Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 25, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

47:00

3361 DNC Leak Scandal: Wasserman Schultz Resigns! | Mike Cernovich and Stefan Molyneux

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hi everybody, Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Main Radio.
	He's back!
	He's like the boomerang we keep inviting back.
	Mike Cernovich, a lawyer and the author of Guerrilla Mindset, How to Control Your Thoughts and Emotions to Live Life on Your Terms.
	Vital statistics, follow Mike on Twitter, twitter.com slash cernovich and dangerandplay.com is his excellent blog.
	And for those of you into submarines, you can follow him on Periscope, periscope.tv slash playdangerously.
	Mike, how are you doing?
	Man, it's been great, huh?
	It's been fun.
	What a day.
	What a time to be alive.
	For those who want the background, the Russian government at some point managed to worm their way into the Democratic, the DNC servers, and managed to extract, I think it's about 20,000 emails.
	There apparently may be more on the way.
	And boy, some stuff has emerged out of that.
	What's the top couple of things that you find interesting that have come out of this document dump?
	Yeah, it's a big question you asked because it's almost like, where do you begin?
	The big problem with this story, as you know, is so much is being exposed that it's even hard to say, wait, wait, they said that?
	This happened?
	This happened?
	You feel like it's a baseball game and you're calling a play-by-play.
	But I think two of the big themes are that we've always known that DNC controls the media, but we can never prove it.
	Well, now we can prove it.
	That's a big takeaway.
	Well, we have reporters who are allowing for edits from the DNC. We have the DNC basically calling them up like a bad dog who took a crap on a nice rug saying, hey, stop what you're doing.
	And the guy's like, oh, I can have a call any day, any time during the day.
	I'll help you out.
	So the fact that they really do seem to be calling the shots, it's not even so much they say how high.
	It's like they seem to give a lot of the talking points.
	Reporters are allowing edits.
	They're running ideas past the DNC, which, you know, if you're honest and open about it, you know, if I go to some communist blog and it's got the hammer and sickle and pictures of Lenin that people often mistake for me after a hungry day, if I go to that blog, it's like, okay, they're communists.
	I get that.
	When I go to Hillary Clinton's website, but if I do, I know it's pro-Hillary Clinton.
	The problem is that the media claims to have some level of objectivity to the reader, and that to me is kind of a social contract that gets broken.
	We're objective.
	We're seeing things both sides, but when you're taking your talking points from DNC-approved topics, then you can't claim to be objective, and I think that facade is what has fallen down.
	It's something everyone knew, as you said, but kind of came down this weekend.
	What was shocking to me, though, was that email you mentioned from Deborah Wasserman Schiltz to Chuck Todd, which, you know, even though I'm pro-Trump, nobody from the Trump organization has ever said, Mike, this must stop.
	Because, for example, I came out like I wasn't pro-Mike Pence.
	Nobody from Trump's team, even though I'm pro-Trump, would say, Mike, this must stop.
	It was the way that they talked to him.
	him, he was an errand boy.
	It isn't even that Chuck Todd is biased because as human beings we're all biased.
	It's that he was spoken to like an errand boy.
	You wouldn't even talk to your interns the way that these people talk to the media.
	Hillary.
	free.
	The giant vacuum of support among young people.
	Now, support among older people to me is a little confusing because they have the living memory of what the Caligula administration of the Clintons was actually like in the White House, which is actually a bit of an insult to Caligula.
	But the fact that among the young, Hillary has to pay people to support her.
	How is this?
	Doesn't this say everything you need to know?
	Yeah, she has no organic reach, no organic audience.
	And a lot of us, you know, you had mentioned this, I had mentioned it before, we had always said that they were paid shills and people go, that's a conspiracy theory.
	Oh, and I'm like, no, trust me, it's real because I talk to people, she has no support.
	Right, Hillary Clinton has to pay people to defend her on Twitter.
	Whereas Bernie's people are very active and very engaged.
	And that's another thing that we knew for a fact is that Hillary does not have any real support.
	This election is going to be very bad for her.
	And these protesters, and I guess for those who can air quote around protesters, that a lot of these protesters are just interns sent.
	Now, who was sending these interns out to these supposed protests?
	Yeah, that's fake, right?
	So the protest thing is hilarious because if you guys saw my Periscope and pictures, I would kind of photobomb the protest to show people that The media – here's what I would watch.
	The media would say like, you know, me and you are here standing and they would zoom in and really try to make it look like, oh, protest at this place.
	And then you and I would walk down the block an hour later and then they would take another picture from a different angle, another protest.
	We know there's only two people.
	Well, even a big protest at the RNC was around 40 people and again interns.
	So that email that came from the WikiLeaks, the DNC goes, "Well, we got great coverage on the protest even though only two people showed up.
	But in the future, we better send off some interns just in case because we don't want a bad photo." So, yeah, we have proof that Hillary has no actual real support online.
	Nobody who would protest is actually a protester.
	They're all interns of people that they're paying.
	It's hilarious, really.
	Okay, now help me understand something.
	I don't know if you're an expert in this kind of stuff, but you certainly have a legal mind.
	What is the issue with the Washington Post hosting joint fundraisers with the DNC? Because obviously that's partisan as hell when it comes to just perception, but they seem to have some legal questions or even legal opposition to that very gathering.
	What's all that about?
	Yeah, there's all kinds of FEC regulations.
