Their stated goal was to turn every square inch of land up to and including the North Pole into a communist, what always turned out to be a totalitarian dictatorship.
And in the 1920s, of course, when a lot of communists were flooding into the United States and the ideology that the communists subscribe to called for the fundamental alteration in the system of social organization.
That's a very nice way of putting it, to say they wanted to overthrow the government.
Yeah, they wanted to overthrow the government.
They wanted to overthrow, and overthrowing the government is obviously bad enough legally, but it's not, I mean, the Americans wanted to overthrow the British government, but it's what they want to replace it with that's even worse, right?
Precisely right.
Yeah, so, I mean, so...
To say that people are anti-communism and then say, well, communism is just an economic theory.
Unfortunately, it's a rather well-armed economic theory that has a habit of taking over countries and making life pretty unbearable for anybody with an IQ over 84.
And so that, I think, foundationally, when they say, well, you can't have a religious test for immigration.
Okay.
But the problem is not the religion.
The problem is the focus on overthrowing the 2,500 years of painfully developed Western freedoms and replacing them with a theocracy that will destroy the entire Western way of life and replace it with something that will be fundamentally unbearable for years of painfully developed Western freedoms and replacing them with a theocracy that will destroy the entire Western way of life and that I hold dear.
So that, I think, is the issue.
It's not anti-religion.
It's anti-theocratic dictatorship, I think, is where I'd put myself.
Yes, and I think this is exactly precisely where the conversation needs to start.
That was just beautifully said.
I read David Horowitz's book called Radical Son about what it was like growing up as a red diaper baby.
And I and I and of all the things in that book that struck me and filled me with up to be perfectly honest, he filled me not only with rage, but filled me with a burning hatred was that his actual communist parents.
These were communist people sent to America from Russia to overthrow the country.
They were they were the communist vanguard, I want to say, in the 20s and 30s.
And apparently David Horowitz's mom and dad would take him down a street.
You know, they'd walk him down downtown Manhattan and they'd say, you see this Wall Street?
One day this is going to be Rosa Luxembourg Boulevard.
And one day this is going to be Lennon Avenue.
And it not just made me angry.
It filled me with hatred because because this country had offered those people refuge in.
It had given them their lives.
Same thing for the Frankfurt School.
I don't have to tell your readers about the Frankfurt School, but in a very, very short nutshell, after World War I, all the communists in the world get together and say, what happened to the big communist revolution?
Where did it go?
Why did it only happen in agrarian Russia?
Marxist theory said it was going to happen in the industrial countries.
Why isn't Germany communist and Britain and the United States?
And they realized it was those damn capitalist sons of bitches had created so much wealth for the average working man in such a short period of time.
Jesus Christ, in America, some of these workers have their own cars, for God's sake.
And so there was no economic reason for the workers' paradise, so they decided to go after the dispossessed workers.
This was the idea of the Frankfurt School.
And so far, so bad, right?
So far, so bad.
They're just another evil group of totalitarians overseas.
But as Hitler starts to rise in power in the 30s, the members of the Frankfurt School, many of whom were Jewish, seek refuge in America.
They put the Frankfurt School at Columbia University about 100 yards away from where they give out the Pulitzer Prize, by the way.
And for the next 25 or 30 years, guys like Saul Alinsky sat here and tried to destroy the country that had given them their lives.
That is appalling to me.
And I think you can certainly make the case that those Muslim immigrants who believe that the West is dying and that this is the front wave of immigration for the beginning of the caliphate all around the world, that those people can in every way fairly and equally be equated to a family of Nazis wearing armbands who are shouting that those people can in every way fairly and equally be equated to a family of Nazis wearing armbands who are shouting death Is this the kind of people we want to let into this country?
We're going to overthrow the United States of America and murder all the Jews first.
They're going to be the first ones we murder.
We'll get to the homosexuals next.
That's what we believe and you need to let us in because if you don't, that's not who we are.
Yeah, it seems that the exact opposite of who the West is is something like Sharia law.
It's something like an ideology where in order to accuse a man of rape, a woman needs four male relatives.
Otherwise, she is the one who's punished, who has stonings and beheadings, amputations for crimes, clitorectomies, putting women in these giant rolled up beekeeper suits in a hot sun.
I mean, this is the idea that this is somehow not who we are to oppose this kind of ideology is fundamental.
It just means people have no idea who we are anymore.
Otherwise, that would be an incomprehensible statement.
Yeah, well, let's get cut right to the chase.
Okay, when President Obama says that's not who we are, that's not what he means.
What he means is that's not who I am.
Anytime you hear Barack Obama say that's not who we are as Americans, that's not who we are as a country, what he's really saying is that's not who I am.
Oh, you want to protect yourself against this kind of Islamic nightmare that's happening in Europe?
No, that's not who we are.
No, that is who we are.
That's who you are.
And it's obvious.
I mean, it's immediately obvious.
Everybody knows he was raised in Indonesia and that he was registered as a Muslim student in an Islamic school.
He said that the Muslim call to prayer in the morning is the most moving and beautiful sound he's ever heard and so on and so on and so on.
And he said if there's a conflict, he's going to side with the Muslims.
He's openly said that in his biography.
Yes.
I think the most credit you can give this guy, and it's not much credit, and I'm reluctant to give it to him anyway, but I did read an analysis that said that the most credit you can give to Obama on this is that the Islam that he grew up in, in Indonesia, was probably the least virulent form of this religion.
He takes that as the norm, right?
But we're not talking about Indonesian immigrants, and even if we were, we still have to understand the fact that, look, We talked about this last time.
The fundamental error, if we don't stop this error now, we will never forget about fighting the problem.
We'll never be able to have a discussion about the problem.
The fundamental error we make and have made since 9-11 is this idea that the jihadi extremists have hijacked their religion.
That all we have to do is tell the Muslims what the Quran really says and everything will be fine.
That is not the case.
On the contrary, the jihadis are quoting the Quran as it's written, and when people come up with these peaceful surahs, they're abrogated by more violent surahs written later in the Quran.
They literally cancel out the earlier ones.
If we don't understand that it's the moderates who are the apostates, it's the moderates who are off the book, so to speak.
We can't have a discussion about this.
It's just nuts.
Yeah, this focus on the many nefarious ways in which leftists and multiculturalists have conspired to destroy free markets and limited governments and so on, which do stand.
I mean, it's really important to understand what life looks like outside of these countries, because every culture and every religion and every group thinks, oh, we're the best, we're the greatest, and that's how they sell this.
Vanity, addiction to the next generation.
It's kind of tough to look at Anglo-Saxon law, common law derived, Roman law derived and Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian philosophy derived societies and say, boy, you know, some guy in a mud hut in Afghanistan looking at the skyscrapers of New York has a very tough time thinking that his group is the best.
And there is this vehement hatred against the good for being the good.
And I would sort of argue that there have been two fundamental waves in which the leftists have tried to destroy capitalism.
The first, of course, as you talk about, was the red diaper babies who came in and wanted to foment a revolution in the United States and seized upon, of course, the socialist created and maintained Great Depression of the 1930s as they tried to do that.
That all fell apart when it turned out that Hitler and Stalin had signed the Pact of Steel.
As soon as it was revealed, Stalin's machinations, that was it for their chance.
