All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 26, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
32:10
3393 Hillary Clinton Attacks Donald Trump and the Alt-Right!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, it's Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Main Radio.
I hope you're doing very, very well.
So yesterday, I sat on my couch, eagerly anticipating Hillary Clinton's speech on the alt-right.
And I sat, and I sat, and then I sat some more.
I don't think I'll ever be able to buff out my aspirin on the sofa, because she was more than two hours late for a relatively short speech.
No apology, no explanation.
Not really the very best move when there were rumors circulating about the robustness of your health.
Now, the speech seemed kind of confusing, seemed kind of arbitrary.
I think I might have spotted an ad hominem or two.
But let's try and see if we can unravel what is going on.
There is an internal logic to it that makes perfect sense.
So these are my political opinions.
Now, first of all, Donald Trump is openly courting the black people.
Now, the black vote, for the last couple of generations, the Democrats have relied on the black vote to win elections.
And Trump is taking a different approach than most prior Republicans, much to the relief of most Republicans, which is that he's openly talking about significant problems in some black communities.
And Donald Trump is proposing solutions that go against the direct political interests of Democrats.
Basically, immigration.
You see, Democrats want votes from poor minorities.
But, you see, they also want to import millions of low-skilled immigrants who will also reliably vote Democrat.
These two positions, a little bit at odds with each other, can't really be reconciled.
So what are the mechanics?
Well...
When low-skilled immigrants come into America, they either generally go on welfare or they get jobs.
Now, if they go on welfare, this raises taxes, it destroys job creation, and cuts the monies available for other poor Americans.
If the immigrants do get jobs, well, they pay some taxes, but the oversupply of labor drives down low-income wages, which hurts blacks and Hispanics the most.
This scam, sort of burning the candle at both ends, has been running for decades, with the entirely predictable result that blacks and Hispanics are doing quite badly in America.
Now, when Donald Trump comes along and points out that Democrat immigration policies are harming poor American minorities, how can the Democrats answer that?
Well, the simple answer is, they can't.
Therefore, racism!
This is why the beginning of Hillary Clinton's speech was so kind of incomprehensible.
For the past 50 plus years, Democrats have been talking about how badly the black community is doing, and they blame systemic and institutional white racism for that.
Now, the moment that Donald Trump agrees with them about minority poverty and offers solutions such as restricting low-skilled immigrants, cutting corporate taxes, making better trade deals, restricting H-1B visas, all with the goal of increasing demand for labor, raising wages, and getting poor people back to work, ooh, the Democrats, a little bit of a terrible bind.
If they say that Donald Trump is wrong, no, no, no, blacks are doing wonderfully, well, then they can't really call white people racists now, can they?
If they say that Donald Trump is right and that blacks are not doing wonderfully, well, then they have to hold Obama and Hillary Clinton, at least partly responsible, and then say what they're going to do differently.
Ah...
I wish I lived in liberal land.
Only in liberal land can you pretend to have it both ways.
And that's kind of what we saw at the beginning of her speech.
Hillary Clinton said that Donald Trump was insulting black communities by pointing out the problems in ghettos.
He was missing all the wonderful black achievements.
All right.
But then she immediately pivoted to describing the systemic racism faced by black people.
Kind of a dizzying ride for anyone with a vague preference for consistency.
So the two Democrat policies that have done the most harm to the poor are the welfare state and endless low-skill immigration.
The welfare state destroys the family and cripples work incentives, which creates a shortage of low-skill labor.
Immigrants then supply that low-skill labor, driving down wages, and thus driving more and more poor people into the sticky quicksand of the welfare state.
Now, the degree to which, and we'll just talk about black families for a moment here, and this is a particular point of heartbreak for me, so please excuse my passion.
The degree to which black families have been undermined, if not outright destroyed, by the welfare state is something that, once you get it, your life will never, ever be the same.
The economist Walter E. Williams, I'll put links to this below, wrote...
The truth is that black female-headed households were just 18% of households in 1950, as opposed to about 68% today.
These numbers are in fact a little higher.
This was from a couple of years ago.
He also wrote, in fact, from 1890 to 1940, the black marriage rate was slightly higher than that of whites.
Even during slavery, when marriage was forbidden for blacks, most black children lived in biological two-parent families.