	You'll remember that.
	Remember when Arnold ran for governor of California?
	They actually had to stop showing his movies within 60 days of the election or something like that.
	If you're the Washington Post and you give away free media to the Democratic National Convention or you give value to them, that is a form of a campaign contribution because it's a quid pro quo, right?
	So in that email, you're talking about it, and that's why they're very lawyers.
	The DNC goes...
	So I'll give you the legalese version.
	I'll give you the real version.
	Here's what really happened.
	The DNC said, we're going to give to donors tickets to this Washington Post party as part of the package.
	So if you give $5,000, you'll get four tickets to the Washington Post party.
	And then the Washington Post said, no, no, no, no, no.
	We don't want our name on this.
	Keep it separate.
	And then the DNC guy goes, oh, yeah, we're going to keep it separate anyway because the lawyer said we can't do it.
	And then they go, OK, well, the way we'll get around this is we'll keep it separate.
	But if somebody donated money, then we'll get them added to the list.
	So clearly it went through legal and legal said, no, this is illegal as hell.
	You can't do this.
	So they go, OK, well, what we'll do is if you're a big donor, we can't tell you that we're selling you tickets to The Washington Post.
	But we can tell them to add you to the list.
	So the lawyers knew whatever it was they were doing was 100% illegal, told them they couldn't, so then they tried to be too clever to get around that and say, well, okay, we won't sell you a ticket, but wink, wink, nod, nod, we can get you into the party.
	I mean, that's the Washington Post.
	They hired 23 people to go after Trump, and when they did that, we go, well, why is the Washington Post hiring 23 people to just go after Trump?
	That's all that they did, right?
	And then Trump, of course, removed the Washington Post press credentials, and people go, that's an attack on the media.
	An attack on the free press.
	Well, okay, now we have proof that the Washington Post is essentially selling tickets to its parties as a joint fundraising effort with the DNC. Where's the media outcry for that?
	Yeah, well, I think to ask that question, given these revelations, is almost to answer it.
	So, Mike, help me understand this, because, you know, I'm looking at this stuff from Canada, and the way it seems to me is that when you look at the degree to which social media, or social justice media, as I'm calling it these days, the degree to which social media is aiding the Democrats and thwarting The Republicans, you know, when you look at Facebook and the way that they seem to have some, there seem to be some evidence that they may be manipulating stories.
	When you look at hashtag manipulation in Twitter, when you look at popular Trump supporters like Milo Yiannopoulos being banned from Twitter and so on, is there a point where a case could be made that all of this is providing material support to the Democrats in violation of campaign contribution laws?
	Yeah, I've made that argument before in Twitter.
	Actually, the interesting thing about Twitter was I learned about Twitter's manipulation of the elections through Bernie people.
	So Bernie people started a hashtag called Hashtag Which Hillary?
	Because Hillary would say, well, I'm anti-Wall Street.
	So then Bernie people go, well, which Hillary are you?
	the one who took $250,000 for a speech from Wall Street or the one saying that you're not Wall Street.
	So the Bernie people were like, which Hillary?
	And what they noticed is that they're like, wait, wait, we're like conservatives now.
	Our hashtag had like 100,000 posts to it.
	It was trending and then boom, down the rabbit hole.
	So Twitter actually started playing games with the Bernie people and were totally in bed with the Hillary people.
	Now, I think that because of Twitter isn't regulated in the same way that broadcast media is, so they can kind of get away with it.
	But here's what's interesting.
	The only reason you and I are talking about this, and the only reason Deborah Washburn-Shilts had to resign, the DNC chair is resigning on the eve of the Democratic National Convention, is because of the power of social media.
	Because the mainstream media tried to cover it up.
	So, you know, I have a weird relationship with Twitter where that, like, I love the platform, I love this service.
	I've long said that I would pay, even though Twitter sells ads based on me, I would pay to be on Twitter because of the impact it has.
	So even as much as Twitter messes with us and manipulates our results, we're still making news because if it weren't for Twitter, the media just wouldn't have covered this story at all and would have disappeared.
	So the hashtag thing that was going on with DNC League, can you step people through these various mutations of the hashtag and also explain to people who aren't Twitterholics like you and I perhaps what this means for this hashtag to be manipulated?
	Right.
	So Twitter is very clever.
	When you ban Milo right away, people can yell censorship.
	You have a big elephant in the room.
	So if you want to actually censor people, you want to do it very subtly.
	So on Twitter, people like me, people like Stefan, you start a hashtag.
	And the hashtag is kind of like, think about Game of Thrones.
	You know, you're throwing the flag in the air.
	And then everybody can rally around the hashtag and you post the hashtag.
	Now when enough people post the hashtag, it's trending.
	And by trending, it means anybody who goes on Twitter.com is going to see the hashtag.
	So for example, yesterday we got Bernie Must Disavow trending across the nation.
	So a hashtag, which might be 10, 20, 30, 40 of us, it catches on where even the Green Party candidate, presidential candidate Jill Stein, tweeted to us.
	We had Huffington Post people, actually.
	I mean, talk about, you know...
	It's unlikely betfellows tweeting to it, and then it trended internationally where it actually trended above the UFC. It was the number one trending tag worldwide.
	So what Twitter will do is a number of things.
	One is they could just completely remove your hashtag.
	But people are kind of hip to that game now, and then people call them out for banning the hashtag.
