All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 27, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
31:25
3187 National Review Against Donald Trump - Rebutted!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, it's Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Made and Ready.
I hope you're doing well.
So, National Review's most recent issue is an endless series of articles against Donald Trump.
And so they've given up even any pretense of impartiality by having some pro and anti Donald Trump.
It's all anti Donald Trump all the time, no matter what.
And it's just important to remember, of course, that to be anti Donald Trump is to be anti Republican for the most part, because a lot of Republicans really like him.
He's the leader.
And this is the magazine that was pro-Paul Ryan, and 93% of Republicans hate Paul Ryan's immigration policy.
Immigration is the one major policy that's driving people towards Donald Trump, and I did an introduction as to why in the rebuttal of Tom Sowell's article in the same magazine.
But this is David Boas, the executive vice president of the Cato Institute and the author of The Libertarian Mind.
And David Boas has this to type.
Quote, A lot of Americans think it would be better to have a businessman than a politician as president, and I sympathize with them.
Okay.
I mean, why do I even say?
Did Donald Trump open up his presidential campaign by saying, I'm a businessman, and everyone went insane and said, you've got my vote, business, vote.
No.
No.
This studious rejection of reality that is in the Republican mainstream at the moment is truly staggering.
I mean, it's the kind of things that would get you a hug room and some meds in another situation.
It's not because Donald Trump is a businessman that he is popular.
It is because he wishes to push back on the mass importation and subsidization of big government cultures like the Hispanic and the Muslim culture.
Hispanics and Muslims overwhelmingly vote for big government.
And in a couple of years, the entire momentum of the Tea Party is going to be cancelled out by the mass importation or the allowing in of...
Muslims and Hispanics.
And that is what Donald Trump is pushing back against.
Now, you may not know the demographics.
You may not have read your culture.
You may not have any clue what you're talking about.
But it's not that hard to figure out.
The first thing, basically, Donald Trump said was illegal immigration is a big problem.
And that's what got him so much attention and so much sympathy.
That, of course, now from the magazine that...
Promoted Paul Ryan, who is basically largely kind of open borders kind of fellow.
This is kind of incomprehensible, but it's only incomprehensible because either A, you're not understanding what people are saying, who are saying it repeatedly and loudly and clearly, in which case I don't know how you're tying your shoes or brushing your hair with your toothbrush and your tooth with your hairbrush, or you understand it and you're studiously avoiding it, in which case you are a slimy weasel bag sophist head.
So, he goes on, David goes on to write, Alas!
Alas is your way of saying, well, you're wrong, but I really don't have a proof for it, so I'm just going to use the word alas, or tragically, or unfortunately.
So he says, he chooses the A word.
Alas, the only businessman crazy enough to run for president seemed to be, well, crazy.
At least Ross Perot kept his craziness confined mostly to private matters, such as the looming disruption of his daughter's wedding.
You can go look it up.
Donald Trump puts it front and center.
Okay, Donald Trump is crazy.
He's not just wrong.
He's not just incorrect.
He's not just misinformed.
He's not just...
He's crazy.
He's crazy.
So let's find out.
From a libertarian point of view, and I think serious conservatives and liberals would share this view.
Oh, so you see, this is a way of priming you, of programming you.
That if you share...
David's view, you're serious.
And if you don't, you're a clown.
You see, you come in a clown car and endless numbers of you and your family pour out of Volkswagens in an incomprehensible way under a big top with an elephant wandering around.
So if you're serious, you'll agree with me, right?
You want to be serious, don't you?
Serious is good, right?
You don't want to be not serious.
That would be bad.
So, serious conservatives and liberals would share this view.
Trump's greatest offenses against American tradition and our founding principles are his nativism and promise of one-man rule.
Now, what is nativism?
I don't know.
I'm guessing that nativism is newspeak for patriotism.
Now, the patriotism in America, among sort of European descendants, middle class, largely white people, patriotism in America means small government.
Because people aren't patriotic like, I want to marry the dirt near where I was born, right?
