All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 13, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
45:21
3378 Hillary Clinton’s Health | Mike Cernovich and Stefan Molyneux
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, everybody.
Stefan Molyneux from Freedom, Maine Radio, back with a good friend, Mike Cernovich, a lawyer and the author of Guerrilla Mindset, How to Control Your Thoughts and Emotions to Live Life on Your Terms.
His vital web statistics are twitter.com slash cernovich.
Just sign up.
Pause this video, sign up, and come back.
You can read his blog at dangerandplay.com and follow him on Periscope, where he has the media attack capacity of a nuclear submarine, periscope.tv slash play.com.
Dangerously, Mike.
Welcome back to the show.
Good to chat with you again.
Always fun to talk to you.
So, we were just chatting before the start of the show, and you were talking about some of your interactions with some Clinton supporters just plain yesterday.
Can you let us know what happened and what the results you think will be?
Yeah, it's really an amazing time.
It feels like we haven't talked in a year, but we talked like two weeks ago.
But so much is happening every day, and it's so fast-paced.
Yesterday, there was an impromptu sort of flash mob pro-Trump rally in West Hollywood, California, which is a very liberal part of California, and WeHo, as it's known as, is kind of like the gay district.
We were all hanging out.
We periscoped that people from all walks of life.
People like me, Chinese Americans for Trump, gays for Trump, Latinas for Trump, blacks for Trump, everybody for Trump.
You wouldn't believe it.
So after the rally, as it was winding down, we all went into this Nearby cantina to hang out and just have some drinks or whatever.
So the line of Trump people go walking in, and I'm periscoping of course.
They go walking in and there's like a mini-riot amongst patrons.
And what I saw, again, every time we talk I say this, and by now nothing should surprise me.
What I saw surprised me.
People were throwing food.
They were throwing guacamole, they were throwing salsa, they were throwing french fries and chips at Trump supporters.
And I thought, who throws food?
Who throws food at people, right?
How old are these people?
They're throwing food at them, which was out of line.
But then what happened is there were a couple women there and a couple men who were trying to physically remove the Trump supporters.
So one of the gay Trump supporters was actually shoved, pushed, hit.
Another guy was trying to remove people physically, and they didn't even work there.
So we're inside there.
There's all kinds of drama.
And then eventually...
Because we're Trump supporters, we're not going to go in there and fight because we know how that's going to go.
We say, all right, no, we'll leave.
So as we start to leave, two of the women who had initiated the violence inside decided they wanted more, so they went after Tim, who's at Twitter, baked Alaska, and clawed him.
He had a big red mark on his neck, hit him, and then one of the girls took his phone and threw his phone on the ground and smashed his screen.
Wow.
Wow.
I mean, this to me, it's not truly shocking, and I think it's only going to escalate before the election because the left is in a pretty desperate place.
They kind of gave up on public discourse a couple of decades ago and just started using the media to rig the elections, importing a bunch of low information voters who are going to reliably vote Democrat.
So they kind of haven't been in the ring of intellectual discourse for a while, and they're more desperate to win now than ever, which we'll get into in a bit.
So the fact that they're escalating to violence, well, you know, violence is what happens when you want your way, and you've run out of words.
And I think the left has run out of words decades ago.
Violence, I understand, it was when they were throwing food.
That was what really...
That's just something that I don't understand.
Who does that?
They were physically grabbing food, like ranch dressing, and throwing it across a restaurant.
That's a level of uncivilized behavior that I guess I'm not used to.
I don't think people consider me too prim and proper, but throwing food at somebody would never occur to me at this stage of my life.
Well, I think for everyone who's no longer in summer camp and trying to have fun, I don't think it would occur to any reasonable person elsewise.
So, of course, what they did...
As far as I understand it, you're the lawyer, is assault.
A battery?
I mean, how does that run from here?
Yeah, if you physically grab someone, touch somebody, hit somebody, and it isn't the type of situation where contact would be presumed.
So, for example, if you're at a nightclub and you kind of move somebody out of your way, well, that is an assault because you're at a nightclub, it's crowded, people are moving to and fro.
But if you just go up to people randomly, grab them, then, of course, if you hit them, then it is actually legal assault.
Here's where we're different, or at least we're meaning like me, are different than the traditional conservatives.
Conservatives have been victims of left-wing violence for decades.
You get spit on.
Earlier at the rally, actually, a full can of monster was thrown at a guy, thrown at his back.
An egg was thrown, and dog poop was thrown.
So that was earlier.
That's just what you deal with.
Well, the traditional conservatives just kind of suffer these indignities and say, well, we're going to take the high road and not do anything.
But if we did that to them, we'd be in jail.
I've had the police called on me over tweets that people thought were too mean.
I wasn't threatening anybody.
They were just insulting.
So we called the cops.
We got the cops there because that was legal assault and battery.
And we're tired of people attacking us, argue with us.