	So then what will happen is they'll let a new one come up to distract people.
	Alright, so that's the background.
	Now with WikiLeaks, the hashtag dump was under capital D, capital N, capital C, capital L, E-A-K-S. DNC, Democratic National Committee, leaks.
	Plural.
	Okay, trends worldwide, of course, this is a big story, you know, this is huge.
	So then Wikipedia drops it, or rather Twitter drops it.
	Wikipedia goes, wait a minute, you just dropped the hashtag, what are you guys doing?
	So then they repopulated it, but they made it DNC leak.
	So then now, if you click on DNC leak, you can't see all of those hundreds of thousands of tweets that were posted to DNC leaks, plural.
	And it has to start climbing up the whole totem pole again, right?
	It has to start rising up through the rankings from scratch.
	Right.
	And then you lose it.
	So then for people like me, I had some tweets on DNC leaks, plural, that were getting 200,000, 300,000 impressions.
	Well, now with the new hashtag, you've essentially put up a wall, which, you know, we're told is bad.
	You've now put up a wall between leaks and leak so that those hashtags that were really powerful, 2,000 retweets, those kind of vanish, and then we have to start over, which we did.
	We work our way back to FoodChain, and then Twitter, you know, then it's dnc lowercase l.
	So then instead of dncleaks, it looks like dncleak.
	Yeah, so that's the thing.
	A lot of this stuff, it seems very wonkish to people outside of Twitter, and that's why Twitter does it, because it's very hard to show a smoking gun.
	You have to be like, alright, I'm about to tell you about hashtags, and please don't fall asleep.
	This is really important, and it is.
	Now, I don't think there's any particular shock in anyone's mind that the generally left-leaning media is not doing anything.
	Because, you know, Melania Trump's possible plagiarism of the original speech by Michelle Obama, that was three days' worth of wall-to-wall coverage.
	However, this stuff...
	It's gone.
	It's an interstellar space.
	It has ceased to breathe.
	They've nailed it to the perch and flushed it down the toilet.
	But you've made the case, and help me understand where you're coming from from this standpoint, Mike, you've made the case that even the conservative media is not covering this to the extent, because this should be the holy manna from heaven for the conservative media.
	I mean, I remember back in the day, years ago, you know, people were writing entire books about liberal bias in the media, but it was all kind of It's circumstantial and data-driven and a little bit boring, but when you get this kind of open collusion stuff going on, shouldn't the mainstream media on the conservative side be all over this stuff and just a death grip of beaky death on this topic?
	And why is it seeming to slip away from their attention as well?
	Yeah, as you said, we remember, you know, political scientists would say, okay, we're going to take two groups of interns, and we're going to give them all of these news stories, and then we're going to read them and have them rate them on bias, and we're going to blah, blah, blah, and we're going to conclude from this data that there's bias in the liberal media.
	And you would say, bias in the liberal media, and it was always, again, kind of wonkish.
	How do you prove bias, you know?
	Well, yeah, we have smoking guns.
	And instead of going with this, the conservatives are saying, well, the Russians were behind it.
	The Russians did it, right?
	Well, first of all, who cares?
	We don't know that, first of all.
	But second of all, this isn't Red Dawn.
	I'm a child of the 70s.
	Nobody thinks about being afraid of the Russians anymore.
	I don't even know why they're doing it.
	So what we're learning actually is that the conservative media is every bit a part of the mainstream media.
	They all serve the same interests.
	They all serve the same paymasters.
	And I'm glad that this happened now because it's a good litmus test.
	If you're not all over this, like attack, attack, attack, then we know right away that you're not actually a conservative.
	You're not on the right.
	You're just right there with the liberals.
	So people like me, I'm not sure if you've had this view.
	I've always had the view that they were controlled opposition and that conservative media was in bed with the Saudis and all the same people who pay off the liberal media.
	I always said that.
	Well, now I can prove it.
	Because if you're not going at this head-on and attacking and saying, finally we're proving it, that tells me you were in controlled opposition all along, it was all pro wrestling, and that you never meant anything that you said.
	Yeah, I mean, it may be an overreaction to have created a tapioca shrine to Vladimir Putin in my bedroom and to pray now every day before it because the degree to which the Russians have exposed this bias in both the left and the right-wing media is the degree to which it is invitation to come to freedomainradio.com, to go to dangerandplay.com, to get people's perspectives who aren't bought out by these special interests.
	And the idea that it's somehow the Russians' fault is like...
	The person who finds the body is not the person responsible for the death.
	The person who simply points out that there's a dead body under the floorboards is not the person who's going to go to jail.
	Putin did not make these people write these emails.
	He just revealed what everyone kind of instinctively knew.
	It's not his fault directly.
	Maybe you didn't even know about it.
	But the Russian government or whoever got the stuff, they're not responsible for these emails.
	They're just responsible for turning the light on.
	Yeah, the example that we were, I was talking to some lawyer friends of mine, and the example that we kind of gave is, you know, you're cheating on your wife, and then she finds her email password and logs, and then finds out that she's cheating on her, and she's like, and you're like, how dare you, you know, read my email?
	No, you're caught, buddy.
	It doesn't matter who did it or how they found it.
	You're the one who got caught.
	The media, they had a three-part plan.
	One is ignore it as long as they can.
	You can't ignore it anymore because of Twitter.
	I'm just one guy and I'm doing 5 million views a day on this stuff.
