Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Oct. 21, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

32:56

3462 Fact-Checking Hillary Clinton's Presidential Debate Lies

Stefan Molyneux fact-checks Hillary Clinton's claims from the third and final Presidential debate and explains why media falsehoods can lead to massive destruction and war. Freedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hi everybody, Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Main Radio.
	I hope you're doing well.
	So as the red, white and blue smoke drifts across the battlefield and we begin to see the fallen and the standing and the wounded and the healthy after the third presidential debate, I had a few thoughts that I wanted to share, a couple of quick fact checks that I wanted to get across.
	We'll go with a couple of the minor ones and then I'll give you my big rousing speech at the end.
	So a question around Planned Parenthood.
	Does it provide cancer screenings and therefore should retain its funding despite the controversy about abortion?
	Okay, they're breast exams, but not mammograms.
	They actually just refer people to a licensed facility that can do, you know, the x-rays, the biopsies, or whatever, specialized services.
	So it doesn't actually provide cancer services in that way.
	It's sort of like saying, well, if I give you directions to a restaurant, am I serving food?
	If you're just a referral agency, not really.
	Now, Planned Parenthood does take half a billion dollars in from the government, and I think that's what a lot of people, whether you're For or against abortion, I think we can all agree, as Hillary says, that the government should stay out of private health care decisions.
	Well, I guess, except for things like Medicare, Medicaid, licensing, Obamacare.
	Well, that's a different topic altogether.
	But no, it does not appear to provide specialized cancer services.
	So, what else went down in the debate last night?
	Well, this partial birth abortion thing, ripping babies apart and so on.
	Well, of course, people who are pro-choice don't really like to talk about this for completely understandable reasons.
	There is of course a partial birth abortion and what that does is it partially removes the fetus from the womb and then generally kills the unborn baby by puncturing the skull with scissors or some other similar implement.
	Now sometimes what's called a dismemberment Abortion is used.
	The fetus is actually torn apart, and this is to reduce danger to the mother, which of course can occur with late-term abortions.
	So, as the old saying goes, the beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper names, and that is the reality.
	Now, we've talked about this before, but I wanted to add something that hopefully will make some sense.
	Donald Trump said about Hillary, she wants to give amnesty, she wants to have open borders.
	And as we've mentioned, a Brazilian bank in 2013, Clinton said in a private speech, my dream is a hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders.
	Sometime in the future, with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it.
	Powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.
	Now she's saying that she just meant open borders for energy.
	No.
	You see, energy is not a person.
	A border is designed to keep out people.
	You can trade across the border.
	You know, you can make something in Mexico.
	You can sell it in America.
	And it does not require citizenship papers.
	It does not need to go through immigration.
	So the idea that open borders has something to do with energy is simply false.
	Like if I say, well, I want...
	To make a restaurant.
	I'm going to found a restaurant.
	I'm going to build a restaurant.
	And I'm going to open it to the public.
	And my restaurant is going to be solar-powered.
	And then people come in and want to buy food from me or buy meals from me.
	And I say, no, no, no, no.
	When I say open to the public, I meant open to the electricity that I'm getting.
	I mean, that wouldn't make any sense at all.
	But of course, she doesn't want to talk about open borders because 83%...
	Of Americans want to see immigration levels frozen or reduced.
	You know, we're full, the ark is full, and it's time for some assimilation to occur.
	So that's why she's talking about, or not talking about that.
	And...
	Now, this question that Russia is responsible for all of these hacks is, oh, 17 security agencies, not really the case.
	It's an umbrella organization which has some Democrats in it who are saying that, you know, they represent 17 of these security agencies.
	They're not all saying the same thing.
	And of course, we know you're going to blame Russia for hacking and this is why you're getting WikiLeaks.
	Well, Russia, of course, says no, which is kind of natural.
	But if you remember the CENTCOM scandal, well, the Obama administration showed in that scandal they were perfectly happy to alter intelligence reports, even battlefield reports, just to deliver something that was better for their political narrative.