We had a heckler show up at the rally.
He held up a sign that said bigots for Trump and he was trying to troll us.
Nobody cared.
We had another guy come in flipping us off while taking selfies.
We thought that was hilarious.
We're all for that kind of like trolling and argument and everything.
But if you want to get physical, we can't get physical.
If we got physical, imagine the media would be all over it, right?
The police would be all over it.
So we did call the police and charges were brought against two of the girls.
They ended up in the back of a police cruiser and now they're going to be in court.
Well, and hopefully, of course, this gives the left some pause if they are considering this kind of behavior again, because the left has kind of been like, you know, that mean girl who like hits guys and then says, well, you can't hit me because I'm a girl.
And I think if that changes in terms of repercussions rolling back to the people who are initiating the use of force, I think it's going to give them some pause.
Yeah, they have, they don't have good impulse control, so we can only expect so much from these kind of I mean, the type of subhuman who throws food across a crowded restaurant.
But we can deter them a little bit.
Yeah, and the mindset that, well, I can hit you.
You can't hit me.
I'm a girl.
You're right.
I can't hit you.
I won't hit you.
But I am a lawyer.
I will sue you.
We will call the cops.
We will have you arrested.
There are ways to handle you.
We will take your picture.
We will let people know that you're a violent thug.
And then when you want to find a job, your employers are going to Google that.
And if that's...
We're waging essentially information campaigns that nobody on the right has been able to effectively do, and we're waging it well.
So, yes, they broke the law and they should be punished, but me as a media guy, public relations guy, I'm thinking bigger picture too, and we're sending a message to the left that we'll debate you anywhere, anytime, anyplace.
You can come heckle us.
You can come hold signs and make fun of us.
You can flip us off.
We don't care.
But the minute you want to get violent, then we are going to bring the police into it, and you will end up in the back of a police car.
So let's turn to the hot topic that you and our good friend also, Paul Joseph Watson, have been hammering pretty hard lately, and that's Hillary South.
Now, before I do an interview, Mike, I always try and make sure that I say to myself, please, Steph, don't do any rants.
Rants are for solo shows.
But I just I have to do a tiny one here because this is driving me crazy because the amount of corruption that's swirling around Hillary and it's not all that theoretical and it's not all that abstract and it's not all that unproven, you know, with with director Comey of the FBI saying that she was ridiculously careless with national security and then everyone being worried about Donald with with director Comey of the FBI saying that she was ridiculously careless with national That's a whole other thing.
But I've been sort of waiting for the things to coalesce in people's minds and for people to say.
You know, where there's smoke, there's fire.
It's the straw that breaks the camel's back.
There's just one of these too many.
Now, of course, the Clinton Foundation is being investigated by the IRS, which, of course, probably won't go anywhere.
But enough of these things, I think, would come together where we say, okay, well, the Clintons left the White House.
They claimed they were dead broke.
And now they, what, make $240 million cents or something like that?
And not because they're just great at public speaking or good at telling jokes.
And so it's sort of been to me, when is it going to be enough that the whole rotten structure, Yeah, This corruption stuff isn't taking for people.
It isn't really changing their minds.
But people may respond to questions about Hillary Clinton's health.
So step me through that because I keep waiting for this dam to break and it just doesn't seem to be moving.
Yeah, if you're and we've mentioned this as like earlier episodes.
If you're a logical person today, the world is absolutely maddening.
Because the list of their rigging elections, their Goldman Sachs, I don't think that Hillary even ever actually gave a speech to Wall Street.
I think that that's why there's no transcripts is because they just actually paid her off.
But that's a digression.
But the point is there's just a list of things that you can't even imagine anybody doing, let alone get away with.
But it hasn't worked.
But we all have had to take away the car keys from grandmother.
We've all had to take away the car keys from mom.
We all know what that's like.
We all know what dementia is like.
We know that human element.
And we know how sad that that is in our own lives.
That's something that resonates with us.
It's something that we find persuasive.
So what happens is that logical, high-intelligent people like you and the people who watch the show and listen to the podcast That isn't most people.
Maybe 10% of people view the world like that, okay?
So those arguments aren't going to be policy arguments.
That isn't going to be persuasive to most of the people.
But nobody wants a weak president of the United States.
Nobody wants a sick president of the United States.
Nobody wants a so-called Manchurian candidate or a weakened Hillary's type person.
So that's why we hit the hell thing hard.
Now, the reason we know that it's worked is There was a poll in 2014, before people like Paul Joseph Watson, people like me, before Twitter, really, we decided we wanted to take over Twitter.
Only 40% of voters wanted health records.
Now, 59% want to see Hillary's health records now.
So we've changed the discussion through memes, through cartoons, through pithy 140-character summaries, way more than all the other stuff combined.
And that is, again, because People are visual, and poor health and sick health is a very visual thing, whereas corruption is kind of abstract and intellectual, and you have to really think it through.