In New York City in 1925, 85% of black households were two-parent households.
He goes on to say along with the decline of the black family comes antisocial behavior manifested by high crime rates.
Each year roughly 7,000 blacks are murdered.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics between 1976 and 2011 there were 279,384 black murder victims.
Coupled with being most of the nation's homicide victims, blacks are also major victims of violent personal crimes such as assault, rape, and robbery.
And he also mentions that 94% of the murderers of blacks are blacks themselves.
He writes, to put this violence in perspective, black fatalities during the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and all wars since 1980 come to about 18,500, a number that pales in comparison with black loss of life at home.
So let's just take a moment and understand that.
On an average year, as many blacks are murdered, mostly by other blacks, as died in the entire near-decade-long Vietnam conflict.
That is shocking.
He finally says, young black males had a greater chance of reaching maturity on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan than on the streets of Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit, Oakland, Newark, and other cities.
It's like the most heartbreaking Hugh Lewis song ever.
So this destruction of the black family, formerly very close to stability and sometimes more stable than families of other ethnicities, is one of the primary causes of very high levels of black poverty.
For married black couples, the poverty rate has remained in the single digits, 8-9%, for quite some time.
So this is really, really important to understand.
When Donald Trump is going and saying, look, there are circumstances that have degraded the stability of black families, and there's things that we can do about it, that's pretty tough for Democrats to counter.
So this is the stakes that are...
Going on in the American election at the moment.
If something can be done to return the black family to the stability that it enjoyed under slavery, under Jim Crow, under all of the other injustices that blacks labored under in America for so long...
There would be a renaissance within the black community that would be staggering in its scope.
If we look at the post-war period when black poverty was halved, blacks were getting into the professional classes, and then, boom, you had extensions of union powers which kept blacks out of particular jobs.
You had the welfare state and just a whole giant mess.
And the white family is right on there behind the black families.
Black families in some cities have illegitimacy rates close to 90%.
So these are the stakes that are going on.
Now, the heavy-handed accusation of racist and racism and KKK and bigoted and all that, that was all through this speech.
Now, that has worked so effectively for so long.
It's kind of hard for leftists of a certain age to understand just how little effect it has now, particularly on younger people.
You know, this idea, you're a racist, it...
It's the boy who cried wolf.
It has just been racist, racist, racist, racist, racist for decades, and it doesn't really seem to work that much anymore.
In fact, it generally spikes interest, as we can see alt-right.
Google searches went through the roof as a result of this speech.
Because if Donald Trump is such a multi-decade-long intransigent racist, a couple of questions pop to mind if Hillary believes this often.
Why did the Clintons accept Donald Trump's invitation to his wedding?
Why did Hillary try to court Donald Trump for campaign donations?
And why did she try and get contributions to the Clinton Family Foundation from him?
And so on.
These accusations of racism, kind of boringly predictable.
As Dr.
Thomas Sowell has said, a racist is just a Republican who has beaten a Democrat in a debate.
So more falsehoods, obfuscations floating through the air in Reno.
The idea that Donald Trump called all Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals has been disproven and debunked so many times.
It's hard to believe that it is still being trotted out.
He was, of course, talking about a subset of illegal immigrants and actually had reams of data to back up his statements.
I go into all of this in my presentation, The Untruth About Donald Trump.
Please have a look at it.
It's well worth your time.
You know, facts will always be your friend.
So the idea that Donald Trump said that a federal judge couldn't do his job just because he was a Mexican is also false.
The judge in question, who's presiding over the Trump University lawsuit, got another presentation on that below.
The judge in question supports pro-Mexican, pro-illegal immigration organizations.
Given that those are diametrically opposed to Donald Trump's political positions, there may be a conflict of interest.
Ah, the spiderweb of the classic leftist guilt by association non-argument was also trotted out in full force.
And here's how this works.
I'm sure you've seen it a million times.
Here.
Find someone and then send out your drones to find anyone they've ever talked to or ever referenced and then find some unappealing statement from those endlessly radiating six degrees of separation circles.
Try and take it as much out of context if you can for bonus points and then drag that unappealing statement all the way back to the originating person and say, well, everyone agrees with everything that everyone else says that they've ever had contact with.