	And I think it's fair to say, like, if you're going to make a charge, if you say, well, cyber espionage or cyber warfare is an act of war and Russia has hacked us, well, you're basically saying Russia has committed an act of war against America.
	Now, after the mainstream media and the government generally did a terrible job...
	Bringing basic truths and realities to the American population in the lead-up to the Iraq War, I think it's fairly safe to say, fairly okay to say, that the skepticism for whatever drive to war is going on at the moment is very high in the American population, American electorate.
	So how about you show some evidence, independently verified, all that kind of stuff.
	There's no evidence that Guccifer, or Guccifer, the hacker who...
	Has been blamed for the leak of the DNC's emails.
	There's no evidence that he was working for Russia.
	So when people just say, oh, there's this stuff going on, trust me, it's warlike and we've got to respond and so on.
	No, you know, it is fair to say after Iraq and after the Gulf of Tonkin and after all of this other stuff that Americans need and deserve the actual proof independently verified and so on about what's going on.
	Now, Donald Trump said, well, Hillary Clinton wanted a wall when she was the U.S. Senator from New York.
	And this is actually the case.
	In September 2006, Hillary Clinton, who was then in fact the Senator from New York, voted to build, voted in favor of building a wall along the Mexican border that was 700 miles long because she said, hey, we've really got to stop illegal immigrants from entering the United States.
	Um...
	I guess it was good then, but bad now.
	I don't know.
	Now, around the Second Amendment, and we've got a whole presentation on gun control here on this channel, which you should really check out.
	Does she really support the Second Amendment?
	Well, okay.
	So, District of Columbia v.
	Heller.
	This is a decision back in 2008 where the Supreme Court reaffirmed That the Second Amendment is an individual right, right?
	It protects the individual's right to keep and bear arms.
	It's not a collective right.
	It's not a group right.
	Because otherwise, if you say it's some sort of collective right, then it could require that you serve in some militia in order to get gun ownership or that you're in the military or the police forces or whatever.
	So it's not a collective right that requires you to be part of a group.
	It is an individual right.
	And there is very strong arguments, in my opinion, that...
	That ruling is the foundation for what the Second Amendment means in the modern world.
	So it's hard to say that you oppose the Heller ruling, but support the Second Amendment, since the Second Amendment, like an inverse pyramid, rests on the Heller ruling.
	And Hillary's spokesman, Josh Schwerin, said that Hillary...
	Believes that the Heller decision was, quote, wrongly decided.
	So she doesn't like that.
	So, I don't know, if you reject the individual's right to keep and bear arms, and the Second Amendment guarantees the individual's right to keep and bear arms, you can't have, I mean, even in liberal land, that's trying to have it one too many ways, i.e.
	both ways.
	Now, Hillary Clinton, raising the minimum wage because people who work full-time should not live in poverty now.
	Ah.
	Except, of course, that the majority of people who live below the poverty line, who live in the sort of official definition of poverty, don't work.
	And the majority of people who have two-parent households in poverty, the adults work an average of 10 to 15 hours a week combined.
	So it's really a matter of not working as opposed to not being paid much.
	Also...
	If you're concerned about people in poverty not being able to earn very much, how about you teach them something useful, something economically valuable in government schools, right?
	How about you teach them something that can get them some economic muscle when it comes to competing in the marketplace?
	Also, if you're really concerned about poor people not making enough money, maybe you want to stem the flow, endless flow, it seems, of third world immigration coming in and pushing down wages for poor people.
	See, if you want wages to go up, if you reduce the supply of people who are willing to work for very little money, then the wages will automatically increase.
	You don't need...
	See, this is just one government program leads to another government program because you've got unfettered and untrammeled third world immigration.
	You now need to raise the minimum wage because they keep driving down the wages.
	So, yeah, one government program leads to another and blah-de-blah-de-blah.
	So, we talked about this last night in our review, but I think it's important to break it down just a little bit more, right?
	So, Hillary Clinton said she will not add a penny to the debt if elected president.
	Okay, so people need to understand the difference between a debt and a deficit.
	A deficit is what you have failed to pay this year.
	A debt is the accumulation of many years of failure to pay, right?