But if you can just show a sick person in front of you, that is going to move people to say, okay, I don't want that person with her finger on the nukes.
She might pass out during a warfare.
Who knows?
Okay, so what you're saying...
Okay, I think I understand it now.
So...
Most people, of course, not involved in intergalactic potential corruption scandals, as seems to be swirling around the Clinton Foundation.
But we all have health issues.
I've had mine.
You've had yours with your skin and so on.
We've all had to deal with people who – so it's more visceral.
It's more empirical.
It's more tangible.
And people can connect with it in a way that trying to figure out what security systems were violated or what possible pay-for-play schemes may have been occurring at the Clinton Foundation, that's much more abstract.
But because most people live in this sort of empirical reality, they can express and experience health issues much more viscerally than abstract corruption issues.
Is that what you mean?
Correct.
It's right in the flesh.
It's just visual and visceral.
If you can hit those two points, and that's really how you move heart and mind, everybody knows, yeah, she does look kind of sick now.
And then when you look at her face, you know, Scott Adams said this a year ago, and people with his background and my background know I can look at a person and, you know, I've read entire books and taken entire courses on micro gestures of the face.
So I can tell just by the way a person moves his face or the way the eyes, if they don't work properly, if their pupils dilate, right away I can tell if a person's lying, all that stuff, right?
Adams has done it too.
And he said a year ago, I don't know what's going on, but I just look at her face and she looks sick.
And now that we've brought this health stuff out, as people look at her, they're thinking, yeah, she doesn't look healthy at all.
Think about it metaphorically, the picture of health.
That's actually a metaphor that we have, right, that we use because we think that if we look at somebody and they look vibrant, they have vitality, well, that's the picture of good health.
Well, Hillary now we're branding as the picture of poor health, of sick health, and that is moving it.
The media is freaking out now, right?
The Daily Beast went after Paul Joseph Watson and me on the same day.
Dave Wigelow, Washington Post, went after me.
Then they got mad because Hannity talked about it.
They went after Hannity.
Now the Washington Post again is saying, oh, well, I saw Hillary at that, and I didn't think it's a seizure.
But you're not a doctor.
Isn't that hilarious?
She's saying, well, it wasn't a seizure.
Well, who are you, Madam Journalist, to say whether it's a seizure or not?
So we have, when the whole media, CNN actually talked about it, and they talk about it within the context of presupposing that it's been debunked, and they go, Oh, these weird Trump Twitter accounts.
They always call me a pro-Trump Twitter account because they're just so afraid to name me and to name Paul Joseph Watson.
They say, oh, these pro-Trump Twitter accounts write this stuff and then it ends up on news.
Well, yeah.
Oh, but Hillary isn't really sick.
That picture is blah, blah, blah.
So we know it's worked because the media has been playing defense on this for a week.
So let's list through some of the things.
And again, just to be clear to everyone, neither of us are doctors.
This is all speculation.
Although there are some doctors with significant decades of experience who've weighed on this as well, as you will put the link to your article on dangerandplay.com.
But in January 2013, CNN reported that Clinton, who was then Secretary of State, was treated with blood thinners because she had a blood clot in her head.
And this was either the cause of or the result of, if I remember rightly, the sequence of Yeah, she fell in 2009, I think broke her elbow.
She fell in 2011, remember, going onto the jet plane.
Then she fell again in 2013, which could have been caused by a stroke.
That's another thing the media doesn't want to talk about.
But the point is, this has been going back from 2009, where she's having poor reflexes and falling.
And that's led one physician who believes she has Parkinson's.
That would explain a lot of the loss of neural control.
Because in 2009, she was only, I think, 63 or 64.
At that age, unless you're falling on ice or something like that, generally older people just don't fall down at 63, 64.
But if she had a neurological type of condition, then that would explain loss of reflexes, some of the way she spaces out now.
When you watch her, sometimes she just freezes and looks and they don't know what's going on.
And that video, of course, that we showed where her handler kind of comes up and rushes to the stage The way they, like, they knew what to do, right?
That video was so powerful when, remember, there were so, supposedly an animal rights protester came in, they held up a sign, and Hillary just goes like this.
You're in the headlights, right?
Yeah, he comes up, rubs her shoulder, it's okay, keep talking.
And then she goes, then she repeats, okay, we're going to keep talking.
That is what actually got me looking into Hillary's health.
Before that, I had never looked into it, but I knew from my background and, you know, Lawyering and persuasion and marketing and hypnosis and all that other stuff that Scott Adams talks about and has done too.
Right when I watched that video, I go, this isn't a Secret Service agent protecting Hillary.
This is some kind of hypnosis or some kind of trained handler who knows how to bring her back out of that hypnotic state.
So she was frozen.
You saw the video, didn't you?
Oh, I've seen it.
So she freezes and then this big guy comes up and starts, and the mic picks it up, right?
