March 14, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
24:54
3230 What Pisses Me Off About Donald Trump Protests
Watching the pretend moral hysteria erupting after a group of Marxist-motivated, George Soros-funded Bernie Sanders supporters shut down a Donald Trump rally in Chicago by threatening and committing crimes against peaceful Donald Trump supporters is truly a gruesome spectacle that sets stage for an ever-escalating cycle of violence – unless it is interrupted, exposed, and thoroughly repudiated.That is my job, and that is your job as well. Do not fail civilization, do not fail reason, do not fail peace, do not fail the future.Do not fail yourself.Sources: http://www.fdrurl.com/trump-protests
When moral principles become partisan weapons, civilization literally teeters on the brink of self-destruction.
Respect for ethics is the thin mind line between civilization and barbarism, because civilization never has enough resources to punish a large number of people unwilling to control themselves.
Every murder costs society over $8 million, indirect and indirect costs.
Every sexual assault, a quarter of a million dollars.
Every assault, over $100,000.
Every robbery, over $40,000 and so on.
Criminals are barely manageable when everyone understands that they are evil and they themselves do not claim to be good.
However, when criminals redefine their actions as moral and honest citizens are recast as immoral, either the definitions will be corrected or a civil war will ensue.
Make no mistake, there is no middle ground.
All moral claims are by their very nature universal.
If they are not universal, then they are subjective preferences.
Watching the pretend moral hysteria erupting after a group of Marxist-motivated George Soros-funded Bernie Sanders supporters shut down a Donald Trump rally in Chicago by threatening and committing crimes against peaceful Donald Trump supporters is truly a gruesome spectacle that sets the stage for an ever-escalating cycle of violence unless it is interrupted, exposed and thoroughly repudiated.
That is my job.
And that is your job as well.
Do not fail civilization.
Do not fail reason.
Do not fail peace.
Do not fail the future.
Do not fail yourself.
In any conflict, cowards always attack the most reasonable person.
Or the group least likely to riot, and side with the most aggressive person or group.
It happens in friendships, in families, in business, and most dangerously in politics.
A number of principles were used to justify the criminal actions against Donald Trump and his supporters.
Let's examine them one by one.
Donald Trump uses divisive language, therefore violence against him is justified.
The usual suspects were out in force, immediately justifying the threats of violence against Trump and his supporters because the mainstream media constantly excuses and hides leftist violence while blaming the victims of leftist violence.
What was a little more surprising and will, in my opinion, effectively end their political careers is that Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz both condemned Trump for being the victim Of leftist violence.
This is truly astounding and will be the nail in the coffins of their political careers.
Two men who claim to be anti-leftists and passionately dedicated to free speech defend or excuse violent leftist agitators and attack and criticize a man whose First Amendment rights were killed by violent threats.
Cruz said, I also want to mention something about the events this evening in Chicago.
This is a sad day.
Political discourse should occur in this country without a threat of violence, without anger and rage and hatred directed at each other.
We need to learn to have disagreements without being disagreeable.
To have disagreements while being respecting human beings on the other side.
What he said, what can I tell you?
He said, earlier today over 30 people were arrested at one rally and then tonight as violence broke out the rally was cancelled altogether.
Now the responsibility for that lies with the protesters who took violence in their own hands.
But at any campaign, responsibility starts at the top.
Any candidate is responsible for the culture of the campaign.
And when you have a campaign that disrespects the voters, when you have a campaign that affirmatively encourages violence, when you have a campaign that's facing allegations of physical violence against members of the press, you create an environment that only encourages this sort of nasty discord.
So you see, the fault is the leftist violent people, but really the fault is Donald Trump.
One sentence on the leftist violent people, and a whole paragraph or two on Donald Trump.
Rubio said, This boiling point that we have now reached has been fed largely by the fact that we have a frontrunner in my party who was fed into language that basically justifies physically assaulting people who disagree with you.
See, whenever people say basically, what they mean is, I'm paraphrasing it for my own political agenda.
So, apparently, using aggressive rhetoric in politics makes you a violent person.
Well, Obama has said once he's looking for whose ass to kick, and then when it comes to politics, quote, if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.
He told an audience, because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl.
In 2008, Obama told his supporters to argue with people, get in their faces.
Obama said March 30, 2009, that quote, I don't want to quell anger.
I think people are right to be angry.
I'm angry.
See?
That's justified.
Oh no, a white male is angry.
He's got to be insane.
So blaming Trump, blaming the victim of violence is particularly fascinating because in every other situation generally cited by the political left, violence is never justified no matter what the verbal provocation.