	So, if I have a visa bill, no, let's just say I have a mortgage.
	Of $1,000 a month, and I'm only paying $900 a month, then every month I'm down, I have a deficit of $100.
	Over a year, I've accumulated a debt of, let's just make it simple, take out interest, of $1,200, right?
	12 times the $100.
	So the difference between the deficit and the debt.
	Now, the debt is added to by...
	Interest on the debt, right?
	Because it adds to the deficit, which adds to the debt.
	So the idea that she wouldn't add a penny to the debt is impossible because the moment you become president, the debt continues to pile up because even if just interest payments alone.
	So Clinton's policies, of course, would increase the debt by about $9 trillion over a decade for, you know, various reasons which you can see broken down, you know, places like Breitbart.com and so on.
	But this is really, really important to understand.
	And of course, the fact that people don't understand the difference between debt and deficit is sort of another reason why they're not worth that much in the marketplace.
	Because these are basic, very important issues to understand.
	And the level of unreality regarding government spending.
	I mean, it was good that Chris Wallace finally brought up the debt.
	And, you know, there's not really much that can be said other than...
	If you want to find the last time a U.S. president paid down...
	On the actual debt, you'd have to go back to Eisenhower.
	And, of course, Obama has added as much debt as all of the previous U.S. presidents combined over 200 years and over 40 presidents, and that's quite a lot.
	The federal debt per taxpayer is over $165,000.
	The unfunded liabilities per taxpayer, the money the government has promised to pay but doesn't have enough money to pay, the liability per taxpayer is $870,000.
	Personal debt per citizen clocks in at about $55,000.
	Total debt per family is over $800,000.
	And that means, of course, the family share of the national debt over $800,000.
	So, these are some pretty staggering numbers, of course, if we want to look at how much the average family has in savings.
	It's less than $10,000.
	So, this is the end of the giant government.
	Let welfare displace charity.
	Let people become dependent on the government.
	This whole thing is mathematically reaching the end of its cycle.
	And it's going to have to be dealt with one way or another.
	Traditionally, governments will either repudiate the debt, say, hey, we're not going to pay it.
	In which case, lenders get shafted and...
	They don't want to lend to the government again in the future.
	Hey, that may not be a bad thing.
	Or they print a lot of money and monetize the debt, in which case inflation goes through the roof and so on.
	Or they go to war.
	And they say, well, we can't pay our nice little entitlement programs because there's a massive war.
	And that is a very common thing.
	And given Hillary's warmongering vis-a-vis Russia, that may appear to be her preferred solution.
	Not really much of a solution, but anyway.
	Now, Donald Trump is an expert of walking the line that drives people crazy.
	Can't quite get him on stuff.
	You know, he says blood pouring out of her whatever.
	He meant like her eyes and her ears.
	What are we talking about?
	Period.
	Good Lord, right?
	So the women, of course, who've accused Donald Trump of unwanted sexual advances.
	So in one speech, he's talking about this people writer who accused him.
	And he said, take a look.
	You take a look.
	Look at her.
	Look at her words.
	You tell me.
	What do you think?
	I don't think so.
	I don't think so.
	It's like...
	You've referred negatively to women's appearances.
	Well, I don't know.
	I mean, Hillary looks like a...
	A bristled-haired, over-dyed, over-made-up, lipstick-wielding kind of cryptkeeper.
	But she's working very hard to maintain her appearance, right?
	Her hair is perfectly coiffed, perfectly styled.
	She's got that lipstick, and actually her teeth look kind of red.
	People thought it was lipstick.
	I just think that the truth bleeds when you eat it.
	But she's really focusing on her appearance.
	Perfectly pressed suit, spotless, and so on.
	So when a woman really, really focuses on her appearance and then gets upset about men judging women by their appearance...
	I don't know.
	It's just one of these goofy things.
	Maybe it's just, I don't know, designed to make pear-shaped women in comfortable shoes feel better about themselves.
	Who knows?
	But he says, take a look at her.
	Look at her.
	Look at her words.
	What do you think?
	I don't think so.