So then they switched.
Khrushchev's reforms, I want to say it was about 1954, his letter basically revealing all of the crimes that had been admitted under Stalin really knocked a bunch of these red diaper Western communists for quite a loop.
loop they really didn't quite know what to do about that you know yeah I'm sorry to interrupt yes exactly oh no yes so they fell apart well they they borrowed their way into the US government and of course Joseph McCarthy who people should read and cultist history of that it's incredibly eye-opening the degree to which Joseph McCarthy was actually fighting against a giant termite infest infestation of literal communists in particular State Department who engineered things like the fall of China Yes, exactly.
Into communism, surrendering one of the world's largest populations to a communist dictatorship, which was the most murderous dictatorship in all of history.
And of course, the only problem for the leftists in this whole narrative is Joseph McCarthy and Richard Nixon, who got his payback, of course, later on in Watergate for his opposition to the infiltration of communists into the State Department.
That carried along for a while until, as you point out, Khrushchev revealed in a private speech in the 50s and then more publicly in the 60s the crimes of Stalin.
And then the whole communist movement fell apart and they knew they could never infiltrate or win the hearts and minds.
And Joseph McCarthy had been successful in pointing out.
And then they switched to immigration from third world countries as an attempt to continue to destroy the capitalist system.
And they've been remarkably effective at it.
And it really is because it's such a long con.
It's such a long term game, a game that it's really hard for people to find the might and the will to fight back against it at any particular moment, because it's just like one extra grain of sand on the beach.
You don't go and sweep anything until you're buried.
Well, let's come back to Trump for a second because he's certainly the hot topic.
The Frankfurt School basically determined that there would be two tools that they would use in order to destroy America, which was the last moral, physical, intellectual bastion to their paradise on earth and their socialist utopia.
And they basically decided they needed a sword and the shield.
And the sword was critical theory.
The sort of critical theory was the idea that we're going to attack the middle from outside.
We're never going to have the outside attack each other, but we're going to have every single group of dispossessed that we can attack the middle and destroy the moral foundation of the middle as much as possible.
So women are taught that this is the most misogynist society in the history of the world and all that white men want to do is keep them barefoot, naked, and pregnant in the kitchen.
Well, they didn't say naked.
I probably just threw that in on my own.
But barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.
Yeah.
We're told that this is the most homophobic society in the world where homosexuals are dragged behind pickup trucks.
We're told that it's the most Islamic-phobic country in the world, when in point of fact, obviously, there's not a single Christian practicing their faith anywhere in the Middle East without having his head chopped off or thrown in jail.
And, of course, we're told that slavery was...
Not only that slavery was the greatest sin in history, but that we're essentially the only people that held slaves.
My understanding of the African slave trade was that about 11% of the total slaves taken out of Africa came to the United States, and the rest of them went to European colonies in the Caribbean.
Oh, hang on.
Just a sec, because we've got a whole presentation called The Truth About Slavery.
We can link below, and I won't keep you off your thought.
No, please, please.
But the Islamic slave trade went on for over 1,000 years and resulted in the deaths of over 100 million blacks.
I don't see anybody clamoring for reparations from Sheikh Abdullah von Caesarhead in Saudi Arabia.
But sorry, go ahead.
No, that's right.
And then there's the idea that white Americans gave smallpox-infested blankets to the Native Americans.
This is common knowledge.
And they did this 75 years before germ theory was ever acknowledged as a means of spreading pathogen, these biological weapons.
We're so evil we can time travel.
That's just one of the skills you get as a white person.
You can time travel to your evil.
All we had time to do was pick up enough biological weapons, things, so we could continue our genocide, right?
That's not to say, needless to say, that's not to say that America has done some evil, sinful things as a country, but as a general rule, I think we're the least sinful and evil country in the world.
So back to the point about...
I think we're good to go.
The shield, of course, is political correctness, and political correctness is simply a great way to tell you to shut up.
Andrew Klavan did a video.
That's basically it.
Political correctness means shut up.
In other words, if I criticize Barack Obama for his ruinous spending, I'm doing it because I'm a racist.
Bill Schultz, Greg Gutfeld on – I think this was about a month after Obama was elected.
He said, the fact that Barack Obama's black is the only thing I like about the guy.
And I kind of agree with him, frankly.
I don't hate him because he's black.
I hate him because he's red.
And probably green, too.
And I don't mean economy.
I mean ecologically green.
So, political correctness is the idea that you are not allowed to respond.
Your argument, your counter-argument, your defense of these values is taken off the table with an ad hominem attack.
We don't have to listen to you.
You're a racist.
We don't have to listen to you.
You're a misogynist.
We don't have to listen to you.
You're a homophobe.
And so, with this sword and the shield, they've done tremendous damage.
Now, I read back to Trump.
I read An analysis by a guy who I happen to think is brilliant, I mean genuinely brilliant, and that's Rush Limbaugh.
And Limbaugh said, look, the reason that the media is apoplectic over Trump is because they don't control him.
He does not play by their rules.
He simply doesn't care.
You get the sense that he doesn't need the presidency.
You get the sense that he just – he doesn't – there's a lot I don't like about this guy, a lot.
I think I'm going to go.
It has been historically the case in most theological societies that the priests anoint the king.
Because, of course, the king is supposed to be...
That's right.
That's what it has to be maintained.
Exactly.
Yeah.
And the media, all they did was they shifted from the priesthood to the hysterical, sociopathic, verbal abuse of the media.
And so they want to anoint the king.
And here comes someone on who they can't anoint and they can't block.
And what he's showing, it's so fantastic, is what a paper tiger the media actually is.
Because they throw everything they can at him.
He's like one of those giant Japanese robots, you know, with a helicopter.
It's just nothing happens.
Yeah, maybe little rockets will come off of his fingertips.
Trumpzilla!
I think I'd really like to see his arms basically fall off and four jets come out and have him just start spinning around.
That would be fantastic.
Now, what you said about the method of feudal control over people is profoundly correct.
If you look at the history of enslaving populations for generations, if not millennia, you need both parts of that.
You need the mechanisms of the state on the ground Whether it be a kingdom, an empire, or whatever.
And you also need the religious justification for that empire.
And basically, it's very simple.
The way it works is they find a guy who wants to be king.
He's a ruthless, bloodthirsty murderer, right?
He's Henry II or whatever the case.
And he's ready to do some serious killing.
And so he's got the political force, and he's got the army, and he's got the mechanical needs to make this happen.
What is essential to his rule is because sooner or later, millions of people are going to realize we're working ourselves to death here, starving to death, so we can take our potatoes and our chickens into this guy who lives in a palace of gold.
The only way you can have that continue is if you have a priesthood that tells these people, yes, it doesn't seem fair now, but this is God's will, and if you don't do it, the volcano's going to erupt.
And by the way, If you give him all of your chickens and potatoes and starve to death now, in the next life, you're going to be just fine.
And I want to say one thing about this idea of the Muslim afterlife, because I think this goes to something you were talking about earlier, and I think this is the primary motivation of the hatred that Islam feels towards the West.
If you look at the Koran, again, this I think also makes it quite unique.
If you look at the Christian afterlife, most of the values of life leading a good Christian life on earth are repeated in heaven.