For instance, if your girlfriend calls you an asshole, are you morally justified if you punch her in the face?
If a woman dances topless at a drunken party is grabbing her justified?
Former police officer Darren Wilson was attacked by the left for shooting robbery suspect Mike Brown in self-defense after being attacked by the young black man.
The moral principle used against Donald Trump is this.
If you speak words that are upsetting to other people, then they are fully justified in threatening or using violence against you.
Or, I guess more precisely, if you speak words that can be perceived as divisive, then violence is justified against you.
All right.
Although this is a ridiculous and immoral standard, I gotta wonder if those on the left would ever have been guilty of speaking words that could be perceived as divisive.
Let me think.
For instance, how about feminism?
Let's have a look at that.
A lot of Marxist-inspired feminism worked to convince women that they were being exploited by a patriarchy, that men were male chauvinist pigs, that women were surrounded by male rapists and rape culture and child molesters, that women are being exploited and underpaid, and marriage is a useless prison of manual labor for women, to name just a few of the arguments that...
Feminists have put forward.
Could these perspectives be reasonably viewed as divisive?
Could the 300% increase in divorce after the rise of feminism in the West be viewed as evidence of that divisiveness?
Would people whose marriages and families have suffered as a result of leftist feminist agitation be justified in assaulting feminists or threatening them during their rallies?
Well, according to the logic used to defend the criminals who shut down the Trump rally in Chicago, sure!
Men's rights activists should be fully justified in planning for weeks to shut down feminist rallies.
They should be defended for blocking ambulances, assaulting women, and shooting guns in the air.
If male activists succeed in using violence to shut down a major feminist rally, well, it's the women's fault for being divisive.
Am I right?
I'm not.
Oh, also on the left, you may have heard a little bit of talk on the left about class conflict.
So, Standard leftist theory pits workers against owners, entrepreneurs against employees, rich against poor, and so on.
By leftist definitions, workers are underpaid because the evil capitalist steals the value of their excess labor.
Capitalist economic relationships are not a partnership wherein the capitalist provides a labor-enhancing environment, such as a factory, while the worker provides the immediate physical labor, but are systems of predatory theft.
Wherein the capitalist steals from, exploits, and, at least in the Communist Manifesto, regularly rapes the workers.
Could it possibly be argued that this kind of inflammatory language is, well, divisive?
Are capitalists then justified in using violence to break up leftist gatherings?
Does divisive speech really justify violence?
Oh, the left has been known to say just a few things about race conflict.
Leftists have been telling blacks that they are victimized by evil white racism ever since the communists decided to use race baiting as a strategy to bring down free market economics.
This actually started in the 1920s and has been escalating ever since.
Could it be considered, I don't know, divisive to continually tell blacks that they are exploited, tortured, imprisoned, kept down, brutalized, and generally screwed over by an apparently bottomless reservoir of anti-black white racism?
Is it, say, divisive to tell blacks that they can just never get ahead because of some mysterious magical power called white privilege?
Although, statistically, it should really be called East Asian privilege, or Jewish privilege, since both those groups do better than whites, even in white societies.
Are those who find this race-baiting narrative divisive, justified in using violence to break up rallies that further this narrative?
Of course not.
Look, this list of leftist divisiveness can go on and on, but I think you get the general idea.
For the left...
Violence is only ever justified against speech that opposes the leftist narrative of victimhood, aggression, and imaginary exploitation.
The left does not care one bit about divisive speech, because without divisive speech, there would really be no such thing as the left.
The general degradation of social discourses about ethics can be seen blindingly clearly in the degree to which almost all appeals to principles immediately reveal bottomless hypocrisy, double standards, manipulation, hysteria, abomination, abuse, and a seemingly bottomless black soulless well of lies.
If Donald Trump supporters are angry, they are hysterical and bigoted and irrational and should just shut the hell up.
If those opposing Donald Trump are angry, they are justified and legitimate and free to use violence at will.
See?
Pro-Trump anger, evil.
Anti-Trump anger, good.
Repeat until it makes sense, 1984, double-think style.
Another ridiculous non-principal constantly trotted out against Donald Trump is that he is somehow magically responsible for every action of everyone who claims to like or support him.
If a man runs a red light with a Donald Trump bumper sticker on his car, Donald Trump suddenly becomes a lawless crazy person who demands people speed through school zones.
This generalized and frankly very boring smear tactic is kind of like an intelligence test.
