Dec. 26, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
38:03
3540 Treason Against Western Civilization | David Knight and Stefan Molyneux
Stefan Molyneux joins David Knight on Infowars to discuss terrorism due to the European Migrant Crisis, the treason of radically changing demographics, rebuilding Middle Eastern countries, the history of the Federal Reserve and the impact of central banking within the United States of America. 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
So I want to get Stefan Molyneux's comments on this.
And of course, he's the founder and host of Free Domain Radio, the largest, most popular philosophical show in the world.
You'll find it at freedomainradio.com.
You can also find him on YouTube at youtube.com forward slash freedomainradio and on Twitter at Stefan Molyneux.
Thank you for joining us, Stefan.
Thanks, David.
Nice to be with you again.
So I'll wish you a Merry Christmas, even though...
Merry Christmas to you and your listeners as well.
Yes, yes.
I mean, isn't this amazing, the things that we have seen this last week?
And the very disturbing video, we talked about this yesterday in the Alex Jones Show, of this mother who was preparing her seven-year-old and nine-year-old girls.
And she's clothed top, you know, head to toe in a burka.
You can't see anything about this.
So there's this dark...
Figures shrouded in black, giving her blessing to these girls.
And then one of these girls goes off and they remotely controlled a, there was a seven-year-old girl, they think it was one of the two that was in this video.
They have a remote control suicide bomb that kills three people in a police station.
I mean, this is a cult of death, isn't it?
Well, of course, this is the great challenge that is occurring in the West at the moment.
And the governments, of course, are supposed to be charged with protecting citizens.
And to some degree, that means protecting demographics.
There are countries, many countries throughout the world, that would consider it a significant act of treason to fundamentally change the demographics of the country.
And, of course, you don't see lots of social justice warriors screaming at China or South Korea or Japan to bring in alternative ideologies and ethnicities.
In Mexico, there's actually written into the Constitution that no law should be passed to fundamentally alter the demographics of the country.
And, of course, since 1965, that has been the goal of the elites throughout the West.
And I think that the blowback is starting to manifest, it seems, almost daily these days.
Yeah, and then we see people like Gert Wilders who speaks out.
He was convicted in a show trial, a politically motivated show trial, that he had a political rally, and he said, would you like to see more or fewer Moroccans?
And the crowd says, less, you know, fewer.
And so they said, that's hate speech.
You're inciting that against a group, and that's racism.
He says, well, Moroccans are not a race.
Yeah.
Islam is not a race or whatever.
He said this is a discussion about immigration policy.
And then at the same time we see this article that's on Infowars today.
Just 2.8% of the 1.2 million migrants that have been brought in by Angela Merkel and the German government even have jobs.
Who's to say whether those are real jobs or not?
And here you see with Geert Wilders, it is a policy question.
It is a policy question in a democracy.
And then it suddenly becomes hate speech.
If you look at the...
The statistics for criminality by Moroccans in his home country, it is, let's just say, not entirely in line with the rest of the population.
So here we have a politician in a democracy asking for feedback from the population on policy proposals.
That is labeled as hate speech.
And that, of course, for anybody who's interested in democracy or any kind of sensitivity of politicians to the wishes of the people, that would be a huge concern.
But, of course, the elites aren't interested in that.
Surely it would be something you would put to a referendum, something like immigration and changing demographics and bringing ideologies that have had some certain problems when they've gone into other countries throughout the world.
Surely that would be something you would put to a referendum, but of course the left is no more interested in democracy or in listening to the people than they are, for instance, interested fundamentally in gay rights or women's rights or whatever, as we can see from the kind of groups that they align themselves with.
Exactly.
And as we look at this story further, they had Joachim Müller, who's the director of the IAB in Germany, said if we get 50% of these immigrants coming in, get a job, that would be a huge success.
I mean, they're not looking, I mean, that would be 600,000 immigrants coming in that are still living off of the government, living off of the taxpayer.
But there's no way they're going to get 50%.
As it says in the article here, it'd be an illusion to believe that even 5% of them would get jobs.
It said back in July, they said 55 out of 1 million had gotten jobs, and 50 of those jobs were working at the post office.
Here's what you said right there, that they're not real jobs.
I mean, we're not talking about 55,000 out of a million.
We're not talking about 550 out of a million.
We're talking about 55, and 50 of those are at the post office.