Likewise for Buddhists, when they attain a state of nirvana, then their values are carried into either the afterlife or whatever the religious goal is.
But in Islam, you're commanded no music, no wine, no gambling, no women.
But their afterlife is Las Vegas.
I mean, their afterlife is Las Vegas.
Their afterlife is a place where they lie on cushions.
They're surrounded by rivers of wine.
They have 72 virgins to service them 24 hours a day.
They can do whatever they want to, hold whatever slaves they want to.
Their religious afterlife is the antithesis of what they're told to do on earth.
And it is also—this is the point, buddy—the Islamic afterlife is the life that all of us in the West lead every single day, and it's got to drive them nuts.
They are God's people.
They're living in abject poverty and abject savagery, and they know it.
They may have a cell phone, but they know they don't know how to build a cell phone.
Meanwhile, across the ocean, these infidels who God hates are living in their paradise.
We have all the wine.
We have all the women.
We've got all the money.
We've got all the luxury.
And that's not – of all the things that happened on 9-11, the thing that was most interesting to me and I thought was the greatest weapon in fighting these people was the idea that Muhammad Atta, who you've got to figure is in the top 1% of 1% of 1% of these jihadis because he's ready to train for 10 years in order to destroy himself.
He was going to strip clubs.
He was going to Vegas.
He couldn't resist the temptation of the West.
And I think Islam's attitude towards America is the relationship of a very lonely, very dangerous little kid who asked the prom queen out and she says no.
And now he's decided, well, if she's not going out with me, then she's going to die.
Right.
This idea that Trump is the club against the media, the traditional deal for a lot of monotheistic religions is that the priests say that the king is appointed by God and therefore obeying God – obeying the king is obeying God – And in return, the priests destroy any competing religions.
And the king gives them tons of money.
Yes.
Tons of money and tons of land, right?
Tons of land and land and land and money and power.
And that's how the cycle continues.
The priests tell the people that the king is divinely appointed and the king takes the land and the riches and the gold and hands a significant piece of it over to the priesthood and the power relationship is maintained.
And the problem is Donald Trump is not ready to give the media anything and so since he's not got an exchange relation with the media, the media has no power over him.
Well, but it's two things as well.
You've talked about the internet being...
I did a podcast.
I've actually been doing this.
I just realized I blew right past my 10-year anniversary.
I've been doing this 10 years.
Congratulations.
Oh, thank you.
Congratulations.
That's extremely impressive.
Thank you.
And it all led to you, Bill.
The whole yellow brick road has been...
Get right down to it, Stephen.
You know, it's over 3 billion years of human evolution.
And really, you're looking...
That's right.
All aiming to get us...
Very kind of you to recognize...
So I did shows on the internet being the new Gutenberg.
The Gutenberg Press, of course, was able to take the Bible that Martin Luther translated into the vernacular and gave it to the people so they could peruse things for themselves and weren't dependent upon the priest's translations or reporting of what happened in the Bible.
And in the same way...
I would argue that since really the fall of organized religion as a foundational principle, particularly in Europe, the media have taken the place of the priests and the media anoint the political leaders and in return the political leaders basically give exclusivity and information to the media.
Now, what's happened, of course, is that Donald Trump can take his case directly to the people and they can bypass the media.
I mean, I receive very little information from Donald Trump from the mainstream media, you know, for the same reason that I try not to drink out of moose tracks that have things floating in them.
I just don't consider it particularly good for my health.
No.
And so I think that the internet has really broken up the old relationship between the propagandists and the political power so that people like Donald Trump can speak directly to everyone.
He goes and gives a speech to 5,000 or 10,000 people, but millions of people watch it and can actually hear him filtered in the same way that the Bible doesn't need to be filtered after Martin Luther through the priest.
They can go and read it directly.
And that bypassing of the middleman I would agree with you that Donald Trump can do that by using the media, the internet in place of the media, circumventing the media.
But I think that's true for all of the candidates.
I think Donald Trump has a As a Trump card that is beyond that, well beyond that.
So here's what Donald Trump understands, I think.
Donald Trump understands that he does not need the media, but the media needs him, because Donald Trump is the most controversial person in America, and while every single member of the mainstream media loathes and despises him, He can step out of a 7-Eleven, and there will be 700 news trucks there.
Donald Trump understands that he is using the media's...
Look, the media has an addiction, and politicians have an addiction.
Politicians' addiction is to power.
The media's addiction is to influence, and that influence comes through viewerships.
And they know that Donald Trump is the story.
They have to cover him.
It's not like they don't want to.
Their addiction for sensation It forces them to cover him.
And the more outrageous Donald Trump becomes, the more coverage he gets because it allows the left to go completely on their high horse of moral superiority.
And they think that's going to do it, but I don't think it is going to do it.
I think those days of political correctness are over or are coming down fast.
The genius of Trump I predicted four days after the last election in a speech I gave where if Romney had said this, he would have won the election.
I predicted that the next president was going to come from the pop culture because the pop culture has so much influence over our brain space, just the brain cycles.
And Trump is an entertainer.
People talk about he's a businessman, he's a corporate guy, he's a real estate agent.
Yes, but he's an entertainer.
There's hundreds of thousands of high-level corporate businessmen in this country, hundreds of thousands if not millions of them.
But Trump is Trump because he puts his name on these garish buildings and he's an entertainer.
You may find him horrible and vulgar, but he is interesting.
And that's the one thing that the media can't avoid.
So on some level, But Rush's point, I didn't get it until I really read what he wrote.
Trump is playing them like a Stradivarius.
He'll say something outrageous, the press will be mortified, and they'll come back at him and say, you can't surely mean this, and then he'll just double down.
And he gets all of the attention, and he...
And when you look at Donald Trump's numbers, these numbers are not so much for Donald Trump as they are numbers for somebody speaking up against this wall of political correctness and just kicking it down.
That's what drives this guy's popularity.
And for so many years, there have been people largely on the right who've been complaining about media bias towards the left, like left-wing media bias, like some study that like 95% of the reporters in Washington, D.C. are Democrats and so on.
And I think what he is showing is that...
When someone says to me, two and two make four, I'm like, okay, yeah.
But when somebody says, he said two and two make four, I can't...
You know, when they go all scanners, you realize that you're kind of living in two different worlds.
And the more that the American public and the world as a whole realize that the media and the mainstream are living in antithetical universes, the quicker the power of the media to shape policy is going to be broken.
Because look...
When, to take the mainstream narrative, right?
When Islamists, largely from Saudi Arabia, attacked New York on 9-11, they said, okay, well, we're going to go invade a bunch of Islamic countries, right?
I mean, I know that Iran was largely secular, but it was largely populated by Muslims.
And then, you know, if you look at Syria, and you look at Lebanon, you look at Libya, you look at other countries, there's a lot of conflict going on.
And so it seems like there's kind of a war going on with Islamics and the West.
And so the result of that is you restrict military age people at least coming in to your country.
That's what happened in World War II.
Of course, the Japanese were restricted from coming in, the Germans and the Italians.
And of course, the Japanese were moved inland away from the shore because the U.S. government had received or decrypted Japanese cables saying that they – the Japanese Navy was hoping to use the Japanese Americans as a fifth column within – Yeah, and provide subterfuge and stuff like that.
Right.