There are certain principles that people in America are patriotic towards, and in general, among those who are patriots, they tend to be on the right, they tend to be conservative, and then they tend to be pro-Christianity and anti-big government.
So, nativism, I don't know what that means.
Does that mean that he prefers people like Donald Trump prefers people who are native to America?
Well, that's actually all countries around the world, right?
Because laws only apply to the people who are native to the country.
And so all laws are supposed to prefer native people rather than people in, say, Qatar or New Zealand, right?
Of course, right?
I mean, that's why Canadian health care doesn't apply to people coming in from Tasmania, right?
I mean, it just doesn't work.
Of course it's supposed to.
Because the natives are the ones who pay the taxes, so the laws are supposed to focus on the needs of the natives.
So I don't know what nativism means here, it just sounds like he doesn't want to use the word patriotism, and so he's using a weasel word for it.
And his promise of one-man rule, so he said, I am going to what?
Pull a Julius Caesar and dissolve the Senate and dissolve the Congress and establish myself as a permanent term dictator and have a very attractive daughter on the future postage stamps of the one-world fascist America.
I don't ever remember that speech.
I think I would have heard about that.
And that would have been quite startling.
So David goes on to write, Not since George Wallace has there been a presidential candidate who made racial and religious scapegoating so central to his campaign.
Alright.
So this is, you know, the great intellectual challenge of the modern era.
Every era has its particular challenges.
The great intellectual challenge of the modern era is to follow the facts and not be afraid of being called a racist.
I mean, everyone has their hump.
Everyone has, you know, there's a particular weapon that works in every single society that shuts people up, that silences people.
You talk about white privilege, that shuts people up.
Political correctness, as people have said, is just a way of saying, shut up.
Shut up, white people, because you've got privilege and you can't say anything.
Thanks for the country.
We'll have it now.
And so, you know, if you're going to follow the facts...
Then you're going to be called a racist, because apparently the facts are racist, and if you follow the facts that lead to conclusions that are not comfortable to leftists, communists, socialists, and weaselbags of every kind, then they're going to call you racist because they can't oppose your facts, and therefore they have to scream racism at you in the hopes that they make you radioactive and nobody can believe you, because you're a racist, and so on, right?
Muslims and Hispanics vote for big government.
They vote for the left repetitively and repeatedly.
Illegal immigrants are on welfare at more than twice the rates of native citizens.
And so those things don't work.
People on welfare generally tend to vote for the left.
So you say racial and religious scapegoating.
Well, people who want smaller government don't want big government cultures coming into the country, particularly illegally.
Right?
That's...
That's basic.
I mean, how could you not understand that?
But of course, then you'd have to admit that certain cultures tend towards bigger governments more than other cultures, in which case then you have to deal with facts and statistics.
I mean, you can look this stuff up.
We've got tons of presentations, which we'll link below, that go into all of this in great statistical detail.
These people are not hard to find.
Trump even referenced them in his opening speech for announcing his candidacy, where he talked about 80% of Mexican women being raped as they make their way across America.
The border and cited the study and so on.
So people can studiously avoid this and say, well, I guess people who grew up in Syria are exactly like people who grew up in Scotland.
And in terms of their view of government, it doesn't matter whether you grew up in a brutal dictatorship and have never known freedom at all and have no cultural or religious history of smaller government.
It doesn't matter if your religion says that the state and religion should be one.
According to Sharia law, it doesn't matter if you've never experienced any freedom, have no skills in the free market, and it doesn't matter if you end up on welfare, you're still going to love Republican principles.
Come on!
It's not that complicated.
So, if you say everyone is exactly the same...
Right?
And somebody from Syria, who's never experienced anything to do with the free market, is exactly the same as someone who grew up as a patriot in America, worshipping the free market and smaller government, and that's going to have absolutely no effect on their voting patterns, then you're insane.
Like, you literally are absolutely, I don't even know what to say.