Anyone who accepts it stands revealed as a bigoted fool and should be immediately given safe scissors rather than intellectual engagement.
Look, Donald Trump has millions of supporters and a few of them do stupid and nasty things.
Guess what?
A lot of those were doing stupid and nasty things long before Donald Trump ran for president and will continue doing stupid and nasty things long after Donald Trump shuffles off his mortal coil.
This silly game of gotcha allows what could loosely be termed reporters, more accurately called propagandists, to continually demand that Donald Trump repudiate the actions of silly and nasty people who may be vaguely associated with his campaign.
If a politician must be judged by the actions of everyone claiming to support him, then I suppose that is some kind of principle.
But where were these reporters when Obama supporters did and do crazy, crazy stuff?
So, here's a quote.
Sources, of course, as always, are below.
A prominent supporter of President Barack Obama and co-founder of the Human Rights Campaign was arrested last week on charges of sodomy and sexual abuse related to what authorities said was an encounter with a juvenile male.
Principles a leader must be judged by his followers do not make me laugh.
In Ohio, a leftist agitator rushed Donald Trump on stage, forcing Secret Service agents to tackle him and form a protective wall around the political frontrunner.
This man has used the Feel the Burn, Bernie Sanders hashtag, and...
Was released on bail that same day.
And compare this to the guy who jumped over the White House fence.
He was held without bail and then sentenced to 17 months in prison.
Have any mainstream reporters demanded that Bernie Sanders be held accountable for the actions of thousands of his fervent and vocal supporters in, say, for instance, planning for weeks to shut down the Donald Trump rally in Chicago?
And actually, you know, by the way, it's actually illegal to protest at a Trump rally.
Current federal law, HR 347, does not allow for protesting of any type in an area that's under protection by the Secret Service.
In other words, because Donald Trump was assigned Secret Service protection back in November 2015, it's actually a crime to protest at his campaign rallies.
Free speech doesn't apply at these rallies because protests are considered, quote, knowingly impeding or disrupting the orderly conduct of an official function.
Until and unless Trump's Secret Service protection is revoked, if it in fact ever is, Trump can lawfully kick protesters out of his rallies.
Such protesters can be punished by up to 10 years in prison.
So the fact that he hasn't done any of that shows, I would think, and argue, and the evidence supports, his tolerance.
You can also see It's crazy hypocrisy in play when people attack Donald Trump for advocating war crimes by supporting the waterboarding of terrorists.
This shows a childlike ignorance of the rules of war.
The Geneva Convention, which bans torture, does not apply to terrorists.
It is an agreement between governments to protect their official soldiers during wartime.
It does not, of course, apply to terrorists who are not official soldiers.
Article 5 of the 4th Geneva Convention, which governs how civilians are treated in occupied territory, states that if a civilian, quote,"...is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the state, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present convention as would,
if exercised in favor of such an individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such state." So, for instance, Taliban fighters back in the day could have initially claimed to be protected under the Convention, since Afghanistan did sign these treaties, but they last protected prisoner of war status by failing to obey the standards of conduct for legal combatants.
They didn't wear uniforms.
Were they part of a responsible command structure?
Did they themselves obey the laws of war?
If you're not in uniform, not part of a responsible command structure, if you're not obeying the rules of law...
It doesn't apply.
Geneva Conventions are reciprocal agreements.
Does a country continue to obey Geneva Conventions if its enemy does not?
Well, do terrorists deliberately target civilians?
Of course they do.
Do they protect captured prisoners?
Al-Qaeda's murder of Nicholas Berg and Daniel Pearl show they kill even innocent civilian prisoners and therefore are not protected under the Geneva Convention.
So those who claim...
That Donald Trump is advocating war crimes.
They're just wrong.
Oh, don't worry though.
I'm sure that they will apologize and retract all of their erroneous statements in the comments below.
Let's look, shall we?
Actually, let's not.
Probably not going to happen.
Now...
With regards to Trump calling for the targeting of the family members of terrorists, well, there's a lot of pearl-clutching, fainting on the couch, shock and outrage about this.
I don't really recall people getting too upset when some of Osama bin Laden's family members were killed during the raid on his compound in 2010.
And legally, those aware of an upcoming crime who do not report it are by definition accomplices.
Think of the families of the San Bernardino shooters.
Were they really unaware that the couple from hell's small home had been turned into a massive paramilitary bunker?
Here's the bottom line.
Thank you.
And all you need to know.
The left does not care about divisive speech.
The left thrives on divisive speech.
The left does not care about war crimes.
If they did, they'd be all over Obama.