So I think that the idea that if we're at war with a particular group, we shouldn't have that group come into the country.
Like, that's not insane.
And, you know, Jimmy Carter, during the Iran hostage crisis, Jimmy Carter said no one from Iran is allowed to come in.
Imagine that.
Yeah, I mean, but of course that's completely whitewashed from history.
And so for the average person who's been told, there is a war on terror.
Who's terror?
Terror is radical Muslims.
Can we figure out whether radical Muslims are coming into America?
No, says the director of the FBI. We can't guarantee it.
We have no way of knowing it.
And is the vetting so terrible that this woman who was part of this unholy Bonnie and Clyde from Hell duo that shot up San Bernardino, she put down an address that doesn't even exist and people are like, yeah, come on in, you're totally fine.
So clearly this...
Rabbit incompetence in the vetting.
There's a war on radical Islam, and there's no way to figure out who's in and who's not in.
And even if they come in, the next generation is more likely to be radicalized than the current generation.
So the idea that there's a war on terror, and that should have some effect on restriction of movement, that is not a controversial statement to make.
And the fact that the media is going completely apeshit about it is a fantastic revelation, I think, for the average American who's like, yeah, I think we should discuss this.
And they're like, ah!
And that is beautiful.
I mean, as long as people can see this weird, twisted blanche du bois neurosis of the media, they'll take a step back and think for themselves.
Yeah, boy, there's so much to say there.
First of all, I think it's so fascinating, you know, Barack Obama says ISIS is contained and then the next day there's the shootout in Paris.
I think he meant they haven't made it to the moon yet, like they're contained on this planet.
That's sort of my theory.
If we go back to the moon with this NASA, they'll be on the moon, you trust me.
Three days later, he says, are they afraid of widows and orphans?
Well, it turns out, two days after he makes this statement, there's a widow and an orphan as a result of a mass terrorist action here in the United States.
It's almost like, please keep opening your mouth because everything you say precipitates the cause that's going to present you as a liar.
Hey, look, our assistant just got here with some Christmas decorations.
So here's the thing, Stephan.
You're right.
It makes their head explode.
They can't handle it.
They don't know what to do about it, and it shows the pervasiveness of the power of the media to control things.
And by controlling information, they control people's votes.
An argument I made a bunch was Evan Thomas was back at Newsweek magazine and in 2004, he just kind of slipped up.
This is a major New York newsman, right?
He said that he thought that the press bias for John Kerry was 15 points.
15 points at the polls is what he estimated it at.
That was John Kerry.
John Kerry was not even John the Baptist compared to Barack Obama.
But just as a simple experiment to do, I said we know that the media is going to throw more support behind Obama than they did behind Kerry.
A lot more.
But let's just say it was 15 points.
So I took the 2008 electoral map I subtracted 15 points from the Democrats and added 15 points to the Republicans, and as it turned out, Obama carries D.C., and I think it was Delaware, and President McCain is President McCain with 506 electoral votes.
That's what happens without media bias, just off the top of your thumb.
It's probably worse than that.
So if this guy is destroying this by simply – here's the thing about social proof.
Social proof is the most powerful motivator of human behavior.
Psychologists are able to identify repeatedly throughout a number of experiments that your most closely held beliefs will be trumped, if you'll pardon the expression, in virtually all cases, by what everybody else is doing.
If everybody else is booing something that you like, you may not boo it, but you won't stand up and go, no, this is awesome.
If you're in a room full of things, just be quiet, right?
You'll just shut up.
The parable of the emperor's new clothes is a parable of the power of social proof, and what it basically says is these two con men come in and tell this king, who's quite stupid, your majesty, look at this wonderful new fabric, the thing that's most, aside from its beautiful blue color and its amazing sheen, is that it can only be seen, obviously, by the most intelligent people and the most virtuous people.
That's why we're so proud of having developed it, and the king has to make a decision, and he's not going to tell these people I'm not virtuous and I'm not intelligent.
Oh, that's wonderful.
And then the word gets out to all the courtiers and all the courtiers going, oh, magnificent.
And then he goes down the parade.
This is the critical point of the story that most people miss.
When the emperor is coming down in the parade and he's naked except for these magnificent clothes that only the smart and the virtuous can see, it's not that the individual person in the parade can see them.
No one can see them, but they believe that everybody else can see them.
That's why the scam works.
That's why it's such a powerful parable.
Not because they're deluded into seeing clothes that they don't exist, but rather because they know that those clothes exist, but since everybody else is saying that they believe in them, The social proof is I'd better shut up and act like I believe it.
And my silence and my cheering is what reinforces everybody else, right?
And when a little boy at the end of the parade says he's not wearing any clothes, he doesn't have to go down the line and argue with each individual person.
He has made it permissible to disagree.
He's proved to you that you're not insane.
And the whole parade knows they're not insane, and the emperor knows that he's not insane, and everybody knows what's going on, and the sham crashes to the ground in a split second.
And that's what Trump is doing.
It breaks the hypnosis, and I really feel that the publications have been hypnotized by the media for decades.
There's a better word than hypnosis, and that word is glamour.
The original definition of glamour was a spell cast.
Glamour, in its original form, referred to a magical spell that caused people to see beauty where beauty wasn't there.
And that's what glamour is.
And that's why show business is so powerful.
When George Clooney comes out and endorses somebody or what's her name?
Oh, gosh.
Hunger Games chick.
Jennifer Lawrence.
Jennifer Lawrence.
Yeah.
When she comes out and says, no, I'm voting for Hillary or Katy Perry or whatever, it's not just the social proof of, hey, it's another good looking person.
It's the social proof of somebody whose music I admire and whose career I want to emulate and so on.
The glamour of Hollywood has a huge lever on public opinion and to the degree that we can destroy this, Just by calling it out.
My favorite Trump moment without any question whatsoever is when somebody – early on, it was months ago, and they were like – he had like 7,000 people to rally and I think there were like six people protesting.
And somebody stands up and he's taking questions and he says, Mr.
Trump, what do you have to say to the protesters outside the building?
He says, what protesters?
He says, well, there's a protest going on outside the building.
He says, there's six people out there.
There's 8,000 people in here.
Six people protesting.
Where are you from?
And she said, CNN. He went, CNN. That's it.
CNN. CNN. CNN is the world's news service.
CNN is the people that tell you what's right and what's wrong in the world.
CNN is the credible source.
Wave up his hand, you know?
Just a wave of his hand.
CNN. That's genius.
Yeah, that's genius.
Actually, I was just reading today that there's a study that's been done with monkeys, that monkeys will actually pay food pellets to look at pictures of higher-status monkeys, but they charge food pellets to look at pictures of lower-status monkeys.
We're just fascinated by high-status people, and we focus on that, and that's natural.
I also had a great interview with...
We'll put the link below.
I'll send it to you.
I can't wait.
But I had an interview with Dr.
Barbara Oakley, who's an expert on pathological altruism, which we touched on last time.
And she pointed out something that has been rolling around in my head like thunder since we had the conversation.
I'll sort of pass it along to you and your listeners.
Which is that for people, when people feel like they're doing good, they get actually physically measurable endorphin rush to the brain.
Yes, absolutely.
Right?
So, and this is, it solved a puzzle for me for many years, which is the people who say, oh, we want to help the poor, or oh, we want to help the Middle Eastern refugees.