Like, culture matters, history matters, religion matters, beliefs matter, and the more irrational the beliefs, the less you are open to reason.
And people are very bad at listening to reason, so unfortunately we can't bring people in and educate them because people don't listen to reason.
And the National Review writers would be pretty much a great example of that.
So, Trump launched his campaign talking about Mexican rapists and has gone on to rant about mass deportation.
Okay.
Talking about Mexican rapists.
Yes, he did talk about Mexican rapists and he cited information.
He cited information about it.
And so what happens is if 80% of the women coming across the border have been raped along the way, a lot of the rapists are going to come with them.
The women might be pregnant.
They might have STDs.
They're certainly going to be traumatized.
And this is one of the reasons why they end up on welfare quite a bit.
So it matters.
I mean, would you ever have an immigration policy that said, okay, we'll take the women, but only four out of five of them get raped right before they come across?
Because that's just going to make them so wonderful in a free market environment.
I have sympathy for the women getting raped.
It's terrible that the women are getting raped, which is why, if you support open borders, you're supporting the rape culture of people who prey upon the women trying to get across the borders.
You know, they say, ah, you see all of these people are dying on their way to Europe, and that's because Europe is letting them in.
If Europe didn't let them in, then they wouldn't be dying on the way, because they wouldn't be trying to get there.
Hmm.
Are you interested in saving lives?
No.
Are you interested in women being not raped?
No.
Then open the borders, because that's your result.
So...
And of course, when you disagree with someone, you say that they're ranting.
Oh, it's an incoherent mess of a speech.
They're ranting.
It had no focus.
Rather than rebut anything, you just apply a bunch of negative words and hope that people think that you're right.
And that is a truly pitiful display of intellectual incompetence.
Well, it's not even incompetence.
It's anti-competence.
So, mass deportation.
This is fascinating.
Let's just pause on this for a moment.
Because David is basically saying that mass deportation of illegal immigrants...
It's absolutely wrong.
It's completely immoral.
So what he's saying here, and I want everyone to be completely clear about this, what he's saying is that 30 million people, which is the rough estimate of the number of Hispanics or Mexicans in America, illegal immigrants from Central and Southern America, 30 million or so.
The official estimate is 11, but it's been that forever.
And if you track sort of the growth in remittances, right, and the money sent back to Mexico, it's about 30 million.
So 30 million people who have broken the law in America should be rewarded for breaking the law in America.
Right?
Forget my politics for the moment.
Let's just look at the basic facts of the matter.
There are 30 million people in America who have broken the law and are here, I'm not American, but here in America illegally.
So, to not deport them, which is the law, right?
The law is if you enter the country illegally, you should be deported because, and you should be charged, but generally it's cheaper to deport, right?
I mean, that's what happens.
I mean, if you look at the countries owned by the government, which is the standard statist view, then this is like saying, if I go on vacation, I come back and there are five people living in my house, It's evil to have them removed by force if they won't leave peacefully.
Right, so it goes on, mass deportation.
So this is a conservative, who is supposed to be the Law and Order Party, who is saying that to enforce immigration law is bad.
So he's encouraging people, not just the 30 million, but the other 300 million-odd Americans, for there to be mass civil disobedience and law-breaking that is advocated by the conservative Law and Order Republican Party.
30 million people illegally in America should not be deported because we can just break the laws we don't like.
Right?
The law is a voluntary thing and if you get enough people behind you, And if there are other people who call you racist for enforcing the law, then the mass breaking of laws you consider unpalatable is perfectly fine, and the enforcing of laws you find unpalatable is perfectly evil.
So they are talking about tens of millions of people But exercising civil disobedience, breaking the law, defying the government, that's actually more of a coup than it is anything else.
I just want people to be clear about what this is.
If you complain about mass deportation, you're saying tens of millions of people should not obey the laws and should be rewarded for not obeying those laws.
Those laws should be null and void by the fact that...
So, if you don't like taxation, you should simply not pay your taxes.
This would be the rule.
And you should never, ever go to jail for not paying your taxes.