	WikiLeaks is probably doing 100 million views.
	Collectively, there's probably a billion views a day on just this stuff.
	The media tried to ignore it, but they couldn't.
	Then they called it a hack.
	Well, how do we know it was a hack and not a leak?
	Right?
	WikiLeaks hasn't given up their sources.
	Maybe it was a whistleblower, and that's a pattern that you find in the media.
	If the media likes what the emails reveal, they call it a whistleblower.
	A courageous whistleblower exposed corruption, right?
	If they don't like it, as with ClimateGate, they call it a hack.
	Well, a nefarious hacker...
	And that's the thing.
	So that's how I knew right away.
	Well, they'll ignore it.
	Then they'll call the hacker.
	And then if all else fails, they're going to blame the Russians.
	The Russians did it.
	But the truth is, it could have been a whistleblower inside.
	Maybe it was the Russians.
	Maybe it was the Putin.
	Nobody knows, but that is the story that they're going with.
	Okay, great.
	Putin did it.
	I'll just concede that as a rational person.
	Putin did it.
	Now let's talk about it.
	Well, then they don't have anything to say.
	Well, yeah, but Putin did it.
	Isn't it a bad thing that Putin is trying to manipulate our elections?
	Well, no, let's talk about the emails, right?
	Well, if people are concerned about manipulations of the election system, I don't think shining a light on the manipulations between the DNC and the media is exactly solving that problem.
	Right.
	Yeah, we don't want people to know the truth, because if they know the truth, it'll affect the election, which is manipulating the election.
	But wait a minute.
	Isn't actually manipulating the election all the stuff that you did that got exposed, right?
	But they aren't very good thinkers, as we've talked about before.
	Well, you see, Snowden, good for a lot of people on the left.
	Exposure of the left's skeletons in the closet, ooh, evil hacking, Russian's bad.
	I mean, oh, man.
	They even called them an MRA. They were even saying, oh, WikiLeaks was cool before it became co-opted by MRAs.
	And we're thinking...
	What does this hack have to do with MRAs?
	And there was even a person who was a video games journalist.
	And she goes, oh yeah, these guys now are just MRAs and frustrated gamers.
	And we're like, okay, you're blaming Gamergate now for the hack.
	They've lost their minds.
	The truth is, the squid with the ink, all they can do is try to throw a smoke bomb or try to get squid ink everywhere.
	Because if you actually said, no, let's just have a rational conversation about this, why is the DNC saying, Chuck, this must stop?
	And then why is Chuck Todd saying, oh, okay, call me anytime within this five-hour time frame?
	Even you and me, we're friends, and we're not like five hours.
	Who has a five-hour time slot open in your day, let alone if you're a media mogul, right?
	I was like, man, five hours, we're trying to put something together within an hour or two, right?
	And we like each other.
	So that just shows how beholden to the media they are.
	And then what they're not covering, okay?
	So let's talk about what they're not covering, which there's so much, again, that we can talk about.
	It's like, man, you feel like you're overwhelming the audience with facts.
	Thankfully, your people are intelligent.
	Okay, we have proof now that the Democratic National Committee posted a fake Craigslist ad for a Trump, the Trump organization that was approved by the DNC. So the ad was something like, come work for my company and I'm going to grope you under the table.
	It was very smug and it wasn't even creative.
	Oh, this is the one where you're not allowed to gain weight and things like that?
	Yeah, exactly.
	Okay, so it was that kind of smug, snarky, New York hipster style that isn't even...
	That's why we can always spot hoaxes right away.
	People will be like, well, how do you know that this person sent the death threat to themselves?
	And I go, well, because people who make death threats don't actually write that way, right?
	So they're trying to do a false flag on Trump.
	But they can't even write it in a believable way.
	They're just snarky.
	But the underlying fact is the same.
	Somebody within the DNC goes, I'm going to post a fake ad from Trump.
	Can I do it?
	The DNC said, sure, no problem.
	Go ahead and do that.
	That should be a big story.
	Well, the fact that Debbie Wasserman Schultz called Clinton, at least privately, the presumptive nominee before she was, accused Sanders of not even being a real Democrat, the fact that a Politico reporter allowed the DNC to edit his stories, I mean, this should be huge.
	Of course, if it was on the other side of the aisle, the media would be a volcanic eruption of Pompeii proportions.
	But of course, it doesn't matter because it's all sports teams.
	It's no ethics.
	Well, remember the DNC even goes, they even went, can we do a story and pitch it to the media about how Bernie never had a chance anyway?
	So they're conspiring.
	Yeah, I mean, that's the angle there.
	If you're Bernie's people, you're furious because the DNC deliberately rigged it.
	Undeniable.
	If you're people like us and you actually care about media integrity, well, we have proof now that the media is a PR agent and propaganda ministry for the Democrats.
	And now we have proof that they're going to cover this stuff up as much as they can.
	Right, Melania's Trump, you know, bullshit, you know, 72-hour news cycle.
	Trump makes one tweet, you know, it's a huge deal.
	They're on it for days and days and days.
	Well, here we have actual smoking gun emails and nobody's talking about...
	And then, of course, I don't think it's sexist to call somebody a cougar, but I found kind of salacious, sexy emails today where the DNC guys go, oh, yeah, he's about to impregnate that cougar.
	And by cougar, they met this woman who had three kids and was married.
	So we even have some what...
	I don't personally...