Smear, smear, smear!
Now this is classic divide and conquer Saul Alinsky tactics.
And listen, I go on shows with people I'm sure I have some disagreements with.
The people who come on my show do not agree with everything I have ever said.
Just for the record, I don't agree with everything I have ever said.
They should never be held accountable for my words, just as I should never be held accountable for their words.
The whole point is just to divide people who might have some overlapping common ground or common interests and make people afraid of joining forces for fear that someone somewhere in a multi-decade public career might have said or done something that could be taken down Out of context, to look bad, so isolation, we can't work together.
Now, turning on Breitbart, Hillary Clinton read some shocking, SHOCKING headlines, some of them from Milo Yiannopoulos.
Free Milo.
Now, for those of you who haven't heard of or seen Milo Yiannopoulos, he is a provocateur.
He likes to get people's interest.
There's some evidence of this.
He drinks from dildo cups while giving speeches.
He dresses up sometimes as Freddie Mercury's campier cousin and annoyingly has the Mount Vesuvius charisma and hella good hair to get away with it.
On the plus, Milo did write some provocative headlines.
Oh no!
Clickbait on the internet!
Who could have thought?
But, you know, to his credit, Milo didn't destabilize the Middle East, Madam Secretary, just DePaul University, which, you know, arguably is slightly less important to world peace and the continuance of European civilization.
And then Hillary Clinton launched into Alex Jones.
Yes, it's true.
Alex Jones does question official narratives.
If that seems crazy to you, trust me, he is not the problem.
And let me say this as well.
For Hillary Clinton, who has not had a press conference in over 260 days, to complain about who Donald Trump talks to is audacious, almost beyond imagination.
Hey, Donald, you're speaking to the wrong people.
At least he's speaking to someone.
Hillary also claimed, quote, he, Trump, promoted the racist lie that President Obama isn't really an American citizen, part of a sustained effort to delegitimize America's first black president.
Okay, that's wrong on so many levels.
I don't even know where to start.
But let me try.
The question wasn't whether Barack Obama was an American citizen.
That was never in question.
The question was, was he a natural-born citizen, which is a constitutional requirement, for holding...
The highest office in the land, which is why we don't salute President Schwarzenegger.
Now, Trump didn't actually start this controversy, the Bertha controversy, as it's called.
Hillary did.
In fact, in her 2008 desperate bid to grab the Ring of Sauron.
It was Hillary's own 2008 campaign that circulated photos of Obama dressed up in African garb to make him appear less American.
It was a Democrat apparatchik of Hillary's who played the so-called Bertha card in the 2008 Democrat Primary.
So if it's a bad thing to do, I'm not sure that Trump should take the rap for that.
Ah!
The David Duke disavowal nonsense.
Lordy.
I mean, I've dealt with this before.
Just suffice to say, David Duke was briefly in the Klan, I don't know, 40 years ago when he was very young.
Donald Trump disavowed David Duke the same day that he was asked after some confusion over who it was.
So, there's that.
Now, on the other hand, we can look at someone named Robert Byrd, the late Robert Byrd, Hillary Clinton's mentor.
Now, Robert Byrd was a prominent Klan member well into his 30s.
Has Hillary Clinton ever been asked by the media to disavow Robert Byrd?
Here's another one.
The KKK reportedly killed a few thousand people.
Terrible, terrible stuff.
In terms of piles of bodies, communists around the world killed 94 million people in the 20th century alone.
Now, the Communist Party in America, very enthusiastic for Hillary.
Will she, I wonder, ever be asked to disavow the Communist Party?
Or Robert Byrd?
Of course not.
See, when Republicans refuse to disavow their supporters, it's not because they agree with everything their supporters believe.
It's because Democrats never face the same scrutiny.
And no one with any spine-harder balls ever likes to surrender to manipulative hypocrisy.
Has the mainstream media ever demanded that Democrats disavow and condemn the violence of their own supporters, particularly that against Trump supporters?
Of course not!
See, it's just a hole with no bottom.
If you fall for that game, you know, a funny game, the only way to win is not to play.
So if you fall for that game, then the media gets to go and find some lunatic who has your name on their bumper sticker and demand that you disavow that person.