He's like, you're okay, you're okay, just keep talking, just keep talking.
Then she kind of repeats that and then kind of reboots and gets back into her speech.
That is a very strange moment.
And of course, if anything like that had happened to Trump, I mean, the media would be 24-7 on it.
Yeah, and because you're an intellectual, your audience is intellectual, We all know that if you talk, you have like a, oh, what was I going to say?
We all understand that.
That isn't what Hillary did.
She didn't just trip over her words and maybe got lost in the train of thought.
She actually froze for five to ten seconds, completely froze, completely out of it, and then her handler came in, and again, what he did was coach.
That wasn't impromptu.
That wasn't him protecting her.
That had been done before.
So we know, and remember Huma Abdelinen said, I think in that email in 2011, remind Hillary what you're talking about because she's often confused.
So we have this mountain of evidence about Hillary's health to where it isn't just one picture.
The media wants to say, oh, that one picture where she's being helped up the stairs, she had fallen.
Well, I thought, wait, how many times has she fallen?
It's weird that their defenses of Hillary actually raise more questions than they actually defend her.
Like, well, wait, so you're saying Hillary fell down again?
How many times has she fallen down and why is she falling down all the time?
So the evidence is mountainous, but ultimately, just look at her.
Now, you've also, the handler, this big fellow who's around, who at some point, he doesn't seem to be Secret Service.
He doesn't appear to be quite fit enough for Secret Service.
And he also showed up a little earlier, I think, in civilian clothes, which would indicate not to be that case.
But I think you've analyzed a photo where he appears to be carrying some sort of medical pen.
Yeah, so that one, I'm still sure not what happened with that one, but it looked like he had a Diasmon pen.
People zoomed in on it.
But on that point, it looked like a medical pen to me, and it looks like he has another guy in another picture, had a medical bag under his jacket.
So her people are carrying all these medical apparatuses.
And I saw another picture, actually, that showed somebody carrying what looks like an oxygen tank.
So her staff, they're carrying some kind of medications, some kind of, I think that they're carrying some kind of pinch, maybe like a, it has like adrenaline-like effects.
So when she zooms out and spaces out, you just, you shoot her up and then she's back in, just like she got a spike of adrenaline.
So it's really weird when you look at what her handlers are doing.
And then of course there was that picture where she was being supported from behind.
So she was standing up and then So I looked at that, but the beautiful thing of the internet is then you have thousands of people look at the pictures.
Well, there's one guy holding her, and then there's one guy to her left in a brown jacket, and he has what looks like a black medic bag under his suit jacket.
So her people, she's clearly sick, and her people are carrying all kinds of not traditional first-name stuff, bandages and things, but actual ephedrine or norphedrine, some kind of pins to snap her back into it.
Well, and we'll put a link to this below, but there's a doctor who's, I think, got more than 30 years of experience who says that, according to his quote, it is the premise of this discussion that Hillary is most likely suffering from Parkinson's disease.
And I think he mentions that one of his good friends had gone through this and he had to help him out of businesses because, of course, you have cognitive decline, you have physical decline.
It's not a sudden thing.
It seems to be somewhat gradual.
That's the last thing you want when somebody's got the presidency.
It's a highly stressful situation, and some of these issues can be triggered by stress, apparently.
And for somebody to be in that kind of cognitive decline situation when they've got the most stressful job in the world, it seems like a perfect recipe for a catastrophic set of disasters.
Yeah, I tell people if you're voting for Hillary, you're not voting for Hillary, you're voting for Huma Abilene.
And you're voting for her handlers because Hillary is in dementia and cognitive decline.
That's why she doesn't hold press conferences.
Her rally, she doesn't really have very many rallies.
There's a reason for that.
Her people are trying to keep her out of the public spotlight.
And if she's at a press conference and there's media just coming after her with questions, then they know that she'll freeze up.
And that's why the media hasn't pushed the issue.
Every day, the media should be saying, It's been 250 days since your press conference.
251.
252.
Have a press conference.
Boy, give us the press conference.
They would do that to Trump.
But with Hillary, they give her a pass, and that's because, it's my belief, of course, I don't have any facts to believe it, but just based on what I know about the world, the journalists know that Hillary is sick.
That's why they're giving her a pass on the press conference, and that is why the entire media now is freaking out to try to say, Hillary, oh yeah, debunked.
The picture's debunked.
Well, remember the John McCain.
CNN, they all demanded to see his medical records.
They all demanded it back in 2008, right?
A long memory is essential for a philosopher and for a philosopher of truth.
Because then you can't analyze, but wait a minute.
In 2008, you wanted McCain's medical records and you demanded it every day.
But now with Hillary, you're saying, oh yeah, this is nothing.
This has been debunked.
Well, that's a real contradiction there, isn't it?
Yeah, no, I remember that very well, because apparently they were in search of some melanoma that he'd had 10 years previously.