Now...
I mean, I don't know.
Everybody knows my view on this, but this is what they're arguing.
That massive civil disobedience is the only right thing to talk about enforcing laws is bad and wrong.
You don't work within the system to change the laws.
You simply don't obey the laws.
And I would like to know, from David and from the other people who've published these articles, what laws they disagree with that they have disobeyed.
That's what I want to know.
I mean, this guy's written about libertarianism.
Does he believe in the income tax?
Does he believe that the IRS is a moral, rational, libertarian-justified institution?
Does he believe in that?
If he doesn't believe in it, then he must have not paid his taxes.
Because he's saying, disobeying the law that you disagree with is perfectly fine, and enforcing the law is wrong, and 30 million people should just disobey the law and be rewarded for it.
That's what should happen.
Disobey the laws you don't like.
So he doesn't like the income tax as a libertarian.
Has he paid his taxes?
If he has paid his taxes, then he wants conformity with laws he even disagrees with when it costs him.
Right?
But other people should break laws that they disagree with.
Anyway, I mean, you understand, this is like a truly shocking position for a conservative magazine to publish.
Tens of millions of people should openly disobey the laws, should go against what the laws are.
And the other thing, too, come on, I mean, look.
How many people, what is this, 6 billion people in the world right now?
How many people in the world would like to live in America?
Probably at least 5 billion of those people.
So, are people for open borders, are they for 5 billion people coming to America and having the right to vote?
Five billion people can't speak the language, no history with the culture, no record of smaller government, no record of the European tradition, no record of Greco-Roman or Judeo-Christian.
A lot of them believe systems.
Five billion people.
Do you want five billion people to come to America?
Have you ever driven down the street and said, wow, you know, if only there were five billion people here, my traffic would be excellent, right?
Now, if you're not comfortable with five billion people moving to America...
Then you don't want unfettered immigration.
So you're in agreement with Donald Trump.
This is basic logic, one-on-one.
People, this is not complicated.
Do you want five billion people to come to your country?
If not, then you're for limiting immigration.
Now, the degree to which you want to limit immigration, that's open to debate.
But saying, I can't believe that Donald Trump is anti-open borders.
Look, you're anti-open borders because you don't want 5 billion people in the current system coming to America.
Because they'll completely destroy the economy or go on welfare and can't educate them and no schools.
Forget it, right?
So he says, bans on Muslim immigration.
Okay, well, these bans have occurred before, right?
I don't know what these people have.
Like, America's currently at war with Islamic countries.
Currently at war with Islamic countries.
Would they have to have these guys written long statements about how Churchill should have opened the borders of England to young, military-aged German men coming in?
I mean, America shut down immigration from Germany and from Japan when they were at war with Germany and Japan.
And America is at war in several Muslim countries and cannot verify where the people are coming from because there's movement within those Muslim countries.
They've also aggregated in Europe and they've faked papers and some arrived without papers.
So you can't possibly verify who's coming in.
And the FBI director has said, we can't verify it.
We can't verify it.
So when you're currently at war, you have to not have immigration.
I mean, I don't even know why this needs to be said.
Ah, the cacometer is through the roof, right?
If you're at war with a group, you can't let young military male or female after the San Bernardino shooting.
Hey, what do we have to worry about?
Hey, women, did you hear that bomb?
I think a little baby just went off and took off some heads.
And so, bans on Muslim immigration.
Oh, it's shocking!
Okay, I think what's shocking is that America is involved in wars with Muslim countries.
So shut down those wars, wait a generation and see.
Anyway, shutting down mosques.
Well, if the mosques are hot centers of terrorist activity, it's at least something to figure out.
And building a wall around America.
So, for those who don't know, in 2006, a bill was passed to build a wall between Mexico and And America.
And what happened is, so it's perfectly legal for Donald Trump to build the wall.
Perfectly legal.
The bill has already been passed, already debated, already been passed by Congress.