	Now, one defense, of course, against somebody saying that you made unwanted sexual advances to them is to say they're not my type, right?
	So if I said some gay guy, if some gay guy said I made sexual advances towards him, I'd say, well, I'm not gay.
	So the odds of that are somewhat diminished.
	So if Trump has a type, you know, and all of his wives have been models, I think, and he hangs around a lot of models and he's been in charge of the Miss Universe contest and all that kind of stuff.
	So, you know, the guy likes a pretty woman, a beautiful woman.
	And if he does not feel that the People magazine writer fits into that category, then he's not her type.
	And you see, it's only if you're on the right that you get attacked endlessly for judging women by their appearance.
	The fact that Leonardo DiCaprio, while looking increasingly homeless himself, hangs around with a lot of models on yachts, that doesn't matter, because you see, he's for the liberal agenda, so he could be as shallow as he wants.
	And also, for those who were younger, back in the day, the Clintons, when Monica Lewinsky made these allegations against Bill Clinton, that he had a sexual affair with her, Well, they mocked her appearance.
	But, you know, this is the kind of two-faced stuff that is almost inevitable to come out of the leftists.
	So I just wanted to mention that.
	Okay, so this idea that President Obama has cut the deficit by two-thirds, which is something that Hillary Clinton praised in the last debate, it's pretty messed up accounting.
	And if you start it like halfway through Obama's first year in office, then you get to count in this...
	Stimulus package, $862 billion.
	A massive, you know, that porculus or the omnibus spending bill.
	The TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which, you know, Bush signed into force and all of that.
	So if you're getting a massive tidal wave, I guess you can cut the deficit.
	But the other thing that's important too is that you can cut your deficit by adding to your debt.
	Now, given that the debt has gone up, I really don't believe that anyone's cut any deficit if the debt keeps going up.
	So let me give you an example.
	I have two credit cards.
	I owe $1,000 on one credit card, but I only have $500.
	So what I do is I borrow $500 from the other credit card and use it to pay off the $1,000 from my first credit card.
	So you see, I've cut my deficit.
	Look, I've paid my bills this month because the $500 is not due till next month.
	So look, my deficit has gone down by 100.
	I have no deficit.
	Completely zero.
	Zero percent deficit.
	However, I've added to my debt by borrowing money.
	So you can cut your deficit by adding to debt by borrowing money to shore up your spending in the here and now, deferring your liabilities to the future.
	So again, doesn't really mean much.
	Donald Trump's saying, why do you keep telegraphing what it is you're going to do in the Middle East?
	Like, you're saying, well, we're going to invade Mosul.
	You've been saying that for months.
	And he said that the people have already left.
	Now, of course, that doesn't mean that everyone who's the bad guys in Mosul have left.
	But the top leaders have left.
	And the military leaders seem to concur with Donald Trump's decision.
	So, yes, you know, if somebody says to you, a plane is going to fly into your house tomorrow...
	Well, you're not gonna spend tomorrow at home, are you now?
	So, it's really not that complicated.
	Hillary Clinton said that the Clinton Foundation spends 90% of the money that's raised on behalf of programs of people around the world, in America, and so on.
	And according to some estimates, and we'll put the links to all this below, the Clinton Foundation has spent as little as 6% of its total income on actual charitable endeavors.
	You know, there's a lot on salaries, there's a lot on travel, there's an enormous amount on office supplies for reasons I can't quite figure out.
	And, of course, there is some outsourcing of it, so the charity work could occur outside the Clinton Foundation, but this 90% thing does not appear to be true, even remotely.
	Now, she's very upset.
	Hillary Clinton was very upset that most of the gains in the last years, since the Great Recession, have gone to the very top.
	The very top!
	So yes, up until a year or two ago, the top 1% of earners in America got 90 or 95% of the income gains during the Obama presidency.
	So she's really condemning Obama here, I guess, and herself, since she was a major part of the government at the time.
	So again, she's not an outsider.
	And this is Donald Trump's point.
	You've got a lot of experience, but it's all bad experience.
	So if she's complaining...