If I remember rightly, Mike, it was something like this, that they got his medical records.
You could go in as a reporter, you couldn't take any pictures, but you could read about them and report on them, and they, I think, pronounced him to be in fairly good health.
But that was, of course, a huge issue.
And now, of course, the shoe is on the other foot.
We can only imagine that if Donald Trump was showing any signs of ill health, That the demand from the media to see his medical records would be, you know, 24-7.
But again, there's this ridiculous cover-up that is so revealing.
I mean, this is what I think the Trump campaign plus the Hillary campaign is doing is shining a huge spotlight on media bias that previously was kind of anecdotal and theoretical, but now is like full frontal Gestapo searchlight to the face, irradiate and get rid of all delusions about impartiality from the media. irradiate and get rid of all delusions about impartiality from I think someone on CNN recently said, well, we've done everything for Hillary.
We possibly can.
I'm not even pretending at the expense of their ratings.
Yeah.
Now they just do hoaxes.
It used to be Well, I knew they're biased because I'm biased.
When people say, you know, I always tell people, look, like, I want Trump to win.
Everything that I say, you should filter through that bias and check my facts, and if you disagree, disagree.
We're all biased, but I don't actually hoax.
The media hoaxes now.
It isn't even an issue that they're biased.
They just outright lie about stuff.
They outright cover up the truth.
They cover up the facts.
So it's far worse than it had been in years past.
And the interesting thing, back to John McCain's medical records, well, he maybe had a melanoma.
Hillary has a brain job.
The job of the president is based entirely on what's here.
Your judgment, your experiences, your cognitive health.
Hillary has a brain condition.
So that is ten times more relevant than maybe John McCain had too much sunburn one time and had a mole removed or something like that.
So the media should be pushing, if they had any integrity, they should be pushing harder to get Hillary's medical records than they should be of McCain.
And me personally, I want Trump's records and I want Hillary's records and I want them all public anyway.
I'm tired of this.
You want to be president?
Guess which?
I don't get privacy.
The NSA is going to spy on me.
You don't get privacy.
I want your medical records and I want them printed out.
Trump's and Hillary's.
I want their cholesterol, their LDL, their triglycerides.
I want to know every pill they've ever been on.
I want MRIs.
So what I want is actually more than what the media wants because I want...
Right.
This election cycle is mental.
Just to characterize it that way.
And I think it's particularly mental because I can't remember a time when the stakes have been higher.
Of course, Hillary is potentially fighting for freedom from penitentiary, right?
Because if Trump gets in, I think he's talked about prosecuting Hillary.
And so that's going on.
And of course, the Clinton Foundation, which would involve Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea, would be under scrutiny.
And it's interesting to see what would come out of that.
There does seem to be some pay-for-play indications coming out of some of the emails that have been discovered recently.
And so she's kind of fighting for the freedom of her family in many ways, should all of this stuff come to pass.
And that's one aspect.
But the second aspect, of course, is if Trump builds the wall and if small deportations followed by a large exodus of self deportations down south of the border goes on, then the Democrats will have lost one of the key voting bases that have kept them in power for so long.
And by kept them in power, I don't mean that they're always in control of the presidency and the Congress and the Senate.
But what I mean is that the media has cowed the Republicans into becoming pseudo Democrats in many ways because of this voting bloc and this voting base.
So it is not just, you know, that she wants to become president.
It's that she may face an alternative of jail should Trump come in and her family as well.
And also, if Trump wins with the border and with the self deportations, one of the key voting blocs of the Democrat Party is going to drain away south.
It is the survival of the entire left that's at stake here, and I think that's one of the reasons why this hysteria is becoming so intense.
Yeah, the left is a caged animal now.
They realize they're a cornered animal.
Another reason that the left is freaking out is because I believe that this is...
A fight for my life.
It's a life or death matter.
It's a life or death matter for the West.
I want a new car.
Why?
Because I like cool cars.
I'm thinking, no, I've got to keep that money aside for the media work, the media empire, hire people to do stuff.
This is a fight for Western civilization.
Either with Trump's election or the next election after that, America is going to go the way of Europe.
We're going to have a terrorist attack every month like in Europe.
We're going to have the roaming rape mobs like they have in Europe.
So finally, enough people on the right, we've gotten rid of these weak people, the weak cups.
Those of us left, we realized, like, this is literally a fight for life or death.
So people tell me, Mike, aren't you worried about going hard after the Clintons?
A lot of people who do end up dead.
And I said, well, I really think that this is war, and we are in a mess, information war, and we are in a fight for life or death.
The left gets that too.
We need more people on the right to realize, like, this is crucial.
We have to win.
We can't have globalism because we saw what happened in Europe, and we have to treat this more seriously and keep hitting them hard, and we're actually hitting them hard.
I mean, think about it from a Twitter account, from your YouTube.
People like Paul Joseph Watson, you're never going to see him on CNN, right?