Yeah.
Well, here's the basic way that I look at it, David.
It goes sort of something like this.
Either of these people are the people coming in from the Middle East and so on.
They're highly competent, very intelligent, very easily able to learn the host country's language and cultures and customs and willing to integrate and willing to work and so on.
In which case, very, very high quality people that are being removed from the host countries that at some point will need to be rebuilt.
At some point, these conflicts are going to de-escalate.
And of course, a lot of the migrants aren't even coming from war-torn countries or countries with rebellions or revolutions.
So at some point, these countries are going to need to be rebuilt.
Now, if we are taking all of the best and brightest out of these countries and moving them to Europe, what that means is that there are that many fewer people who are able to rebuild the countries afterwards, which is only going to exacerbate the conflicts and the hostilities.
And so that's one possibility.
Let's say that half of these people do get jobs.
Well, what that means is that you have hundreds of thousands of people suddenly entering a marketplace in the West.
And what is that going to do?
When you have an oversupply of labor, it drives down the price of labor.
And what that means is it becomes less valuable to have a job and more valuable to be on welfare.
So this is all very, very fundamental to understand.
And nobody's thinking about it, at least at the elite level, in the long run.
And fundamentally and finally, if you want to help people in the Middle East, and I have for many years railed against the untold evils of meddling in foreign affairs of foreign countries, of course, domestic affairs of foreign countries, invasions and manipulations of elections and all the stuff that's been going on from the West for invasions and manipulations of elections and all the stuff that's been going on from the West for decade upon decade has been brutal and has resulted in the deaths of millions of
The body count from the West towards Islam is much higher in terms of the victims of Western imperialism.
But we want to help people in the Middle East.
Fantastic.
Then what we do is we send money over to help resettle them in the Middle East.
You can help 12 people.
To resettle in the Middle East for exactly the same money you spend to bring one person into the West.
And in the Middle East, they have, of course, the same religion, they have the same culture, they have the same customs, they have similar languages and so on.
Again, I'm not sure to say they're all the same, but it's certainly more similar than it is between the Middle East and Germany or France.
So if you want to help people, help them where they live and don't take all the best and brightest out of the countries, which is only going to exacerbate continuing tensions into the future.
And as you said, rather than creating all these regime changes, which have been disasters in Libya and in Syria, when I look at all the catastrophe in Aleppo and people get angry about it and they want to blame the Syrians and the Russians or they want to blame ISIS or whatever, it's like, understand that ISIS was our surrogate when I look at all the catastrophe in Aleppo and people get angry about it and they And just like Madeleine Albright, who when she was asked was the death of half a million children because of your actions, was that worth it?
She didn't dispute that they had died.
She said, yeah, it was worth it.
We don't really care about what happens to these people.
So you want to talk about the Aleppo boy?
We'll talk about the half a million children whose faces you did not see that Madeleine Albright destroyed and then that Hillary Clinton created this Aleppo situation.
So if we really want to help the people, you're right, Stefan.
We stop the wars that we have created in those countries, and we allow them to rebuild their countries with their people, and just stop the regime change that we're doing.
But they're not going to do that.
They're going to continue to use ISIS as our surrogate in that area to overthrow the Syrian government there and create this catastrophe that we've seen.
Oh, and if you ever really want to break your heart, and I think it is a useful thing, a useful exercise for people to do, go on the internet and look up pictures of, say, Iraq or Iran in the 1950s and the 1960s.
You see women in bikinis, you see women going to colleges, you see all these kinds of wonderful things.
It's so important to understand the view of the empire from outside the empire is radically different.
You know, the Death Star from the inside looks like a disco, but from the outside we see it for what it is.
And so there's so many things that go on in the West.
The propping up of dictatorial regimes around the world.
The selling of arms is a huge issue around the world.
You can't say, well, we need a national defense because the world is a dangerous place, and then go around being the biggest arms dealer in the world, arming everyone and their dog.
I mean, you can.
It's just a horribly hypocritical position to be in.
And of course, there are drone strikes.
There are massive bombings that have occurred in Iraq as well.
I did a presentation called Iraq, a decade of hell, where I traced just how much was destroyed in Iraq as a result of an extremely misguided, if not downright falsely motivated invasion.
The invade everyone, invite everyone equation is going to result in, I think, untold suffering around the world.