The only reason it hasn't happened is Congress has repeatedly defunded it because they don't want all the left-wing reporters out there shooting pictures of sad-eyed women, probably not in the process of getting raped because that's happening on one sand dune to the south.
But they don't want pictures of all these people turning back from the wall and the wall going up.
And isn't it so terrible that there are walls, even though there are walls around the New York Times.
Anyway.
So, of course, he's not building a wall around America.
He's enforcing a law that was passed in 2006 by a lot of Republicans, I might add.
So, Donald Trump, this wall thing is not new.
The wall thing has already been funded and then defunded.
It's already been perfectly legally arrived at through the process of congressional voting.
So...
Building a wall around America?
Of course, you generally don't build a wall around a junkyard.
You know, I don't have to put a big fence around the garbage that I put on the street because nobody wants it.
However, you generally build a wall around the crown jewels.
The more valuable the country is for ingress, for coming to, the more you need to protect the borders, unless you want 5 billion people coming to your country.
Which is fine if there's no welfare state and there's no government or small government, but if there is a welfare state, and this is an old libertarian position, people get shocked at it like I say this, and Milton Friedman was saying this, what, 40 or 50 years ago?
You can have open immigration or you can have a welfare state.
You can't have both.
Otherwise, immigrants are in the unfortunate position of the majority of whom initiating the use of force through taking tax money in the welfare state.
It's the way it works.
Don't blame me.
Blame the system.
Well, blame me.
Why not?
It probably makes you feel better.
So, America, he goes on to write, America is an exceptional nation in large part because we've aspired to rise above such prejudices and guarantee life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to everyone.
Really, everyone in the world.
Five billion people you want to come in.
If you're going to say no to that, you are not for open borders.
He writes, equally troubling is his idea of the presidency, his promise that he's the guy, the man on a white horse who can ride into Washington, fire the stupid people and hire the best people and fix everything.
Huh.
Now, I don't know much about David Bowes, but I wonder if he wrote exactly the same thing about someone like Ron Paul.
Did he say, well, Ron Paul is offering to go and fix Washington, which is why people wanted to vote for Ron Paul, because he was going to make a big difference, audit the Fed, close the Fed, bring back the troops, close down the 700-plus military bases America has overseas.
Ron Paul had a fantastic libertarian wet dream platform.
If he was electable and could achieve it, well, that would have been great.
But, of course, people got very much into Ron Paul because they thought he would go to Washington and solve a lot of problems.
So I wonder if this guy said Ron Paul wanted to become a dictator because Ron Paul is promising people that he's going to fix Washington.
I wonder if he said that.
And, you know, it's funny, by the way, you know, just let me take a sidebar here.
Every now and then, the occasional whiff of irrational criticism against me comes across my modem.
And I just wanted to point out, people say, well, why are you defending Ronald Trump?
You didn't defend Ron Paul.
Yes, I did.
Yes, I did.
Ron Paul was called a racist because of newsletters from the 90s or whatever.
And I went in, made a whole video rebutting all of that and defending him and so on.
Ah, well, you only defend people on the right.
Nope.
I also talked about how people misunderstood what President Obama meant when he said, you didn't build that.
And so I just try and push back on false narratives wherever I find them.
I try not to discriminate too much because there's so many.
Why would you bother?
It's like being really picky at a buffet.
I mean, tons of food, just find something to eat it.
Fire the stupid people.
Hire the best people and fix everything.
You see, again, this is, I mean, this is just a straw man.
When has he ever said, I'm going to fix everything?
He's talked about very specific things.
And can he hire the best people?
Well, yeah.
I mean, the president does get to appoint a few cabinet posts, if I remember rightly.
So, yeah, he does get to hire a bunch of people.
When the government has to negotiate with, say, China or Mexico on trade deals or immigration policies or whatever, Trump can appoint who is going to do that so he can do a bunch of stuff.
And, oh yes, here's the biggest straw man.
He doesn't talk about policy or working with Congress.
He does talk about policy.
I mean, Donald Trump has a website.