The kind of impact that people like us are having, the left has never had to deal with before because they used to deal with a very genteel If you want to be on their little TV shows, you have to play nice, right?
I was banned from TV now.
Remember I went on Fox Red Eye and then the whole media pushed back, even the right-wing media.
So now I'm banned from television, which I think is cool.
But if you're nice and you play into little points and you're controlled opposition, well then you can be on TV, right?
So that's what the left is used to.
People who want to play nice to be on TV. But people like us, we have our own platforms anyway.
Whatever.
You can't ban us.
We'll have another platform somewhere else.
And so we're having a real impact.
And that's another reason the media has gone into full hoax mode.
Because they're realizing that they actually have real fighters fighting back.
Well, TV is...
getting inconsequential in this battle, in my opinion.
I mean, I've been on TV a bunch of times, and if I do one great video, it does 100 times more than any TV appearance I've ever done.
So it is an inconsequential distraction.
And it comes, as you say, with so many limitations that you have to dilute yourself to the point of inconsequentiality if you want this relatively unimportant platform.
So it really is not a very good bargain, really.
Reaching the people directly is the way to go.
And you're right.
The left has not had to deal with that.
I mean, they've owned Hollywood.
They've owned their academia.
They've owned the media.
They've owned political discourse for generations.
So they're soft, you know, like the late stage Romans and we are the virile barbarians.
That's why I'm growing this in.
So I think that without wanting to say we shouldn't fight harder, I think we have to recognize the strengths that we have relative to the weakness that we're facing.
And all we have to do is keep pressing those advantages in the pursuit of victory.
Agreed.
So what about tax returns?
This seems like an odd thing.
I get why the left wants tax returns to come out of Donald Trump because they want to trumpet and scream about his low tax rate and stoke the class resentment of rich guys who don't pay any taxes and so on.
Do you think that's a big issue going forward?
I know Trump has said that he doesn't want to release his tax returns because he's being audited for apparently the 19th or 15th or something more than a dozen times in a row.
So he doesn't want to release his tax returns until the audit is completed.
Do you think that's going to be an issue?
And what do you think might show up on the Clinton side?
Well, speaking of tax returns, Hillary released hers yesterday.
And isn't it interesting that all of their charitable donations, something like 99%, went to the Clinton Foundation?
You laugh, it's true.
You can confirm it.
The Clintons took a tax deduction by giving money to the Clinton Foundation.
That's their charity.
That should, of course, be a huge media scandal.
You're just laundering money in Trump, but, of course, the media is still obsessed with Trump's returns.
So that was the Clintons are the Clintons.
Anything they do, you know there's going to be some kind of shadiness behind it.
So the Clintons, all of their charitable tax write-offs went right back in their pocket to the Clinton Foundation.
Trump's tax returns, I don't think he'll release them.
It would be a mistake for him to release them because I can tell you as a lawyer and entrepreneur, and you're an entrepreneur, his income is going to be like a dollar.
Because when you're in real estate and you have all these investments, you don't take much income.
My tax returns are a joke.
If anybody looked at my tax returns, they would think I was on food stamps.
Because you have money and investments.
You don't want to take money as income.
So what it'll just show is Trump will probably have...
$100,000 in income or something like that because if you can defer income by investing it, by maxing out self-employed 401ks, by throwing money into other businesses, then that's what you're going to do as an entrepreneur.
And the media knows it, but they know that most people don't really understand how the tax game works at a high level.
So they'll just try to say, or they'll try to say, well, Donald Trump is broke.
He only made $100,000 last year.
I mean, if you have $10 million in revenue...
You don't want to pay $10 million in taxes.
You want to pay almost no taxes.
So if you can take that $10 million and buy equipment, buy cars, buy other investments, that's what you're going to do.
So Trump shouldn't release his tax returns.
Nobody who supports Trump is going to stop supporting him because he won't.
And even if he released them, nobody who was on the fence about him is suddenly going to vote for him.
So it's a lose-lose.
Well, and if the media keeps hitting this issue without talking about Hillary's health records, again, they're just painting themselves into a more and more ridiculous corner.
I mean, if I was down to 6% trust in the general marketplace, I'd be looking in the mirror pretty hard and saying, okay, what can I do to turn this around?
What can I do to make this better?
Because 6% trust would be the death of any business.
I mean, imagine if there was some company that produced pills and only 6% of people thought those pills were safe.
I mean, the company would be out of business tomorrow.
But the media, again, revealing that they are a political arm in many ways of the Democrat Party rather than a money-making venture.
And they're willing to burn cash to gain political capital for the Democrats.
They don't seem to care that the trusted mainstream media is down to 6%, again, for any other business.
That would be a revenue-ending situation to be in.
The difference between you and me Is that if I insult my readers, they're not going to buy my books.
I'm not going to make any money.
I'm funded actually by hundreds of thousands of small contributions.
Some people, you know, here's five bucks.