	About rising income inequality at a time when she was a senator, and more than just a senator, like the most famous senator, the most prominent senator, somebody who can always get the mouthpiece.
	She's got a bully pulpit based upon her history with Bill Clinton and in the White House and so on.
	So she is a hugely famous, hugely prominent politician as a senator, and then of course Secretary of State, very powerful position, chief diplomat in America.
	So she had a great pulpit with which to fix all of this stuff.
	And so if she's complaining...
	That there's been this income, widening income inequality, when she was part of the government.
	I don't know.
	It's just like, you're driving a car, you crash the car, and then you say, the car has seriously crashed.
	That was really terrible.
	I can't believe what a terrible driver that was.
	It's like...
	But you were driving through the car.
	Now, of course, one of the reasons why the income gains have gone so high to the richest is because the stock market has...
	I guess you could say recovered, you know, in that a cocaine addict recovers from withdrawal by getting more cocaine because the Federal Reserve, sorry, it's kind of one of the same in many ways, but the Federal Reserve has been, you know, pumping huge amounts of money into the banks and a lot of that's been finding its way into the stock market, so that's been going Through the roof.
	Now, of course, a lot of the Democrats are saying, well, you see, the fact that the stock market is going up is proof that Obama's policies are fantastic and wonderful and working.
	But of course, when the stock market goes up, it's the richest to benefit in general.
	So you can't say it's a great policy and then it's really bad because it increases income inequality.
	Actually, you can if you're in liberal land.
	But those of us who like a smidge of consistency with our side of integrity, notice that these two things don't really work well together.
	No, the war-mongering stuff is really, really important.
	She appears to be the war candidate.
	So, I've got some messages from people.
	I can't verify this stuff independently.
	I'll just sort of pass it along.
	The USMC Battleforcer 300 are now going to be permanently stationed in mid-Norway, in Trondelag.
	So, the northern part of this is seen as a strategic buffer zone, and this is new.
	I mean, there have been American military personnel in Norway before, but not like this.
	This is arguably the start of something bigger.
	There are a lot of NATO exercises occurring, more frequent, have a lot more material.
	Now, the material of these NATO exercises are things like M1A1 Abrams tanks, Heavy armor and armaments and so on.
	And that is really, really important.
	There are multiple Cold War era nuclear bomb-safe mountain storage facilities being filled up with tanks, artillery, trucks, and many other military vehicles.
	And this is startling stuff.
	It's like this weird deja vu for me because, of course, I spent the 80s, 70s and 80s terrified of a nuclear war.
	You know, you watch the day after, you watch threads.
	I mean, this was...
	It was pretty hard to get motivated for math tests when you thought that you might just be a nuclear shadow any day.
	But I may make a case here.
	This is really, really important.
	I have lizard brain, spinal base level contempt and distaste for the mainstream media.
	And one of the reasons for that is the media protection of people like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is one of the things that helps lead to war.
	When governments can't pay their bills, what are they going to do?
	Are they going to fess up and say, well, you know, we took all of this social security money from you for many decades, but we spent it all.
	We spent it bribing you to make it look like we were adding some value to the economy.
	So there's nothing left.
	And sorry, we can't pay it.
	And, well, of course, people will go kind of crazy.
	Now, people, tragically, in the moment, right, because they go to government schools, they're very easily led.
	People are willing to make sacrifices if they believe there's a big enough cause.
	People are willing to make sacrifices in wartime.
	Men will go and risk their lives.
	Women will live on ration coupons and will, you know, the Second World War.
	It was almost impossible to get stockings.
	And women would like paint lines on their legs and pretend they had stockings.
	But people hunkered down.
	They accepted being bombed.
	They accepted having little food.
	They accepted curtailment of medical.
	Because there was a war.
	And everybody needing to pull together in a state of emergency is something that people are actually willing to do.
	Now, the longer that people are kept out of reality, the longer they're deluded and lied to and shoved into a matrix of impossibility, the less disciplined they become, the more dependent upon the brain-eating, semi-nutritious drip of endless media propaganda they become.
	Become dependent on it.
	It becomes their drug.
	And reality is addictive.