	I just consider that kind of locker room talk.
	Mm-hmm.
	But if Trump's people were saying things like, oh yeah, he's about to go get on that cougar, oh, prove sexism, the Republicans rife with sexism, you don't talk about women like that.
	Well, we have all that kind of sort of gossip that is beneath you and I and your audience, but it just goes to prove the point that if that had come from the Republicans, they would be all over this and create this narrative of sexism.
	But when it comes from the Democrats, oh, there's nothing even there to talk about.
	Well, you don't have to hold the hypocrite's viewpoint on either side to point out that he or she is a hypocrite.
	And weren't they in one email that they were referring to Latinos as taco bowls?
	I mean, it's astonishing.
	Yeah, no, it's really bizarre what you find when you look in those.
	Yeah, they want more taco bowl leverage.
	And then, of course, some people said that they were referencing Trump's taco bowl thing.
	And that's the idea is right now it's such a mess.
	People are saying, well, Mike, you're misinterpreting emails.
	And I go, well, great, dude.
	I'm one guy reading thousands of emails a day.
	Let's get these people on TV and have a real interview with them.
	You don't nip at me because you think I misread an email when I'm reading thousands of them.
	You need to go after the media and say, well, hey, Mike is misreading emails because you're not doing your job.
	You need to get these people on TV. You need to go email by email.
	You said this, didn't you?
	You said that, didn't you?
	What did you mean by that?
	Is it ordinary for you to tell Chuck Todd to stop what he's doing?
	We need to get Chuck Todd interviewed and say, hey, Chuck Todd, is it normal to be told this must stop?
	Is it normal to clear your calendar for the Republicans?
	And if so, show us those emails, right?
	So where is it?
	It's not happening.
	Now, the one thing that amazes me, I mean, I've been an entrepreneur most of my sort of adult life in software and then, of course, on the internet.
	So I am very sensitive to market forces.
	And because I operate in general in a very voluntary sphere, no political money, I don't sell that much in terms of like the money comes in from donations and stuff like that.
	We sell a fair amount, but we want to keep it on donation side because that's where I can orient myself the most.
	There is something to me quite shocking about this stuff, Mike, that these guys in charge of these media empires, in charge of these media organizations seem to be perfectly willing to, as an old business partner of mine used to call it, auger in.
	You know, you just grind in and dive down and just crater the whole thing.
	Are they really willing to ride these horses off a cliff, to alienate their audience, to be revealed as so transparently manipulative and hypocritical that they're going to start to threaten the economic foundations at a time when the internet is competing?
	Wouldn't you want to become more market-friendly, more listener-responsive, change your ethics, your approach?
	I mean, it looks like these leftists are willing to simply ride these organizations off a cliff in order to maintain the political status quo.
	That's astonishing to me.
	And maybe people on the right aren't that flexible and always worrying about paying their employees or something like that.
	But this seems to me a remarkable self-destructive element within the leftist media.
	Yeah, you have two things going on.
	The same thing is with the right wing sort of conservative media.
	One is that they are zealots and they have that fervor of zealots and blind spots.
	Two is they don't really understand the business model and the new media.
	And I kind of tweeted about this earlier to you today.
	I've told people I would not trade my Twitter account for a show on Fox unless it was a Bill O'Reilly – People go, well, Mike, you just say that because you can't get on Fox.
	No.
	When authors go on these shows and they sell books, I look what happens to the sales rank, which anybody can track on Amazon.
	I can see what happens.
	They're not selling books.
	People aren't engaged when they watch these shows.
	A lot of these pundits go, well, I had 100,000 people watch my show.
	No, you didn't.
	You had four TVs in the urinals and a couple of people were sleeping.
	Nobody was really paying attention.
	They watch it because it's on and not because they want to watch it.
	Whereas with your show, your people find you.
	The Joe Rogan podcast, which isn't really political, but people find you on Joe Rogan.
	People want to watch what Joe Rogan, right?
	People want to watch what you're having to say.
	People go to Twitter because they want to read Milo's and me and other people.
	That is much more targeted, and that's actually much more effective.
	So when I was at the RNC, I would watch these supposedly big news anchors walk up and down the street.
	Nobody even knew who they were.
	But I could barely walk half a block.
	Go, hey, Mike.
	Hey, good to see you.
	Everybody's recognizing me.
	And they would say, well, you only have a Twitter.
	You only have a blog.
	And it's like, no.
	They still don't get it.
	They'll call people like us bloggers or YouTubers.
	And you go, no, we actually – the people who watch us actually watch us.
	They actually listen to us.
	Our readers or viewers aren't just random people who are taking a piss at Buffalo Bill's Wild Wings and your show happens to be on.
	Yeah.
	So they don't really understand that the real power right now, the people with real influence now are people with big YouTubes, people with big social medias, people with big blogs, Twitters, and everything.
	So yeah, they are zealous, and they are being self-destructive, and there's a lot of psychological things going on, or as I would say, bad mindset.
	But what's also true is they don't get it.
	TV now, you're dinosaurs.
	Your audience is all over 70.
	They're falling asleep during your show.
	They're not involved.
	Young people, that's what Bernie understood.
	Bernie had that young, engaged audience.
	That's why Hillary had to hire people to actually go against him because people want...
	I mean, think about it, right?
	When I go on Twitter to tweet about Trump, nobody's paying me from Trump.
	Like, I'm just...