Obama, just one out of many, Obama has been accused of committing war crimes through his logistical assistance to the brutal Saudi Arabian air offensive against Yemen.
The Obama administration has, with full knowledge, aided and abetted the Saudis in murdering millions of innocents in Yemen.
Oh, but potential waterboarding, that's the big problem.
The left does not care about war crimes.
If they did, they'd be all over Hillary Clinton, who, according to the American political commentator and journalist Don DeBar, should be prosecuted for war crimes over her admission under oath that she played a part in destroying Libya.
Quote, Representative Peter Roskam opened his interrogatory of Clinton by asking whether her statement that was captured on camera when she was getting ready for an interview, we came, we saw, he died, about the murder of Muammar Gaddafi, represented her policy towards Libya.
And in denying that it represented policy, she, under oath, essentially admitted to the fact pattern of US policy being regime change in Libya and the killing of Gaddafi.
Both are war crimes.
Both are prosecutable acts at the International Criminal Court.
And her statements were made under oath, the analyst stated.
The left does not care about Muslims.
They fervently support Hillary Clinton, who for years supported for, voted for and enabled all the horrific wars and invasions perpetrated by the US and its allies in Iraq, Afghanistan, throughout the Middle East and the Muslim world since 9-11.
These wars have killed literally hundreds of thousands of Muslims, a large proportion of whom are civilians, and has displaced millions more, helping to trigger the current European migrant crisis.
Does the left care about Muslims?
Hell, the Muslims who overwhelmingly support the alleged war criminal Muslim murdering Hillary Clinton, do the Muslims even care about Muslims?
Does the left care about blacks?
In 2008, 95% of black voters voted for Barack Obama.
Exit polls showed that 63% of all voters and 65% of those voting for Obama cited the economy as the number one reason he got their vote.
2009, black poverty rate was 25.8%.
2014, it's 27.2% went up under Obama.
According to CNN Money, quote, minority households' median income fell 9% between 2010 and 2013, compared to a drop of only 1% for whites.
The Financial Times, quote, Median incomes fell by 5%, but by the more telling measure of net wealth, assets minus liabilities, the numbers offer a more troubling story.
What about net worth and the black-white wealth gap?
The Financial Times said, quote, the median non-white family today has a net worth of just $18,100, almost a fifth lower than it was when Mr.
Obama took office.
White median wealth, on the other hand, is inched up by 1% to $142,000.
In 2009, white households were seven times richer than their black counterparts.
That gap is now eightfold.
Both in relative and absolute terms, blacks are doing worse under Mr.
Obama.
And remember, these numbers apply to all non-whites, including high-income groups such as East Asians.
For blacks alone, the numbers are actually much worse.
Ah, people say the black unemployment dropped from 12.7% in 2007 to 10.1% in 2014.
That's good news, except it's not really, because the black labor participation rate has fallen to its lowest in recorded history.
Home ownership rates have fallen by 6% among blacks, twice that of whites.
In 2013, over 25% of homeowners in high-poverty, high-minority neighborhoods owed more than their houses were worth, twice that of white or richer regions.
Look, it all comes down to this.
There are people who are forced to pay taxes and the people who profit from receiving those tax money.
Half of Americans pay no federal taxes.
70% of Americans get more from the government than they pay in taxes.
Now, taxpayers might actually be okay with this level of exploitation if it in fact made society better, but it doesn't.
These massive wealth transfers from taxpayers to recipients corrupts politics, it destroys lives, smashes families, kills incentives, and these transfers have created a permanent underclass of broken, white-mouthed baby birds constantly squalling for more and more government spending and more and more government power.
The makers and the takers, that's what it's all about.
In the UK, women pay 60% less tax than men.
In the US, men pay 115% of federal taxes.
Whites and Asians pay far more in total taxes than blacks and Hispanics.
So white males pay a lot more in taxes, and they're sick of it.
Not because they're not generous.
If they weren't generous, protests and tax revolts would have started decades ago.
It's because these massive wealth transfers are making the country worse.
Look, the left does not care about divisiveness or sexism or racism or fascism, since using violence to shut down free speech is one of the defining characteristics of fascism.
Donald Trump is a fascist?
No.
The brown shirt protesters are the fascists.
The left does not care about every evil it imagines in others.
It only cares about one thing and one thing only.
It knows that you care about evil and it knows that you will pay good, hard-earned money to avoid being called evil.
The left calls you evil so you will give up your rights and resources so that they can scoop them up and give them to others to gain and keep political power.