	Now, the media, by refusing to focus on the fact that the government, and this is true throughout the Western world, we'll just talk about America for the moment, governments can't pay their bills.
	They can't possibly fund their unfunded liabilities.
	There's no conceivable way this is ever going to work, that this is ever going to happen.
	Winter is coming.
	There's going to need to be an enormous amount of readjustment of people's expectations.
	And this can be managed.
	People can deal with this.
	They can hear this.
	They can say, okay, well, we kind of accepted this lie.
	We kind of accepted all of this nonsense.
	We kind of knew that things couldn't continue.
	We knew the size of the national debt.
	I mean, most people do.
	There's a big giant clock up in New York.
	There's stuff all over the internet about the size of the national debt.
	It gets mentioned all the time.
	And so everyone knows.
	You can't possibly pay it.
	You can't even remotely possibly pay it.
	So people can start preparing.
	And they can start getting close to community.
	They can start doubling up.
	They can start saving.
	They can start storing up food.
	There's lots of things that people can do to prepare for the winter that is inevitably coming, which grows out of the fetid summer of people's fantasies.
	So, if the media were actually preparing people for the truth, for facts, then the governments would have an option.
	Governments would have an option other than war.
	So by feeding into the fantasies that somehow all of this mathematical impossibility and this endless eating of the future and the fact that it's late fall and the farm family in the middle of nowhere in the 13th century has already eaten their winter storage and their seed crop, but somehow everything's going to be just fine.
	This fantasy that things can continue in any recognizable way.
	is making the population incredibly hysterical and reactive towards any kind of reality.
	You know, when a harsh truth knocks on the door, But a seductive fantasy beckons you with a negligee into the bedroom.
	Which one are you going to go with?
	Okay, she turns into a Conan-eating witch, but nonetheless, which way are you going to go?
	And so when the media seductively pretends to everyone that impossibilities can become real, that numbers that endlessly diverge can somehow meet together, that resources that aren't available will somehow magically materialize in your lap, Well, they are feeding into the unreality of the population, which translates into a hostility towards reality.
	Now, a hostility towards reality means that the government Does not have the option of a soft landing.
	Doesn't have the option of saying, look, I looked at the numbers.
	Here are the numbers.
	Let me make the case.
	You can do this very easily.
	Ross Perot did it back in the day.
	You can make this case in like three minutes.
	Even if we taxed all the rich people in America, you couldn't pay the national debt for even a tenth of a percent of it.
	So there's no way to do it.
	It's all debt.
	It's all unfunded liabilities.
	It's all been a lie.
	It's all been a shell game.
	It's all been a Ponzi scheme.
	And previous politicians in the media lied to you about it, but you knew the truth, right?
	Give people the responsibility, right?
	You knew the truth.
	If you vote, then you are responsible for looking into the issues, and this is one of the most obvious issues.
	The national that's been talked about forever.
	But by telling people that what is impossible becomes possible, they make people the enemies of the possible.
	The enemies of tightening their belts, the enemies of restrictions, the enemies of things like privatizing certain aspects of the government, lowering taxes, lowering spending, getting people back into the workforce.
	You have drugged people with unreality so long.
	It's sort of like...
	You know, you go to a movie, and maybe it's some, I don't know, some foreign movie that takes place mostly at night.
	And you go to an afternoon show, like 1 o'clock, right?
	You come out at 3 o'clock, and it's a bright, sunny day.
	Well, you've been lulled into, you know, your pupils are, you know, wider than a Kardashian's legs.
	And then you come back out, and there's like, the light, it burns!
	You feel like a vampire.
	Ah, migraine!
	Well, so you've been lulled into the darkness for a couple of generations now and the bright light of reality.
	Well, everything gets cracked.
	That's how the light gets in.
	And the society is broken.
	And the media pretending that it's not is giving people the fantasy that any imposition of reality is an act of hostility.
	This is really important.
	So if I have...
	I remember when I was a kid.
	Personal story time.
	Maybe this will help.
	So when I was a kid, I couldn't afford gloves.
	It was cold.
	And I remember going dirt biking with a friend of mine.