This rinse and repeat, gotcha, it's never going to end.
So why bother starting it?
All that happens is you're, in the mainstream media, your supporters will all be portrayed as crazy and you'll end up annoying people who might support you.
I mean, you don't play that game.
And really, are we going to play guilt by association?
More than a dozen of Clinton's associates, when they were last in the White House in the 90s, or from when she ran for president in 2008, more than a dozen of their associates have actually landed in prison.
So guilt by association is a sword that cuts both ways, but either way, not an argument!
I must tell you also that I get kind of confused about this whole racism thing.
Hillary talks about Muslims.
Not a race.
She talks about Cubans.
Not a race.
Talks about Mexicans.
Not a race.
Apparently a race is just any group most likely to vote Democrat.
She also implied that Donald Trump is somehow detached from reality.
Well, Donald Trump has spent his life building actual things.
Hillary Clinton and Obama have spent their lives mostly just saying things.
I'll leave you to decide which one is the more reality-oriented.
Hillary also said that Trump would form a deportation force to round up millions of immigrants and kick them out of the country.
I'm no lawyer, but as far as I understand it, immigrants cannot be kicked out of the country because they're there legally.
Now, squatters can be kicked out of a building because they're there illegally.
The illegal immigrants versus legal immigrants.
If you don't really know the difference between these two words, these moral or at least legal states of being, well, that's a little troubling to put it mildly.
Also anger babies.
Trump has talked about wanting to remove the provision that allows anyone who has a baby in America that that baby is a full citizen.
Extremely rare throughout the world.
And contrary to what Hillary says, not a bedrock constitutional principle.
Something that was inserted as a footnote by a Supreme Court judge in 1982.
There was quite a lot of darkness swirling around Hillary.
She talked about dark internet conspiracy theories.
One that popped to mind.
Here's a pretty dark internet conspiracy theory.
The argument that it was a video that was responsible for the attack on Benghazi on the anniversary of 9-11.
That's something that Hillary talked about even after it was later revealed, as she had said to her daughter and to the president of Egypt, that it wasn't actually true.
Now...
She went on quite a long bit about how Donald Trump said he'd banned Muslims around the world, 1.5 billion men, women, and children from entering our country just because of their religion.
Okay, well at least she's admitting that Muslim is not a race, so, so good.
Now, it's true.
In 2015, Trump proposed a, quote, total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.
Now that has evolved or changed.
It no longer targets Muslims per se, but anyone who wants to immigrate to the US from, as Trump put it in a speech after the Orlando shooting, quote, areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe, or our allies.
So not taking the latest information seems like just a little bit of a sophist trick.
A lot of fringe element stuff.
I really thought we were shopping for drapes.
A lot of fringe elements.
She mentioned Breitbart, of course, which if memory serves me right, I don't know, 32 million people visited recently.
Fringe element, really?
Drudge, one of the most popular websites on the internet.
Okay, well, if we're going to call that fringe and we're going to say that tens and tens and tens of millions of Americans are, I don't know, just crazy paranoid racists or whatever, Wow, Democrat-controlled public schools must be even worse than we thought by not being able to teach people to rationally process arguments.
And then it was sort of like a replay of Fonzie jumping the shark.
But when she jumped the shark, for me at least, with jet-propelled excellence, was when she said this.
The godfather of this global brand of extreme nationalism is Russian President Vladimir Putin.
So apparently, what is it, Breitbart and Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson and others all taking their orders and they're getting their paychecks from...
Russian President Vladimir Putin.
It seems a little odd to me that a movement she describes as nationalistic would take its orders from a foreign head of state.
That doesn't really seem to me to be quite within the realm of nationalism at all.
So I just found that to be kind of a strange thing.
She didn't like, Hillary didn't like that...
Trump has a more conciliatory, let's work with him approach to Russia.
She said, American presidents from Truman to Reagan have rejected the kind of approach Trump is taking on Russia.
Okay, quick quiz.
What was different about Russia from Truman to Reagan?
Cold War.
Why do I even need to say these things?
Cold War.
Russia was a communist enemy bent on taking over the world.
So yes, American presidents had a slightly less work-with-it attitude when it came to Russia, when it was a communist enemy of the West, when, let's say, Nikita Khrushchev said regarding the West, we will bury you.