	I'm passionate about it, and I think that he's better than the alternative, and I want him in.
	The same is true of Bernie's people.
	Well, Hillary doesn't have any of that, and that, of course, is why she had to buy it.
	And the mainstream media...
	They don't really have that kind of engagement either.
	So they really don't get it.
	If I went to a studio executive and I go, other than Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Megyn Kelly, Stefan is like the thing.
	They would be like, oh.
	And I'm like, all right.
	How do you spell that name again?
	And I've been on TV dozens of times and it's had – if I combine all my TV and radio appearances compared to one big internet show, they don't even come close.
	I mean that's so far in the rear view.
	Oh, I need to legitimize myself by getting on television.
	That's like saying, well, no one's going to listen to a philosophy show until I get a doctorate.
	It's like, nope, it's just quality.
	Can you produce engaging, interesting, entertaining, quality, valuable information to people?
	If you can, who cares, you know?
	Did I care whether Freddie Mercury went to singing school?
	Nope, I just care that he can belt out a great tune.
	So this idea that we're in this area where the quality of what you can present is all that matters and the infrastructure is irrelevant, that's really tough, of course, for people who have invested a lot in that infrastructure to recognize.
	Yeah, I mean, one thing that I learned about Fox News when I was in New York is Unless you're a big time, a lot of those people are making like 40 grand a year, you know?
	And they're on TV, you know, all the time.
	And so people think, yeah, being on TV is a big deal.
	But I actually, I turned down a ton of media because it doesn't do anything.
	It doesn't move the needle in any way.
	But the first time I was on your show, I got like 5,000 Twitter followers.
	I was like, whoa, you know?
	And I saw like 1,000 books.
	And you sold some books, right?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, it was huge because people, again, they don't watch you because you're on.
	They find you, and they actually pay attention, and that's how to have real influence now.
	The mainstream media, they're so far behind us, they don't even get it.
	Now, let's talk about identity politics for a second, because to me, like the last two weeks have been like an irony salad that's so deep, it's just like an evergreen forest for infinity.
	Because, I mean, of course, there was Chelsea Johnson having his arm grabbed by Weinstein, which had its own levels of irony.
	Another level of irony that I think ties into what's going on with the Democrats at the moment, Mike, is something like this.
	I think we're good to go.
	I think we're good to go.
	Just the effects of affirmative action versus free market meritocracy, just in these two candidates, they really, to me, do represent entirely oppositional worldviews.
	Now, to me, when you choose a candidate not based upon the quality, and Hillary herself has said that she's not a natural politician compared to the dewy-eyed bubber magic of her husband.
	But when you put forward a candidate who's substandard, what you have to do after that is manipulate.
	You have to start manipulating because that person can't achieve what you want them to achieve on their own.
	So when you choose a candidate who's not up to scratch because of affirmative action, in this case based on gender...
	What happens is you then end up having to manipulate what's going on because you can't trust that candidate to make it on her own.
	And I think the fact that they have lived and died – well, they've lived for the last half century at least on sort of affirmative action and gender politics and identity politics and so on, that they fell into their own – Anti-market thinking that they've so much promoted around the rest of the economy, they kind of threw themselves down that pit that they pushed other people down, put forward an affirmative action candidate who's failing, and that to me, live by identity politics politically, die by identity politics, that to me is a deep and delicious irony.
	I'm still enjoying the taste of it in my mouth.
	Well, yeah, there's so much fun going on, and I think that is another reason we're winning, is because we're all just kind of like merry warriors.
	There's nothing more hilarious when people say, oh, you're so angry, and I'm like, man, you should just see I'm smiling every day.
	Chuck Johnson walks up to Michelle Fields to ask a question, non-threatening, and then Jamie Weinstein, of course, assaults him, which is what Michelle Fields said that Corey Lewandowski did.
	And then when I tweeted that video out, people go, Mike, you're pathetic that it wasn't an assault.
	And I'm like, you idiots don't get it.
	Like we're making fun of you.
	We're not actually – even though Jamie Weinstein did under a legal definition of assault, did assault him.
	Like as a lawyer, yeah, it's an assault, but they didn't even get – no, I'm just making fun of you people over that Michelle Fields host and they don't get it.
	The same thing with the identity politics.
	You're watching all these narratives kind of implode because with identity politics, you don't have the energy and the natural inertia that you need to keep yourself pushing forward and to keep moving forward because it is you're being lifted up by somebody else.
	Well, what we find in this election is that the DNC was giving Hillary affirmative action, but the people, because they weren't behind her in an election, you have to have the people behind you.
	They rejected her.
	They lifted up Bernie.
	So Again, there's so much to unpack with this.
	There's so much fun to be had with this.
	The kind of people who push affirmative action, run an affirmative action candidate, and now they're losing.
	Like you said, all you can do is just really wake up.
	I wake up, I'm very enthusiastic about the future.
	How about you?
	I feel that there's this conveyor belt of confirmation from reality.
	I set up this structure of theories over the last decade as a public intellectual, and I just feel there's this conveyor belt of fact after fact after evidence after evidence that is feeding that theoretical structure and reaffirming it.
	Now, it is to me – is it unprecedented?
	Has this happened before in American politics where the chairperson of a major party has resigned?
	I mean, at first she was just – I think she had her speaking spot downgraded.