I don't know what it is.
DonaldJTrump.com or something like that.
But he has a website.
And on the website is a whole bunch of policies that he's talked about.
You may agree with those policies.
You may disagree with them.
But doing the la la la la no policies dance just makes you look mental.
I'm sorry.
They are policies.
You can analyze and agree with them or disagree with them.
But saying that they don't exist...
I don't know.
You look like someone who just keeps walking into a wall saying, it's a door, it's a door, it's a door, it's a door, it's a door, it's a door.
It's adorable.
So he goes on to write, he's effectively vowing to be an American Mussolini, concentrating power in the Trump White House and governing by fiat. - What?
Thank you.
What does that even mean?
And when people say, he's effectively, or he might as well just come out and say it, or whatever it is, I mean, okay, has he said, I'm going to concentrate all the power in the Trump White House and govern by fiat?
I don't think he has.
And so, where's the argument?
This is just a bunch of noise.
It's just a bunch of noise.
I don't know if people are farting and thinking that they're playing the trombone or what's going on, but this is just a bunch of noise.
And I'm telling you people, oh man, people in National Review, let me tell you something.
Maybe it's been a while since you've done something other than service.
Big Republican donors and guarantee a whole bunch of H1B visas to companies that don't want to actually negotiate with their employees.
Maybe it's been a while since you've not been terrified of the mainstream media calling you a racist even though Trump is walking right through that and succeeding anyway, which proves that you've been cowards for two generations.
But nonetheless, let me talk to you.
The more that you apply this verbal dumping on Trump without any arguments, without any analysis, you sound like a bunch of whiny 16 year olds and all you're doing is generating more sympathy for Trump and more dislike for you.
Sorry.
You know, you're like the restaurant that used to get some customers now.
New restaurants opened up across the street.
Everyone's going to that restaurant.
And you're out front screaming at the restaurant.
People are like, oh yeah, well that's why I don't go to that restaurant because the guy is not only is the food not good, but he's kind of nutty.
Like he's just screaming, oh yeah, the new restaurant owner is a racist and a dictator and his food sucks.
He doesn't even have any food.
There's no food in there.
Actually, you can see people eating food right now.
No, there's no food in there.
No policies.
No food.
Get out!
You people are bad for going there.
Come to my restaurant.
My restaurant is the place to go.
This guy's evil.
He's an evil restaurateur.
And there's no food.
And the food that's there is made of dog balls.
Like, can we just get this guy off the sidewalk so we can go have a meal?
I mean, that's what I'm telling you.
If you really want to, look, Republican establishment, if you really want to harm Trump, endorse Trump.
Yeah, he's our guy.
Okay, then people might pause and go, wait a minute, what?
Those guys?
Those backstabbing Brutus-style crap weasels that are endorsing Trump?
Oh, no.
If they like him, there must be something wrong with Trump.
But this attacking, I mean, you're strengthening him.
You're strengthening him.
If you strike me down, I shall become even more powerful.
He goes on to say, without even getting into his past support for a massive wealth tax and single-payer health care, his know-nothing protectionism or his passionate defense of eminent domain.
So, I love it when people say, I'm not even going to bring up this, this, this, this, this.
I think you just did.
You falsifying crap weasel.
Like, you just, you just did.
Sorry, Michelle Malkin is my new favorite word.
But anyway, so without even getting into his past support for a massive wealth tax, who cares what he supported in the past?
Who cares what he said?
Look, go back far enough, you can find something that makes no sense now in the present.
I was once a socialist.
I once believed that Santa Claus was real.
Loved the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny.
Oh no!
Steph, why would you listen to him?
He used to believe in the Easter Bunny.
I don't know.
Go back far enough.
So, but what is he proposing now?
What is he proposing now?
What is he proposing now?
Everyone's changed their mind.
Look, this is the stupid crap that people pull, which is like, if you've always believed what you believe, then you're a dogmatist who never changes his mind and is not open to any new information.