And we're already seeing it happening throughout Europe, in the Riviera, in the German Christmas market.
But the Washington Post says this refugee crisis could actually be a boon for Germany.
You know, 55 jobs out of 1.2 million.
Stay with us.
We'll be right back with Stefan Molyneux.
Stefan, you know, we're talking about The immigration issues.
We look at this attack that happened in Germany this last year.
And as you're pointing out, there's a lot of people who are very valuable to their country who are going to be needed when we stop fomenting the wars in those countries.
And yet, we're not able to vet the people who come in.
When I look at the situation in Germany, they're talking about how this individual was someone who was known to them.
He was tracked by them even after he got into the country.
So they didn't vet him to let him in.
But even after he got into Europe, they knew that he had multiple identity documents.
He'd spent four years in Italian prison for crimes there.
Finally, they let him go to Germany.
They tried to deport him in June.
And then the weak and ineffective government in Germany could not get this guy either in prison or send him out, even though he had been found trying to purchase automatic weapons.
I mean, this is absolutely insane.
Their response is to try to step up gun control in the EU even though he used a truck.
So I guess they can't tell the difference between a semi-trailer and a semi-automatic.
Well, it is, of course, desperately tragic what is happening in Europe.
And to me, it comes down to the fact that the left has really lost the argument in terms of empirical data.
And of course, with the rise of the Internet, they're losing the argument because beforehand, through academia and through the mainstream media, you had a lot of filters to keep conservative or pro-Christian or pro-free market or small government or libertarian perspectives away from the masses.
And of course, that was exactly what the leftists wanted.
They are not very good at debating.
I have spent, oh, about three decades plus debating leftists, and they're really not very good, which is why they escalate to hysterical verbal abuse, to attacks, to going after your source.
Of income to try to get you fired.
And they can't win an argument, but they desperately want their particular vision to take root.
Now, in a democracy, you do have to, even in a republic, you have to win arguments in order to be able to enact policy, unless you can change the demographics of the country into a more leftist-friendly or large government-friendly demographic.
And of course, Hispanics and Muslims and so on have a historical tendency to vote significantly for the left.
You'd think, of course, that the Hispanics in California, who were given amnesty by Ronald Reagan in one of the catastrophic decisions, I would argue, of his presidency, that they would say, wow, thanks, Republicans.
You have our loyalty for just a little while.
But no, in general, the vast majority of Hispanics are going to vote left.
And so they want to change the demographics because they can't win the argument.
And they can't win the argument because socialism fails everywhere it has been tried.
Collectivism fails everywhere it has been tried.
Well, I shouldn't say.
It wins in the short run.
It's kind of like cocaine.
I'm happy.
Oh, wait.
I'm broke.
Yeah, people need to go to Venezuela to see how that works out.
You know, the people who don't understand the concept of lines, you can go to Venezuela and you can get in line for everything.
And then when you get up to the front, you'll find out they don't have it after you've been waiting in line there.
But you said something that was very interesting at the beginning of this.
You talked about how they kept all these issues away from us.
I remember a time when there was no dispute between real news and fake news.
You had three mainstream CBS, NBC, you know, and they were putting out this narrative that was unified.
They would cover the same stories, tell you the same things about those same stories.
And coincidentally, it was the same thing the government was saying at the same time.
They don't like to have a situation where people have to use their minds to distinguish between real news and fake news.
And Snowden himself came out and said, you know, you really don't want the government being the arbiter of what true news is.
It's much better if you use your own mind.
Boy, what words of wisdom.
We're going to be right back with Stefan Molyneux.
And we're going to talk a little bit about fiat currency.
Because, again, this is the anniversary of the Federal Reserve being created 103 years ago.
That's the epitome of this, and that's how they get their power, through the central bank.
Stay with us.
We'll be right back.
Welcome back to The Alex Jones Show.
I'm David Knight, and we're talking to Stefan Molyneux.
He's the founder and host of Free Domain Radio, the largest, most popular philosophical show in the world.
You can find it at freedomainradio.com.
You can also find him on Twitter at Stefan Molyneux.
Stefan, one of your favorite topics is fiat currency.
And of course, it was 103 years ago today, while much of the Congress was gone, that they put through the Federal Reserve Act.
And as I said before, it's the gift to the global elite that just keeps on giving.
Here we are.
Three years after the fact.