Yes.
So...
For younger people, again, this Red Scare stuff doesn't work.
It would be great if she had advisors who were, I don't know, slightly younger than Methuselah.
But actually, the Democrats were quite keen on Russia when it was communist, I guess, now that it's become nationalistic.
They don't like it anymore.
And then, there was the dread takeover of the Republican Party by the fringe extreme alt-right.
What is the proof of this?
Well, I will tell you.
According to Hillary, the proof of the extreme right takeover of the Republican Party is some anonymous caller on David Duke's radio show.
Yes, he has a radio show.
I didn't know, but apparently the new proof for giant political movements is some anonymous caller on some guy's obscure radio show talking about something.
So, that apparently is all the standard of proof that you need these days.
So, I don't know, I just say to Hillary, maybe you should stop listening to David Duke's radio show.
It seems to be making you a little jumpy.
So, there were vast internet conspiracies and the dark corners of the internet and all that usual stuff.
This sort of reminded me of the claim in the 90s that Hillary had that there was a vast right-wing conspiracy driving the entirely false narrative that Bill had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.
Spoiler!
He did.
Then she started talking about Trump and school bullying because there's just apparently no mud you can't sling at the orange maniac.
So...
The bullying, some frustrated school principal said, they see it in a presidential campaign and now it's okay for everyone to say this or to bully or whatever.
Well, again, not much of a proof, some guys said, but researchers have pointed out something called the Clinton-Lewinsky effect, which is that within a relatively short period of time, double the number of young people thought that oral sex was not in fact sex.
And that comes out of President Clinton's infamous statement, I did not have sexual relations with that woman.
And that has actually been called the Clinton-Lewinsky effect.
So as far as presidential misdeeds or people in power, men in power's misdeeds, there is one recorded one, but not so much one with Trump.
So, I could go on and on, and Lord knows I have in the past, but let's see what sense we can make of all of this.
Blacks in particular, but minorities, are questioning the value and utility of the Democrats.
The fact that Republicans, despite Minorities and other groups being desperate for control over immigration for the past couple of decades.
Republicans have been unable to talk about immigration or certainly act on it in any consistent way to limit or control it.
And so now that someone is coming along and bringing the question of immigration into the forefront, the American voters might actually have the chance to vote on immigration, right?
So the Teddy Kennedy 1965 Immigration Act that has fundamentally changed American demographics Enormously.
Massively.
If American demographics were in the past, as they are now, Ronald Reagan would never have been elected.
If they were, Now, as they had been in the past, Mitt Romney would have won.
So, Americans are finally getting a chance to vote on all of this stealth immigration that has been occurring.
The rich people like it because it gives them cheap labor, big corporations like it because it gives them cheap labor, and the Democrats like it because it gives them easy votes.
So, the American people finally getting a chance to vote on immigration, and that is very important.
The case being made by Trump and by others is that lots of low-skill immigration is very harmful to blacks.
So blacks are questioning the utility of the Democrats.
So naturally, they have to be scared back into the fold.
And the Democrats, of course, claim that they're inclusive, that they care about diversity.
This is not even remotely true.
And I'm not just talking about the Democratic Party.
I'm talking about Democrats as a whole.
See, Democrats have been in control of what?
The mainstream media, the entertainment industry, government schools, universities.
They don't care about diversity because if they did, they'd say, whoa, whoa, whoa, hang on a second, look around.
We're all Democrats here.
Where's our diversity?
Huge proportions of Americans are Republicans.
They're small government people.
They're Christians.
Let's get some of them in here because we value diversity.
They don't care about diversity at all.
What do they care about?
Well, At the political level, they care about what politicians are wanting to care about, which is votes.
And it's a simple thought experiment.
It's my opinion.
You can tell me where I'm wrong.
Just ask yourself this.
Let's just say Hispanics, Hispanic immigrants, both legal and illegal.
Let's say Hispanics voted enormously for smaller government.
Would tend to be a lot more solid on the Republican side.
Let's say that two-thirds of Hispanics who came into the country voted for Republicans rather than Democrats.
Would the Democrats be so keen to invite them in by the millions?
I think to ask that question is to answer it.