You know, the per capita cost...
For relocating Middle Eastern refugees is very cheap.
It's like a little over $1,000 to resettle a Middle Eastern refugee in the Middle East.
To do it in America, even the short-term cost is $13,000.
So it's like almost a 13 to 1 ratio that every Middle Eastern refugee you bring to America is 12 that you're not helping over there.
And so you'd think, okay, well, we want to help the poor, so we'll put up the welfare state and so on.
And people never circle back.
And she said they don't circle back and figure out whether the good they wanted to achieve actually did achieve good because that would interfere with their endorphin production.
In other words, they're just altruism addicts and they don't care about the consequences any more than a coke addict cares about the consequences or a gambling addict or any sexual addict cares about the consequences of his actions.
So they're just chasing that endorphin high, which is why they don't care what happens.
They just need that next hit called self-righteousness, which occurs at a physical level of addiction.
And I just found that really illuminating and fascinating.
I think based on your reaction, you've heard of this before.
Well, I'd never heard of the term, and I didn't know about the biochemical reaction, although needless to say I'm not surprised by it.
She called it pathological altruism?
Yes.
The term I've been using for pretty much my entire career is unearned moral superiority.
I like pathological altruism a lot better, but it's the same thing.
It's unearned moral superiority, and it's a way for people to show that they're more moral people, more intelligent people, more caring people, more loving people, better than you are in every way.
See, they're not allowed to, as leftists, and especially as indoctrinated people, they're not allowed to succeed through their own merit.
They're not allowed to get rich because of their hard work.
They're not allowed to do any of these things.
But in a victimhood society, the more that they can show you that they care about the victims, the higher they go in the hierarchy of their own personal value system.
It's unearned moral superiority, which is why when I argue with these people, I don't go right to the facts in the history.
I find where the unearned moral superiority is And I just kick that out from under him as hard as I can.
For example, you may have a bumper sticker on your car that says, Free Tibet!
And you may be, on the back of your Prius, obviously.
And you may be advertising to every single person on the 405 freeway how morally advanced you are because you want to free the people of Tibet, which are lovely Buddhist kind people and they're very gentle ones who fly.
Free Tibet!
And you're doing your part and you're speaking truth to power.
Well, if you actually wanted to free Tibet, you probably should have a bumper sticker that says, The United States Marine Corps.
I mean, if you really want to free Tibet, that would be an awful lot better than some douchebag driving a Prius down the 405 freeway.
But that's not how it works.
They're not interested in freeing Tibet.
They're interested in showing people that they're interested in freeing Tibet.
They're not interested in the results.
The difference between a conservative and a liberal, I was quite proud of this formulation.
I haven't heard it before anyway.
It doesn't mean nobody else said it.
But the difference between a conservative and a liberal is a conservative would rather feel bad about doing good and a liberal would rather feel good about doing harm.
And that's exactly what it is.
Their policies have destroyed black America, destroyed it from where Booker T. Washington wanted to take black America to these high standards, which he achieved, by the way, consistently achieved.
But no, it's much easier to take this unearned moral superiority and claim that we're helping people and handing them money and making them dependent.
The Democratic Party is the largest slaveholder in the history of the world.
How many slaves do they have in this country?
30 million?
Their terms of their slavery are very simple.
There's a word for somebody who is fed and clothed and housed and whose healthcare is taken care of by another person and that word is slave.
And on the voting plantation that the Democratic Party has set up in America, we demand two hours of work from you every two years.
Every two years, we demand that you go down to the voting places and vote once, twice, three, four times, or every time as you can imagine or manage.
And that's the work we expect for you in exchange for keeping you in bondage.
There's no other word for it, this dependency.
It's mental bondage.
When they recharge those EBT cards, they don't send away ways, and they're not in there trying to find ways to get people off of this.
They've got some face value, just some token kind of did you look for a job today kind of thing.
There's no serious effort to get people into the marketplace.
And when we say into the marketplace, the left here is just saying, oh, what, making money for corporations?
No, dumbass.
Making money for yourself, you moron, you museum-grade moron.
What we're trying to say to Black America just as an example is, no, you can stay in the world you're in now where somebody hands you an Obama phone for free, some crappy second generation piece of junk that's got 30 minutes a month on it.
Yeah, you'll get that for free.
But if we could get a hold of your mind for a little bit and open up economic opportunities, you'll be able to be in the Apple store in line for the i7 the day it opens because you've made enough money to live like a person who has control over his own destiny.
We can break these mental chains of slavery, but that's not what they're interested in.
And so it comes back to what kind of people, when we talk about Muslim immigration and Trump saying we should ban Muslim immigration, we have a right as Americans to say what is this country about and is this helping this idea of this country or is it hurting it?
If the ideology coming into this country is dead set on overthrowing this country and replacing our freedoms with religious totalitarianism that puts women in sex and throws homosexuals off of tall buildings, I have a say about that.
I'm a ginnit.
Well, and it's something that I was not raised particularly to ask, but I think it's an important question just vis-a-vis immigration.
the prettiest woman on the planet in a lot of ways in terms of the number of people who want to go out with her.
And so you kind of got your pick and choice.
Now, I think in general, if you wish to maintain a particular country or culture or system, the best way to do that is to have babies inside that system.
You know, they grow up speaking English, they're exposed to the Judea Christian, Greek or Roman ideas.
So that's sort of number one.
Number two is people should come into the country who are the most compatible to those values.
Now, in a true free market, that would happen of its own accord.
Of course it would.
But then you start getting into difficulties when it's like, OK, these people have no experience of Western life.
They don't speak the language, no experience of the culture, never gone through a reformation.
Never gone through rationalism, scientific revolution, no Greco-Roman history, no Socratic method of tradition, no separation of church and state, no respect for rights of women, minorities, homosexuals, you go on and on, right?
And so the question I think which Americans and Europeans and Canadians will all need to ask is, what's in it for me?
What's in it for me?
Welfare use rates, 30% of native households.
That's bad enough, and that number should come way down to zero.
I'd rather private charities take care of them.
But nonetheless, 30% households, native households, 51% of immigrant households, and 62% of illegal immigrant households.
Now, given that half of the immigrants into America over the past eight years have been Muslims and that America has taken far more than the rest of the world combined, the question is do you want to have your own children or do you want to pay for other people's children?
And it takes a severely crippled biological entity, a severely cook-holded biological entity to say, "You know what's great?
I'd rather have only one child or maybe no children so that an antithetical culture that comes into the country can have five or six or seven children.
That is so deranged.
Just to ask, look yourself in the mirror and say, what's in it for me as a taxpayer, as a worker, as someone who's grown up and is heavily invested in the Western way of life?
What is in it for me if 100,000 people from an antithetical culture, who, by the way, the average IQ in Syria is 83, that is not very...
Compatible with a high-functioning, high-intelligence-requiring, pay-you-by-your-brains kind of society.
What is in it for me?
And if you can ask that question, I think the answer becomes fairly obvious.
And those who can't answer that question are back into chasing this pathological altruism, dopamine fix that is the death of everyone.
To say that the West has a cuckolded life force or cuckolded cultural desire is about the most brilliant thing I've ever heard.
I've never, ever heard it.
Put so instantly, comprehensively as that.