A lot of people ask me to donate.
So some people give me thousands.
Some people give me hundreds.
Some people give me five bucks, a dollar.
With the media, they all have billionaire sugar daddies.
So what we do now is a branding strategy.
We call the Washington Post Jeff Bezos blog.
Because Jeff Bezos is what keeps the Washington Post funded.
And then what I do is when David Weigel insults me, I call him Jeff Bezos' sugar baby.
Or I'll say, oh, did your sugar daddy tell you to write an article about me?
That's a brandy thing.
The same thing, the New York Times is Carlos Slim's blog.
These billionaires are keeping these businesses, because they're not really businesses.
They're propaganda arms.
They're keeping them afloat.
So we just need to remind people that No, no, no.
These companies don't actually make any money by giving value to people who read the content.
They don't write for you to give you value.
I always think before I write, before I talk, how can I bring value to it?
How can I bring it?
Before even coming on your show, I get up early, I do exercises in my brain, and I'm like, I've got to bring it to Stefan's audience.
That's what I have to do.
Well, but they don't do it for the readers.
They do it for their billionaire sugar daddies, and that's another reason we have to call them out all the time and just ridicule them and mock them and call them little sugar babies and ask how sugar daddy Jeff Bezos is doing.
Right, and Ann Coulter writes about this in Adios America, the degree to which Carlos Slim, very rich guy in Mexico, brought out significant portions of the New York Times He wants there to be immigration into the United States because remittances back to Mexico fund a lot of the people who buy his services.
I think he's in cell phone technology and other forms of digital communications.
So yeah, that's his deal.
He wants to promote immigration and that's part of his business plan and he's got a significant influence to put it mildly in the New York Times to help achieve that end.
And he's a monopolist.
Isn't it interesting that Carlos Slim is a monopolist in Mexico, which means he charges above market rates to poor Mexicans that we're supposed to care about, but the New York Times doesn't find that interesting enough to write about?
Isn't that interesting?
Now, Mike, one of the big things that you've got coming up this year, back in the day, I think you raised about $80,000 for a movie about free speech.
How's that going?
When's it going to be released?
How can people get a hold of it?
And...
All that kind of good stuff to keep people informed of what's just around the bend for you.
Speaking of that, value from readers, yeah, completely crowdfunded.
We did raise $80,000 via Kickstarter and money that came in afterwards for silence, our war on free speech.
And the reason we call it our war is the government really isn't going after people, at least in America, for speech.
It's more the online hate mobs.
It's the media censoring people.
It's the media no-platforming people because they don't like you or because they don't think that black...
Women should be able to be pro-Trump so they won't invite you onto their shows.
That is like a soft, pernicious form of censorship, and that's really what we're dealing with now.
For example, A.J. Delgado, Harvard Law grad, beautiful woman, intelligent, articulate, but because she's a Cuban, Latina, Trump supporter, you'll never see her on CNN. Well, the government isn't saying she can't talk.
But the media is going to know platformer because that goes against the media narrative, which is that all Trump people are just these big monsters like me, you know.
So that's the premise of the film is that the censorship is far more pernicious and more invisible.
We're going to be done with it in a few weeks, actually.
We're looking to get it done into August, early September.
Then we're going to enter into film festivals, and if a festival picks it up, there's an embargo period, and then we'll have to delay release.
If it doesn't get picked up, which is win-win for me, if it gets picked up, woo-hoo, status points.
If it doesn't get picked up, I'll just say that they're trying to silence us and I'll create a whole marketing thing out of it.
But we do want to get it out there before the election because it will have a cultural impact.
And if we do have more free speech, Trump wins.
So before the election is when we want it out, but if Sundance Film Festival says this is amazing and some guy wants to give it a A theatrical release across the country.
Well, then we'll think about that.
What do you think is happening in terms of the old punishments not working?
Because it seems, I don't know, like Watching the media sort of thrash around and try and control the narrative is sort of like watching some great-grandfather attempt to figure out an email in DOS. And so these old punishments, right?
So you get attacked and you get excluded and so on.
And there is this belief, I think, in the media that these punishments are going to work, that they're just going to keep you silenced, they're going to drive you out of the discourse and so on.
I don't think they realize the degree to which they're actually strapping additional rockets onto the alternative media, that these exclusions become...
Badges of honor and ways of getting the word out.
I'm thinking, of course, of Milo's Twitter ban to some degree as well.
Do you think they're going to figure this out in time or, you know, that they shouldn't respond at all?
But the fact when they go after people, it really tends to raise their profile.
They haven't figured it out yet.
And the reason is that think about so you think about things like an entrepreneur.
They're not entrepreneurs.
They check boxes.
Okay, you go to Princeton, and people pay for you.
Your parents pay for you to go to Princeton.
You get an English degree, get an internship, you get a job, and you just work for the man.
They're employees.
That's media.
You and I are entrepreneurs, so we think about things in terms of branding.