So what is Trump doing?
Well, Trump is listening to the fine and honorable blacks who are desperate for real solutions to the terrible problems in some of their communities.
Peter Kursenow, an official with the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, in 2013 wrote to the Congressional Black Caucus and Obama, and he said, quote, granting work authorization to millions of illegal immigrants will devastate the black community, which is already struggling in the wake of the recession that began in 2007 and the subsequent years of malaise.
So there are lots of people who understand the harm that immigration is doing to the black community and wish to help the black community by limiting certain forms of immigration.
Gun control!
You know, some of the most violent cities are Democrat-controlled and have strict gun control, which disarms the people and doesn't exactly disarm some of the more aggressive elements of society.
School choice.
More than two-thirds of the black voters surveyed in Louisiana, New Jersey, and Tennessee support public charter schools over traditional public schools.
And the Democrats are, in general, rejecting that because they want to get the money still flowing in from the teachers' unions.
So are they listening to what the blacks want, to what poor people want?
No.
And look, I think it's fair to say that black communities have given Democrats a lot of chances.
And the reality is that after 50-plus years, America's most crime-ridden cities were run almost exclusively by Democratic mayors.
In 2015, the inner cities of Detroit, Oakland, Cleveland, Baltimore, Chicago, Philadelphia, also known as Kiladelphia, Atlanta, other Democratic Party monopolies, Are routinely plagued with extraordinary levels of violent criminality.
And I think everyone's getting kind of sick of it.
It's not because the Republicans are in charge that these things are happening.
The Democrats are largely in charge that these things are happening.
Ooh, I've got another one.
How about the minimum wage?
You raise the minimum wage, you're going to harm the black community.
Every 10% increase in the minimum wage has decreased employment among black males by 6.5%.
So there's lots of things here, but is all of this stuff accumulated enough to get blacks to question their allegiance to Democrats?
Well, it's an important question, and Trump, of course, like all politicians, is trying to expand his appeal to other voting blocs and other voting bases.
And so if Trump gets in, this is the true level of the stakes that we're talking about in this election, if Trump gets in, And let's say he starts enforcing existing immigration law.
And let's say that millions of Democrat-leading illegal immigrants leave the U.S. They self-deport or whatever happens.
Well, that's going to significantly undercut the Democrat If Trump finds a way to appeal to black voters and if he is successful, like so he gets into power and things begin to improve finally, hopefully joyfully for the black community, then it's going to be really tough for the blacks to return to what Diamond and Silk have called the Democrat plantation.
So Trump can undercut the voting base of the Democrats in a Permanent way.
Indeed a permanent way.
He can cut university funding.
By that I mean he would lower the amount of sort of quote free student loans that were handed out to people wanting to go to university.
That's going to cause a significant restriction in employment opportunities and expansion for universities.
So he can undercut the voting base.
He can cut university funding.
The mainstream media is losing a lot of money as it stands because they're basically going all in for Hillary and all the pretense of objectivity is being cast aside.
Social justice warrior movies are tanking at the box office, so there's lots that's going wrong for the left, and it seems to be kind of all clustered and going along at the same time, and that's causing some frustration and some panic and some lashing out.
And so, in particular with this race issue, if blacks do better under a Trump administration, they get more job opportunities, they are less undercut by endless ways of low-skilled immigrants, if they get higher wages, more stable families, and really it all comes down to that, well, They may never go back.
And so the fear-mongering, the scaring away from the Republicans is something that the Democrats have been doing forever, certainly since the 1960s.
And that, I think, is fundamentally the logic behind what was going on in Hillary's speech yesterday.
And I think it shows sort of the intellectual bankruptcy.
I think the left has kind of given up for the last 50 years on making debates based on reason and evidence, particularly since the collapse of communism and the implosion of national socialism in Germany.
Left has had a tougher time making the case, which is why I think they're kind of using other tools to maintain power, right, via government unions and immigration and control over the media and indoctrination in the schools.
They have taken that approach, which means that they've, I think, lost their edge when it comes to debating, which is, I think, fundamentally what was happening yesterday.
There is a saying, right?
It's not as old as some people think it was attributed to Socrates, but that appears to be untrue.
But what is true is this.
▲
Export Selection