I mean, just the second you said that, I said that's exactly what we want.
We want other people's children to come into our world and take over our stuff.
And that we have no desire to produce our own families.
We have no desire to look past the moment.
We have no desire to save.
There's no reason to save.
There's no reason for discipline.
It's all about me and when I die.
Yeah, that's just genius.
You know, I took a look at the official list of legal immigrants into the country, and it showed which ones by state.
But I looked at the top ten countries in terms of immigrants into America, and they're from multiple different regions.
But I did find one thing in common.
The top nine out of the top ten immigrants coming into America now, the top nine countries out of the top ten are all third world countries.
Every single one of them is a failed state, every one of them.
Number ten is Canada.
I'll take all the Canadians there are, frankly.
I'll take every one of them.
Now, look.
This leads to a larger point and it leads to understanding how the left has manipulated us into giving up the greatest society in the history of the world by just surrendering, how they made us surrender.
And the way they made us surrender, and this has got some RK aspect to it too, because they don't have any rules, because they don't have any standards, they don't have any sense of fair play, because they don't have any respect for honesty in competition, We're good to go.
They point to the Statue of Liberty and they say, give us your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.
I lift my light beside the golden door.
And they say this is what made America great.
And it's anti-American to turn these Syrian refugees away or these Cuban refugees, although Cubans are escaping communism.
I'm actually okay with them.
Refugees from Chad, Afghanistan, all these other places.
And so they make us – they put us at – When Obama says that we're better than this as Americans, it's a ploy.
It's a complete stratagem.
It's a lie, but it hits.
It lands.
It makes us think.
It makes us guilty.
My parents came over from England.
So what this leftist attack is, it is very much like AIDS. It's a virus that gets into the immune system and disables the immune system.
So my response to this would be yes.
The Statue of Liberty and this essence of American immigration does say give us your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, but first of all, it doesn't say give us only your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.
It doesn't say give us only them.
When it was written, These huddled masses were people who, as you say, were coming from the West.
They were Irish immigrants, German immigrants, they were Italian immigrants, and they were coming, Norwegian immigrants, they were coming from the same set of values as Europe, and they were huddled masses and they were poor, but they had the ability to get off of the boat in Ellis Island, and any time during the 1800s,
right up until probably about the I mean, no disrespect whatsoever to people in the manufacturing business.
I have enormous respect for people in the manufacturing business, but it is easier to teach somebody who doesn't speak the language or doesn't have to operate one stage of an assembly line and produce economic goods and take home a paycheck.
This is not the same these days.
You're absolutely right about the free market.
People who want to come to America and live here, there are people from very desperately poor countries that want to do this, but there are people in Germany, there are people in Canada, there are people in Australia who want to come here, who have filled out the forms and stood in line and they're ready to take the test.
They'd be an enormous asset.
If all of the immigrants coming to their country were Republicans or were going to be Republicans, it would be the Democrats who would be talking about building a wall and sealing the border and making sure that they don't get in here.
I don't understand why immigration now has to be Spanish immigration.
I don't understand it.
I understand that we've had an enormous wave of it.
I live in a city that's virtually bilingual.
I don't understand why America has to be a beacon for people who speak Spanish but not people who speak Polish.
Well, of course, the fundamental issue is the welfare state.
America was a nation of immigrants, but generally from European heritage and There was no welfare state, so the people, by definition, were coming over to work.
You can come and get a job or else you're not a burden on the rest of us.
Exactly.
And a lot of people didn't make it and went back.
So they self-deported because they couldn't make it, and that is how it should work.
Of course, I'm completely for free immigration and emigration, but forced association is a violation of freedom of association, and welfare is just forced association, forced to give charity to people who you may not otherwise want to give charity to.
And the other thing too is that when it comes to immigration, Christopher Hitchens said that he was tired of one-way multiculturalism.
In other words, the Muslims come to largely Christian, I think it's still 70-80% Christian, the Muslims come to Christian America, but try going to Saudi Arabia and setting up a Christian church.
You're not going to have much luck.
And one thing that is very true in the study of biology is that two subspecies never for long inhabit the same area.
Like if you've got a bunch of black squirrels and a bunch of gray squirrels move in, you're either going to end up with all gray squirrels or all black squirrels because they're all competing for the same resources.
And they're antithetical to each other because it's win-lose in that situation.
That's right.
Now, that's not the case if everyone's got the same kind of tolerant values and so on.
But when you have the value of tolerance and you bring in people who are intolerant, you are acting against your value called tolerance.
Tolerance for intolerance is just one of these logical conundrums that should be thrown out with yesterday's dishwater because it really fundamentally destroys the value of that which you're trying to protect.
And when it comes to ethnicities and opposing values...
Businesses, you can have a whole bunch of different businesses all competing in the internet search space, and that's not what I'm talking about.
But it's win-lose values.
Whereas if Sharia law wins, Anglo-Saxon common law and the Constitution is destroyed.
If the Constitution wins, Sharia law can't be there.
That's the red and the gray squirrel.
And that's why you see culturally homogenous neighborhoods where when a whole bunch of new culture moves in, the old culture moves out and so on.
It's just a basic biological reality, and as we have found out with communism and other failed ideologies, we ignore biology at our peril.
We certainly do, and I was, just yesterday, did an interview with a conservative from Sweden, and we were talking a little bit about economic policies, but I was much more interested in the cultural policies about this invasion, and it seems like it's changing over there, you know, the fact that You know, the huge numbers of rapes in Sweden, it's become the rape capital of Europe, and they're all caused.
Not some of them.
They're virtually all caused.
In Oslo, five years in a row, the percentage of rape caused by Muslim immigrants was 100%.
It wasn't 70%.
It was 100%.
So I wanted to talk to this guy about this, and I said, what's the motive for this for Sweden?
And it's a long story, but basically he said that the policy of Sweden was that It was equally incumbent on the immigrant and the native Swede to create this new multicultural Sweden that would be different.
And I, for the life of me, cannot fathom that.
I can't fathom it.
I can understand a world where we try to import people into Sweden and they assimilate and they help make Sweden stronger and all the values that you would hold as Swedes are upheld and stuff.
But this idea that we are going to purposely We are purposely going to merge with something that in most cases is antithetical to something we believe.
And the stated purpose is to create something new, but no one's going to say what that new thing is.
That's madness.
And this is the difference between Sweden and the United States.
The United States is an immigrant culture.
That's why when they say it's anti-American to block out a group of immigrants, it goes right to the heart of us.
It's that defense.
It goes right past our immune system and goes right to the cells, right?
The reason America has succeeded is because the melting pot and the multicultural salad are, in fact, antithetical models.
You do not have discrete societies living shoulder to shoulder next to each other, each preserving their own identity and living together in harmony and peace.
It doesn't happen anywhere in human history, it doesn't happen anywhere in the world today, and it doesn't happen with biology either.
Team 1 wins, Team 2 wins, or they merge to form Team C, but something changes.
The entire genius of the melting pot was not that these immigrants would come and live in isolated communities.
They would in fact bring their ethnicity and their cultures and their food and their traditions with them and it would change the flavor of the stew a little.
But the overall culture remained the same.
It was primarily English speaking.
Well, it wasn't primarily English.
It was English speaking.