I've been banned from TV. That's fucking awesome.
Pardon the French.
I don't know if it's family.
That's amazing.
It's fine.
Talk about marketing hype.
I can say now, I'm such a threat to the established media that I've been banned from TV. And then if people, you can't argue like I've been banned from TV, tell me who else is banned from television, right?
So the media people don't realize like, oh man, we actually did them a favor by banning them from TV. Because as an entrepreneur, I look for branding opportunities.
I look for public relations marketing opportunities.
So that becomes the new social proof now.
Is that you're not allowed to be on their dumb little shows, which don't move the needle, as you said, anyway.
But we think of the world as...
An entrepreneur sees opportunity in a world of abundance.
An employee or a media person, they have scarcity mindset where they just see problems everywhere.
So they don't realize that they think, well, I'm giving that guy a problem.
Well, that's scarcity.
Abundance is you've actually given me a big opportunity to hype myself and In a way that would otherwise be very annoying.
Which is another reason I like to hate.
You can only brag about yourself and it annoys people.
But if you're actually banned from television, then you can talk yourself up times 10.
And people are like, yeah, man, that's cool.
So I love it.
But yeah, they don't get it.
They're not going to get it for a long time because they aren't entrepreneurs.
They have the old model of thinking, which is, well, we are prestigious.
And doesn't everybody want to be prestigious like us?
No, we don't want to be part of your little clubs.
In fact, we want to just tear down the little clubs and laugh at you and ridicule you.
Well, and of course, I'm a little older than you, but when I was growing up, I saw the media tear apart President Nixon, right?
I mean, for stuff that had been done many times before in LBJ and JFK and so on.
So the media had the power to undo presidencies back then and going back even before my day.
As I mentioned before, Joseph McCarthy, you know, in search of Soviet spies in the State Department, and as it's turned out, he was correct in many, many ways.
You know, they tore that guy apart as well.
So the media, I think, grew up with this idea that they are the ultimate arbiters of life and death, success and failure in society.
That has been very much displaced.
You know, there's a 20-year anniversary of the Internet, at least of HTML. And the web that just went past, kids now are growing up.
I mean, the idea that they would turn on television and wait till 6 o'clock to get the news is incomprehensible to them.
They're just going to search out clips here and there, and they're going to get information sent to them by friends, which comes from blogs.
And now the form doesn't really matter anymore of where the information resides.
What matters is the content.
And so I just wanted to finish up by – I had a really great question in my call-in show last night.
Which was, how do you determine who to trust, right?
Because there's so many outlets for information these days, so many people with their perspectives, so many people with their arguments.
And I think finding who you can trust is a really, really big challenge for people.
What's your methodology for figuring out who you consider to be a reliable source of information?
Big thing is that if you close comments, then I think you're going to hide something.
You know, you got to be able to let people comment and debate.
People who, if you'll debate other people who disagree with you, then I'll trust you.
And I want to see facts, verifiable facts in people.
And then I want biases disclosed.
So one guy that I trust, who's a liberal and, you know, not a Trump guy, Dave Rubin.
Okay?
Dave Rubin's a liberal, but he'll have, I mean, he had Tommy Robinson on his show, you know, for crying out loud.
He'll have Milo, he'll have me, he'll have people that he completely disagrees with.
And he'll just say, hey, I'm going to trust the people who watch me.
To think that these guys are completely wrong.
That's who you trust.
You trust people who trust you.
If you as a famous YouTube guy, me as a writer, if we don't even trust our own readers, our readers shouldn't trust us because we're clearly hiding something.
So yeah, I always say make sure that they're giving alternative voices a viewpoint.
Let people who talk to people who they disagree with, let the comments come in so then the people can correct you.
And I have people all the time on my own comments that disagree with me, and I say, that's great.
I have my biases if you think my facts are wrong.
And the other thing is live unedited news is I think it's the future.
We talked about this earlier.
I had 7,000 people, and then my phone crashed.
7,000 people live on Periscope, live stream, okay?
That's unedited.
So then anybody can watch that, and they can watch my periscopes.
I'm not doing gotchas on people.
I'm not asking you a question, then cutting out stuff, and then adding in your answer.
I've just talked to people live on camera.
That's, I think, the future news is people really want live, unedited footage, and then they're going to think for themselves.
All right.
Fantastic.
Fantastic.
All right.
So, just wanted to remind people, if you didn't listen to me earlier, please listen to me now.
Go to twitter.com slash Cernovich and subscribe to Mike.
The flow of information you're going to get out of this man's brain is sometimes like drinking from a high rational fire hose, but is well, well worth it.
Bookmark and subscribe at dangerandplay.com and of course you can follow him on periscope.tv slash playdangerously.
Mike, thanks for the chat.
Always a great pleasure.
We'll talk again soon and I hope you have a fantastic week.
Thanks again.
▲
Export Selection