	But now, just before we had the conversation, the confirmation came out that she is going to resign, I think, after – The convention, this is pretty remarkable, and isn't this just the kind of infighting that everybody was talking about?
	Because the Democrats, of course, when they saw the RNC fighting with Trump, ah, a house divided, cannot stand, and all this sort of stuff that was going on, and I think, didn't she actually offer to help mediate things at the Republican National Convention?
	This kind of stuff now, I mean, you've got a bunch of Bernie people coming up there who find out that the DNC has been actively colluding with It seems with Hillary's people to keep Bernie out of the race and viewed her, as I said, as the presumptive nominee months before it actually came to pass.
	Is this not going to be a remarkably fractious – I know you're heading down – a remarkably fractious DNC that's going to go down?
	I mean, this resignation is huge.
	Alright, if you wrote this as a story, it would have to be filed under comedy because nobody could believe it.
	Right.
	So the chair of the DNC is trolling the chair of the RNC saying, oh, the Republican National Convention is in disarray because of Trump.
	If you need help, I'll come down to help you.
	And then she loses her speaking engagement at the DNC. And then as it turns out, she has to resign afterwards.
	You wouldn't believe it, right?
	That would just be like a comedic sketch or some kind of irony.
	But yeah, that is actual reality.
	My ancient script writing teacher, when I was taking playwriting at the National Theatre School, he would have said, that's too on the nose, right?
	You've got to make it more subtle.
	This comedy is too obvious.
	Yeah, you would call that, like, hack.
	You would say, let's hack.
	No, no, like, come on, be more creative.
	No, that's actual...
	Literally real life.
	It's literally real life.
	And what the media...
	Oh, the Republican National Convention is in disarray.
	Trump's campaign is in disarray.
	Well, wait a minute, but the DNC was just hacked, and their chair is resigning, which I don't know if that's ever happened.
	Certainly it hasn't happened in recent history.
	But the media isn't pushing those stories about the DNC being in disarray.
	Isn't that fascinating?
	Oh, but wait, we know why the media isn't doing that, because the whole hack showed that the DNC is in bed with the media.
	Yeah, so it loops back almost too perfectly.
	It really does read like it's scripted, but it's all reality.
	It's unbelievable.
	Do you think that things are going to change with regards to Hillary?
	I was talking earlier about you have the affirmative action candidate.
	You have to start manipulating and you have to shield that candidate from market forces or pseudo market forces in the case of the media.
	There's something out there on the Internet.
	Maybe you've seen that.
	I think you may have even tweeted it.
	Like how many days has it been since Hillary Clinton actually talked to the media?
	And the fact that she's shielded from these kinds of interactions seems to me very important.
	I gotta tell you that her health is not looking particularly robust these days.
	You know, you may have seen that.
	I'm sure you saw that video where somebody startles her with a sound and she does that sort of fish on the bottom of a boat head flop around, which does not look very robust.
	At some point, she's going to have to march out and start taking the heat.
	Like back in 08, didn't they have like 25 or 26 or 27 debates?
	Now they've had like half a dozen and she hasn't done press conferences in forever.
	She's going to have to, at some point, face the actual public, face the actual press, and face Trump.
	And when that happens, I don't know.
	A slow motion train wreck is sort of the image in my mind, but how do you think that's going to go down?
	Yeah, it was a countdown clock.
	I actually posted the idea up and somebody ran with it.
	And it was days since Hillary's last press conference.
	Last I checked, it was 210 days.
	That's a record.
	And again, it's so funny now.
	Before the leaks, we would say, well, Mr.
	Stefan, why is it that the media has not criticized Hillary for not giving a press conference in 210 days?
	But now the question answers itself.
	She's just going to get a free pass.
	But yeah, and then we saw that seizure video where...
	She had an epileptic seizure due to the stroke or head injury she had.
	So yeah, you saw her go like, you should try this chai latte, right?
	Why isn't the media all over that video?
	Well, of course, we know why.
	So yeah, she is not prepared.
	For what Trump is going to bring.
	She is not prepared for this DNC and what the Bernie people are going to bring.
	I'm going to get the Democratic National Convention tomorrow and we'll talk, of course, midweek.
	I have friends there already, sources there already.
	There's already more people at the DNC preparing to protest than at the RNC in total.
	In total.
	There were maybe 150 different protesters altogether.
	That's the Communists, the Code Pink, the CAIR, the interns.
	There's already more than that at a park just preparing and goofing off right now.
	She is not prepared for the onslaught that's going to come for the DNC. And then after that, it's all Trump and the Trump army, and we're just going to be hammering her and her people all the time.
	They're not going to hit them, and now the media, whenever the media tries to cover for her, it won't matter now because it's rigged.
	Do you think...
	I don't know.
	I'm half and half about this.
	Maybe you can sway me in your inimitable way.
	But do you think, Mike, that the media is going to be scared or recoil into presenting a smidge more of, quote, impartiality in these stories?
	Do you think they're just going to march on as if nothing happened?
	Or do you think they're going to be goosed and say, okay, well, you know, we've got to make it a little more subtle or we've got to move a little bit more To the center as far as objectivity goes.
	Do you think there's going to be any fallout?
	Or is it just this zombie blind march in the same direction?
	Well, I didn't watch the segment today, but apparently Jake...
	Taper at the CNN actually hit some of Hillary's people pretty hard.
	So I think people like Jake Taper, who have a better brand, are going to be a little bit more even keel.