And the first generations of immigrants from Poland, Germany, Italy, the one thing these people had in common was they may speak Italian at home, but their children were speaking English from day one because they wanted their kids to be Americans.
I mean, that's how it worked.
And this idea that these people were going to give up their existing identities and come here and assume a new identity worked only because we as Americans have a philosophy that says, I personally believe this, I really do, that if you come here legally, that you want to live under this system and you spend seven years and virtually all of your life savings and you're filling in forms and you do all that stuff, you come to this country, you take a citizenship test that 95% of the US citizens could never pass.
You raise your right hand.
You swear an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States.
You're as American if somebody got off the Mayflower.
That was the deal.
You give up your old identity.
You come here as a new person.
You're an American now.
We don't have to worry about your old alliances and identities.
We don't have to worry about whether you're going to go for Islam or Italy or Germany if we're at war with these things.
You're here.
You're one of us now.
And in exchange for that, in exchange for you abandoning that and coming here and accepting our ways, in exchange for that, we will grant you the authenticity that will not be granted to anyone anywhere else in the world.
If you're a Muslim in France, it doesn't matter if you're a French citizen.
The French will never accept you as a true Frenchman because that goes back to soil and ancestry and race and everything else.
It's a unique thing.
It was a unique bargain that's only been made once in the history of the world to produce the most dynamic, creative, powerful force in the history of the world and by stopping this melting pot idea and breaking it down to this salad, they knew that they were going to reduce the most powerful single nation in the world into an endless series of warring tribes that could be set one against the other so that they could rule over the ruins.
Yeah, it's become a war of ethnicities.
Everybody's grappling to gain control of the power of the government in the same way that the Protestant Reformation was, you know, the Calvinists, the Evangelians, the Lutherans, the Anabaptists, all trying to gain power of the state in order to impose their view of the world on everyone else.
And I think what's happening in the West now, and particularly in America, although it's certainly growing in Europe...
It's that we live in a state of internecine ethnic warfare.
Because the state has become so powerful, everybody is given up trying to sell goods in the free market and is simply clamoring in this cry-bully, politically correct kind of way to gain control of the narrative, to gain control of state power, to impose its win-lose.
And the state and its power to redistribute income and grant favors and punish people has created, unlike of the free market where it's win-win, has created this win-lose environment And the separation of state and ethnicity is going to have to be the end result of this if we're going to survive at all, in the same way that the separation of church and state was required as a result of the Reformation.
Let's take a meta-look.
That's why I enjoy talking to you so much.
Let's take a meta-look at the cry-bully phenomenon.
That's a really new term, but it's perfect.
It's another one of those words that the second you hear it, you know exactly what you're talking about.
So let's just presume for the moment that the truth is actually the truth and that over 40 years the left has managed to breed all sense of individual achievement out of Let's
say that you put that through two generations of American youth What are you left with?
Because you are left with biology, right?
We know that biology doesn't change.
This is the essence of conservatism, is that this stuff has been around for at least 250,000 years, probably more like a million two in its present form.
Socialism gave me six fingers!
That's right.
It changes very, very slowly.
The motivations change.
They don't change, essentially.
For all intents and purposes, they don't.
So what happens to the biology of children who have not been allowed to compete?
Well, competition has not been bred out of them genetically because that's just not possible.
So you have to ask yourself, what can they compete in?
Because people do, as you said, it's that pathological altruism.
People need the endorphin rush of winning.
They need the endorphin rush of being seen to be better than other people, of being looked up to.
What have they got to compete in?
They can't compete in business because, as we all know, you'd be a fat cat one percenter and you'd be oppressing the poor.
So you can't compete in business.
You can't compete in sports.
You can't be richer than somebody else.
The only thing you can compete in is who is the biggest victim?
Who has gotten highest on the totem pole of their value system, which is victimhood and oppression?
And the interesting thing about that is if you're competing for economic success, you are competing against one another and the marketplace and people's free will decisions will determine who's successful.
But if you're competing for prime victimhood, the only solution to you winning that is the coercive power of the state coming in from the top and that's why the state loves this victimhood thing because the only people that can correct injustice or perceived injustice is no such thing as this kind of social injustice.
I just don't buy it.
The only people that can come to the rescue there is not themselves.
They can't set up a victimhood company that does better than other victimhood companies and outperforms them in the markethood of victimology.
They have to have the legislative power of the state come in and crush the opposition, and the state is just fine with that.
They just think that's swell.
All right.
I know you've got a bit of a stop.
I just want to make one more point, which will hopefully lure you into another rant.
Here we go.
Okay.
Now, I had a fellow on who was talking about, I'm fascinated by the genetics of IQ.
I just think it's one of these great explanatory avenues that still needs further exploration, but has the potential to explain a lot.
And he was pointing out how, you know, the Ashkenazin Jews, the Jews, the diasporic Jews, the Jews not in Israel, which are to a large degree Sephardic Jews, but they have an average IQ about 150 and 120 plus, if you count verbal skills.
They're lower on the visuospatial, which is why there are so many Jewish writers and comedians.
I mean, they just have this and it's genetic.
It's biological.
It's not cultural.
I shouldn't say 60 to 80 percent is considered to be genetic.
Now, in the ancient world, the Jews were not considered to be bright at all.
You scour ancient writings for like, wow, these Jews are really smart and funny, and you can't find a thing.
And geneticists have found that the genes associated with high Jewish, particularly verbal IQ, about 700 years old.
And this is one of the things that changed was that the most intelligent Jews had the most kids and the least intelligent Jews had the least kids.
And they've traced all of this through.
And I won't get into all the reasons why.
We'll put a link to the interview below.
But in 700 years, they assumed that you could get a third of an IQ point per generation up.
And as a result of 700 years, you have arguably and you just look at the list of sort of Nobel Prizes and Pulitzer Prizes, arguably the most intelligent group collectively in the world.
And that's the result of 700 years of relatively random breeding for intelligence.
Just so I can fully understand this, the argument would be that in most cases, it doesn't matter who has the most kids, but in the case of being an oppressed minority who has to live by its wits, essentially, in what is essentially a foreign land all the way around the world, there's a lot of people.
Success in business and intelligence, education, learning.
They were pro-survival traits.
They were selected.
And those families that had those high IQ traits were more successful passing the genes down.
And you said a third of an IQ point per generation?
Yeah, and that results in a 15- We could be someplace really amazing pretty quickly.
I imagine, right?
And also, yeah, if you don't have land, you need your wits.
And so those who were able to have portable wealth, the wealth in the skull...
And also, of course, the rabbis, you know, one of the great, tragic, dysgenic But on the
other hand, it did help the Catholic Church accumulate a lot of land.
Anyway, so So, this question of the evolutionary pressures upon intelligence, and there's a lot, I want to get a whole conversation, we can do it another time, but there's, you know, something like the Black Death, the plagues that started in the 12th century and went for a couple of centuries afterwards, tended to take away the less intelligent, who lived, you know, six to the dozen in rooms in the city, and the smarter people out of the city.
Exactly, yeah.
And so...
And this is just my thought.
I obviously don't have any proof.
But when I think of the degree to which Jewish intelligence, Jewish culture, Jewish life has been shaped by less strong evolutionary forces over a mere 700 years, I look at the Muslim world, Bill, and I think what has 1400 years been like with a pure and I think what has 1400 years been like with a pure breeding for ferocity What has that done to the genetic base?