And if you've changed what you believe, then you're a spineless flip-flopper who's just any way the wind blows.
I mean, come on.
I mean, forget the past and digging, oh, 30 years ago, he said this about taxes.
Just look at the arguments, deal with it in the present rather than now.
Otherwise, you know what you're like?
You're like one of these unbelievably horrendous shrewish wives.
I'm sure there are husbands too, but, you know, this stereotype of the shrewish wife, you know, like...
30 years ago, 30 years ago, I asked you to get me that dessert and you forgot.
30 years ago, you didn't do the right thing.
And it's like, let it go, for God's sakes.
I mean, oh my God.
Rehashing this stuff from years or decades ago.
Deal with the man in the present.
So anyway, I just want to sort of mention that.
Now, yeah, I don't like the protectionism either.
I mean, I think he's talked about a 45% tariff on Chinese goods.
I'm not a big fan of protectionism.
I'm a free market guy.
I don't know enough about what his reasoning is.
He also says it's just a threat.
It's not obviously where he's going to end.
And of course, he's the art of the deal guy, so he's not going to end up with a 45% tariff.
But I would like to know the reasons behind it, and I would like to know what is going on.
So I haven't done that research yet.
At some point, I will.
So, he says, I think we can say that this is a Republican campaign that would have appalled Buckley, Goldwater, and Reagan.
Yeah, that's great.
This is what's known as the Ouija board attack.
You know, I am going to, just for a moment, channel past Republican heroes and say they would hate Trump.
Watch me channel them.
Watch, my hair is going to get...
Cro-Manion-like low on the hairline, incredibly greasy and swept back, and I'm going to be Reagan, and I'm going to say, we don't like Trump.
Trump is bad.
I mean, this Ouija board stuff, let me channel the spirits of dead conservatives, and that would be appalling.
Oh, my God.
Oh, my God.
It's just big picture stuff, you know?
Look.
If you go to Republicans, and it's so fascinating to me that a Republican organization, like a conservative organization, like the National Review, has not asked any of the Trump supporters what they're interested about.
That, to me, it just says, well, we don't want to know.
Because phone them up.
YouTube.
Five seconds.
You can find clips.
They're talking about what they like.
It is about immigration because they understand the demographics of importing big government cultures into an increasingly smaller and smaller small government demographic.
It's not that complicated.
It's really not that complicated.
They understand the numbers and you guys are afraid of being called racist.
That's all it's about.
That's all it's about.
But listen, small government people need to organize.
And if a whole bunch of small government people happen to be white middle class people, maybe they're males too.
Well then...
Whites need to organize to get smaller governments.
And just whites need to understand that.
Every other ethnic group organizes and focuses and looks out for their own interests.
And of course, if whites do it, it's like, oh, white supremacists!
It's an all-black organization.
Well, that's empowering.
It's an all-white organization.
They're racist!
The black guy is proud of his culture, and he's a strong, proud black man.
The white guy is proud of his culture, and he's a racist.
I mean, it's just got to walk through that stuff.
Yeah.
Small government people who tend to be white need to organize and need to find a champion at the moment because they can't enforce it without the state, and big government cultures are coming in and canceling out any last hope.
And it's really, it's now or never, right?
Because in another five or ten years, there'll be no chance to turn it around.
So it's now or never.
That is the basis of the support for Trump.
Like it or not, those are the facts.
And you can deny the facts and you can attack the people and you can call them idiots and xenophobes and racists and so on.
And all you're doing is pushing them closer to Trump.
Maybe that's the plan.
Maybe Trump is paying for these attacks.
I wouldn't put it past him.
He is a media genius.
But that's the simple answer.
And these attacks are only confirming the exact necessity as to why Trump is there and really revealing the unbelievable intellectual hostility and bankruptcy that That the Republican and conservative establishment media has for people desperate for their last taste or gasp of potential freedom.
Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Main Radio, thank you so much for watching.
Thank you so much for listening.
If you like these videos, freedomainradio.com slash donate.
▲
Export Selection