	We were like 12 or 13 or whatever.
	And in hindsight, he may have been slightly dick-enabled, but my hands were like frozen claws on my bike.
	It was just like pedal dirt bike, not pedal dirt bike.
	Something I assembled in seven different colors, you know, like an Adam Sandler song about bikes.
	But my hands were like frozen claws.
	And this guy had these big giant, he was a hockey player, big giant woolen mittens.
	And I'm like, wooden gloves, woolen gloves.
	And no, they weren't woolen, actually.
	They were big nylon things, big, you know, looked like something off a NASA spaceship.
	And I was like, oh man, can you just let me wear those for two minutes?
	And he's like, why don't you bring your own?
	Of course, I was, I didn't want to say I can't afford them or whatever.
	But at least he only had one pair of gloves.
	Now, if he'd had two pairs of gloves, like he had one glove on his hands and another glove sort of in his pockets, and I said, listen, can I wear your spare set of gloves for a few minutes?
	Well, if he'd said no to that, well, that would have been pretty hard to accept because, you know, it doesn't cost you anything.
	I can wear them, and what's the harm, right?
	Now, if he didn't have any gloves, then for me to say, can I use your gloves to warm up my hands, would make no sense because he didn't have any gloves, right?
	So in the same way, if the media pretends to the people that the impossibilities can continue, that somehow they can continue to get food from an empty larder, and they can continue to get water from a desert, then what happens is when politicians say no, when the media is saying, just give it to them, you've got tons, you've then what happens is when politicians say no, when the media is saying, just give it to them, you've got tons, you've got tons of extra pair of gloves, their hands are cold, give But if there's a belief that the gloves are there, and the politician says no gloves for you, then people get angry.
	If there are no gloves, they say, okay, well, there are no gloves, right?
	I mean, only crazy people get angry in the face of reality.
	But when you pump people full of unreality, you provoke rage against limitations which are real.
	But everyone pretends that they're not.
	I mean, if you literally fantasize that you see two gloves in your friend when you're dirt biking, you ask to borrow one set to warm up your hands, and he says no, of course there are no gloves.
	You can't get upset about him not lending me something he doesn't even have.
	But if I think he's got gloves, like a whole backpack full of gloves, and his gloves on his ears, and then when he says he can't lend me a glove, I'm going to get angry.
	So this unreality provokes rage against reality.
	When you sell people fantasies, they view reality as a rip-off.
	And so the government, because the media is lying so consistently to the people about what is possible, what resources there are and are not in society, the unsustainability of everything that's going on, because the media is lying to people, what choice, what options do government have other than war?
	Well, again, they have other options, money printing and repudiation and so on, which I guess we can cross our fingers for.
	But one of the big issues that Hillary Clinton seems to be pushing with this warmongering with Russia is war.
	So in this way, like, why do I dislike the media so much?
	Because they lie to people so consistently.
	They give governments no choice, but extreme choices when it comes to dealing with the fact that governments are running out of money.
	Because governments can't tell people the truth when the media keeps lying to them.
	I'm not saying that governments would necessarily, although there have been examples of it in the past.
	So that's really, really important.
	That if you are not contributing to people's accurate view, Of the world, of the resources, of government debt, of unfunded liabilities, of deficits.
	If you're not contributing to people's slap them in the face with the wet fish of reality to wake them up from this media delusion which is going to end in conflagration.
	If you're not out there waking people up, you are contributing to their addiction to unreality, which brings nothing more than a self-destructive and perhaps even world-destructive rage against reality.
	You know, people who rage against inevitable limits are crazy immature.
	It's like having a tantrum.
	We may expect it with a two-year-old who can't have some candy.
	But when people can't get what they've been promised, when the promises are all falsified, when the resources to give them what they've been promised simply don't exist, Which is a combination of the media lying to people and the people then lying to themselves.
	There is self-delusion along with the sale of delusion.
	They are contributing enormously to the drive to war.
	Because in a war, you can't pay the bills of your excess population.
	You don't have enough money to cover the entitlements expected by significant portions of your population.
	What's one solution?

▲