And not to mention the fact that it's one of the...
It's one of the few religions where cousin marriage is permitted, which causes a whole host of other.
But I'm sort of thinking fundamentally, because it is fairly easy to trace in the Jewish community, the facts that that had, which has been profound and fundamental.
And I just I wonder when I see in Saudi Arabia bloggers who have some questions about the universal truth and value of certain sections of the Koran.
And, you know, in the past they would have just been killed.
And that weeds that mindset out of the population fairly quickly.
And the people who then get to breed the most, well, we can sort of see where that results.
And again, people can look up the IQs of various nations around the world.
It's not a perfect standard, but it's usually not exactly far off.
And as far as compatibility goes, you know, one of the things that's really a great surprise among biologists these days, and people can look into a book called The 10,000-Year Explosion for more on this, is how rapid human evolution is.
Oh, hundreds of thousands of years.
Human evolution can be extraordinarily rapid just to look at Jewish intelligence.
And I don't know the answer to this, but I wonder the degree to which 1400 years of breeding for ferocity and compliance, what that has done to the entire psychological makeup of people in the Middle East.
I don't know the answer to that, but I really wish we had some clear idea.
Because that, to me, would speak very fundamentally to, in a sense, a biocompatibility between, it's not just a mindset that you could adopt and come and go.
I wonder the degree to which they've been containers poured, like water poured into the containers in 1,400 years of evolution.
I'd love to talk about that.
I just want to go back to one thing you said because I didn't know the business about the Jewish intelligence rise.
I did know that by having the priesthood be celibate, you were basically capping intelligence every generation anytime somebody had some learning.
But here's a thought for you.
I'm sure this has occurred to you.
Maybe it hasn't.
It just now occurred to me for the first time.
You can basically say that the Enlightenment followed only because of the Reformation, only because of the destruction of the priesthood as being the source of knowledge.
Now, if everybody can have their own direct pathway to God, then people who are intelligent are not required to be celibate.
There are other things that they can do, and one of the other things they can do is have intelligent babies.
And where did it begin to occur in the Protestant countries?
And Max Weber thought it was because of the work ethic, but I would argue it's because the priests could have children.
The work ethic comes from the religion.
If you look at the New World, these aren't pleasant facts for leftists, but if you look at the New World, there are two Americas.
There's really only two, and it's not North America and South America.
The border is the U.S.-Mexico border because Canada and the United States were settled primarily by Protestants with a high degree of personal work ethic and a very intolerant view of top-down authority and everything.
Everything south of the Mexican border was settled by Catholics who were here for the gold.
The English came here to develop the land and to become rich and to become traders and merchants.
The Spanish colonized South America and Central America for the gold.
They just wanted the gold.
And that's the fundamental difference between the explosion of Western Europe as all a result of this.
But back to the desert thing, you know, with Islam.
One of the things, one follows the other.
This is what Frank Herbert's book was so brilliant about.
It's the whole thing that made Dune such a brilliant piece of work.
Have you read it?
I've seen the movie, I'm afraid.
I haven't read the book.
You should read the book.
The movie is appalling.
But basically what Herbert was saying was that there's this imperial empire of enormous power, enormous power, and it's dependent on this spice which grows on one planet.
They need it for their navigation.
It's a mind-enhancing drug for their navigation.
But basically what they say is this entire galactic empire was overthrown by the inhabitants of this planet because it was a desert planet.
And because it was a desert planet, the conditions were so harsh that the warriors from this planet were simply the most spectacular warriors in the world.
Absolutely fearless, absolutely ruthless and brutal.
So, look, we know there's not any discussion about this.
The environment selects the animal, right?
The environment selects the kind of life form.
If you've got a life form that needs an awful lot of water and loses water quickly, it's not going to make it in the desert, and it doesn't matter how much you try.
If you take the fact that the Middle East has been an extremely resource-poor area for quite a long time now—in fact, when you read the Bible, you hear about these oases.
And these things are like the size of a small park.
I mean, forget Central Park.
These things are like the size of a community park.
There's like water coming out of the ground in one place.
My God, let's build a city here.
So you've got an environment of ruthless resource restriction.
What is that going to breed in the one creature on Earth that is adaptable to all environments?
It's going to select for brutality, ruthlessness, the ability.
If you have to murder your children because there's not enough food or water for them this year, you leave them out on a rock or whatever you do, it's going to breed...
A sense of absolute ferocity.
Intelligence isn't going to help you if there's no water.
Intelligence isn't going to help you if there's no animals to hunt.
Intelligence is not selected there.
Ruthlessness is.
Discipline is.
Severity is.
And this has been in place long before Islam came along.
So then you have to ask yourself, why does the Islamic religion appeal so strongly to the Arab mindset?
And it's because ultimately it is a religion about conquering other people's resources.
The Koran is a history book of conquest and it's a manual for conquest.
It has terms for the fake truce.
It has terms for sending false messages.
It tells you how to handle slaves.
It tells you what to do with a conquered population.
Convert those you can.
Those who are believers in the Abrahamic tradition, we'll make them demis and they're going to be our slaves, but we'll let them live as long as they pay a tax.
And the infidels are killed.
It appeals to people who have nothing and who see riches in others.
It's a religion that appeals to the people who hate the West because they want the West and they can't have it.
And if we're talking about letting these people into the country unreformed, an immigrant is somebody who wants to give up their old life and come here.
When my grandfather came here, he made a pretty clear decision.
If England and war ever go to America, he's going to go to war on the American side.
That was the deal.
But when you're bringing in people who are especially not even determined to come here, they're fleeing here with these extremely savage and ferocious values set and with a religion that calls for the conquest of the earth and whose afterlife looks like Las Vegas but must be completely deprived on this planet.
In my mind, that is exactly like letting giant boatloads of people wearing Nazi armbands off of the dock at Ellis Island in 1943 and saying, yeah, what could possibly go wrong?
And the answer is pretty much everything.
So, all right, well, let's wrap it up.
I'd love to keep chatting, but we have to not exhaust the patience of our listeners.
Plus, of course, Thank you.
So BillWhittle.com, highly recommended.
And if you get a chance to see Bill speak live, I haven't as yet.
Otherwise, I'd have heckled already.
But you should go and see Bill as a great public speaker.
And the fact that you do it without notes and just keep going with fantastic rapid fire insights is very impressive to me.
I bow at the feet of the master.
You don't bow at the feet of the master.
We're having a great conversation.
You're not using notes either.
And by the way, for my listeners, the seven or eight people that may trot over there, take a look at this personal message from Stephen Molle.
It's just seven or eight minutes.
And it's up recently.
You know, we all need support in this thing.
are funded by giant corporations, which I'd be happy to be funded by, but we're not funded by the state, that's for sure.
And if you get anything out of this, it sure would be nice for both sides if you could help us keep it coming, because we depend on your voluntary willingness to trade money for what you perceive value with.
We don't have the money to take it from you coercively by force, because if we did, we certainly would have done it a long time ago.
And then we wouldn't be We'd be living like kings like the rest of these progressive politicians.
Let's show people that voluntarism can work.
So freedomainradio.com for my website, billwhittle.com for bills.