	The zealots at the Daily Beast and those kind of people, they're just going to have that zealot thinking.
	People like Chuck Todd now are going to be nervous.
	The real power in this isn't conscious.
	They're not going to change consciously.
	But that sort of Damocles now is holding over their head.
	What do we have?
	What do we know?
	We're going to be looking for any kind of slip-up they have.
	So we're actually going to use the language of the left.
	We're actually going to trigger them now into making all sorts of mistakes because they're going to be wondering, oh God, they're going to come after me now for this.
	I better be more careful.
	So they're feeling the burn, especially when the chair of the DNC has to resign on the eve of a convention.
	That is huge.
	Well, and the communication flow has been disrupted because now, of course, when you've had your emails hacked, I would imagine that every time you send an email, you're thinking of it on Breitbart or on Drudge or other places or on social media.
	You're thinking, oh, how's this going to look when every eyeball on the planet gets to land on my syllables?
	And so I think that there is going to be a disruption or a minimization of their capacity to carry on these kinds of schemes as openly as they did in the past because I guess they never thought it would come out.
	Yeah, there's that dread now.
	You can all think back to – well, some of your younger people wouldn't, but there was a movie called like 3 o'clock high.
	At 3.15, you got the schoolyard fight and you're dreading it all day.
	It is that the dread is actually worse than the fight.
	Well, all these journalists now, anytime they, as you said, send an email, there's just that feeling of dread.
	Am I being hacked?
	Is this spyware on my computer?
	Are people going to find this?
	What is going on?
	What we're doing, again, that's why I'm going after Chuck Todd real hard.
	We have them shook.
	We have them shook bad, and we're going to keep hitting them hard.
	What that will lead to indirectly is not because of any moral insight that they have.
	They will become a little bit more even keel now just because they're realizing, oh wait, these people that I dismissed as your social media people, these are actually pretty heavy hitters, and they do have an impact, and millions of people are going to see my Screw ups now, so they will change, they'll have to.
	Well, and there's more to come, right?
	I mean, WikiLeaks says that they have another trove.
	And we don't know.
	I mean, did the Russians get into the email server that Hillary was running out of her home?
	We don't know.
	I mean, more they say is going to drop and, you know, whether they're saving the best for last is fascinating.
	And so, I mean, we can speculate till the cows come home on what's in there.
	But I think people, if they feel that they may have something compromising in there, I think that's going to make them even more nervous about what might be coming down the pipeline.
	Yeah, and Julian, how do you say his name?
	Assange.
	Assange, yeah.
	He said before the first drop, he said, no, no, we have enough to indict Hillary.
	So they have a real, and WikiLeaks does a bluff.
	I mean, when they dump stuff, it is really good.
	Yeah, they said this was the first dump, and he had said, no, no, no, we have enough to actually get Hillary indicted.
	And I think that's where the Clinton Foundation emails are going to come in.
	There had been reports that her private server was hacked.
	So...
	I think the best is yet to come, actually.
	We shall see.
	And again, this speaks to Trump's judgment.
	I don't think he uses email at all because he said so many of my rich friends have been compromised by emails.
	So we'll see how that plays out.
	Yeah, they made fun of him for that, too.
	Yeah, that's another irony.
	It's like, wow, it's like piling up.
	People go with tech.
	They call Trump a tech illiterate because he does an email.
	Well, but he's an expert at Twitter, so obviously he's not illiterate.
	Yeah, he just doesn't put anything in email because this is the kind of stuff that happens.
	So we're going to chat next week when you're at the DNC. I'm really looking forward to what you're going to be doing there.
	I really, really want to help people to get access to your information.
	You're one of the best people to get information in the world.
	At the moment, in my opinion, you have these like infinity octopus arms into various things that I find incomprehensible, but usually give you fantastic stuff to send to the world.
	So if you're on Twitter, follow Mike on twitter.com slash Cernovich.
	And if you're not on Twitter, you can get on Twitter just to follow Mike.
	It's well worth your time.
	Dangerandplay.com is the excellent blog.
	And this is relatively new for you, I think, this periscope.tv slash playdangerously, where people can see.
	It's a live blog that you can...
	Is it two-way?
	Is it interactive?
	Yeah, so people can message me while I stream it live.
	And what I do with Periscope is that The thing with people that I tell people is, look, I have an agenda.
	I'm pro-Trump.
	I want Trump to win.
	But I don't hoax.
	I don't lie.
	I don't manipulate.
	So my Periscopes, I go, here's the protest.
	Here's what I'm covering.
	You can watch it live.
	I'm not going to edit it.
	I'm not going to checkmate, anything like that.
	So the Periscope has been a big hit.
	Even a lot of liberals and Bernie people end up watching it because if you just want to know what's going on without somebody editing it and playing checkmate and gotchas, that is the truth.
	If you're actually interested in the truth, it's like, well...
	Don't watch the segment that has been edited at CNN. Just watch it live on Periscope.
	And Periscope is a lot of fun.
	I enjoy doing it and people enjoy watching them.
	Fantastic.
	And it's just a reminder to everyone that the future is a ping pong like blank white wall and a hotel room.
	It looks like it's a backdrop.
	Less money on sets, more money on facts.
	So thanks a lot, Mike.
	Always a great pleasure to chat.
	We'll check in with you next week and safe travels to the next convention.
	Thanks.
	I'll talk to you guys soon.

▲