Let's talk a little bit about fiat currency and what we can do with it.
Of course, the first thing that we would love to see is for a President Trump to audit the Fed and ask them some uncomfortable questions as we saw the questioning, the uncomfortable questioning of Alan Grayson with the inspector general that was charged with oversight of the Fed.
She couldn't answer where nine trillion dollars went.
Sorry, we can't look at that.
And then there's another trillion dollars that's not accounted for on the books of the Federal Reserve.
But let's, you know, $10 trillion here or there amongst friends.
Who cares about that, right?
This is the global scam that gives them their power, isn't it?
This is the greatest tragedy of the 20th century was the abandonment of gold-backed and silver-backed currency.
Now, whether that would be replaced in a free society with some form of electronic currency, I'm sure that they would exist sort of side by side.
But it's really, really important for people to understand that governments tend to abandon their limits on currency, right?
They tend to abandon a gold standard when they wish to either bribe you or get you killed.
It is really that simple.
And, of course, in many ways, bribing you is just deferring the day of reckoning.
So, of course, in the First World War, the Western powers abandoned the gold standard because otherwise they would have had to end the war because they ran out of gold.
So they had to switch to paper currency.
They had to switch to fiat currency in order to continue the mass slaughterhouse of the Western Front and, of course, the Eastern Front as well.
So this is really important.
And we saw that in the Civil War, too.
We saw that in the Civil War.
We had both the North and the South have to go to paper currency in order to get through.
That was the first time we had a fiat currency in the United States was Lincoln's greenbacks.
So they always, as you point out, they run out of gold so they can keep the killing going.
They go to a fiat currency and start printing up paper money.
Right.
And what it does is it drugs people as to the economic consequences of what is going on in terms of the promises.
So the government will promise you a whole bunch of stuff.
And then, as we can see in Venezuela, when they don't have the money to pay for all the stuff that they promised, they just start printing more money.
And then they start restricting private ownership of gold because they want to scoop it up or at least manage it in the society.
and that fundamentally destroys your freedom.
There's a story, of course, I've read, as many people have, in the Weimar Republic of a man who took his life savings, cashed them in during the hyperinflation and took the wheelbarrow of money across the street and was able to buy a cup of coffee with everything.
So his entire life savings have been stripped from him.
It is a form of absolutely sinister and subterranean theft and it allows the governments to pretend that the insane equations of unfunded liabilities that I think of the US are running north of $150 trillion or 10 times the entire GDP of the country.
And it allows the governments to pretend that the insane equations of unfunded liabilities that I think of the U.S. are running north of $150 trillion or 10 times the entire GDP of the country, it allows them to kick the can down the road a little bit more.
And it allows them to give you the illusion of something for nothing.
And that fundamentally subverts democracy.
In democracy, you can vote on things, but the consequences of what you vote on should accrue to you, particularly if you're a taxpayer.
But if you can vote for free stuff and have the bills flow down to the next generation, that is intergenerational theft, that is a Ponzi scheme, and is fundamentally counter to the rational decisions that need to be made with scarce resources in society.
And of course, you're talking about that famous situation of the Weimar Republic where he's got the wheelbarrow full of cash.
We're seeing that happening now in Venezuela.
We've got people that are having to go from one ATM to the other because the ATMs don't have enough cash so they can get basic groceries.
But then of course there's not any groceries in the stores at the same time.
That's the pattern that this always goes down.
And of course, we've seen this play out over and over again.
There's not much coverage of what's going on in Venezuela.
Absolute total chaos.
They have taken control, as we saw in Venezuela.
First, they took control of a lot of private resources, of foreign oil companies.
And everybody said, oh, that's great because these are big companies.
We're fine with that.
But then they ultimately turned that over to themselves.
And that's essentially what we see going on in a larger scale with the IMF and these other...
They're trying to do what was called rent-seeking.
We had the rebuilding of countries after World War II with the Marshall Plan.
But then when, in the 1960s, the IMF started going in and started making loans to these countries...
To create welfare programs that they could never pay back.
And so they turn them into renters.
They take over possession of their country, which is what's happening in our country as well.
Everything that they print is a debt to the American consumer.
And so we're just going further and further into debt to this small private cabal.
Well, here is the, I think, the real hypocrisy of the media and the legacy media, as it's sometimes called, which is not hard to see.
But where it's invisible, it's worth shining a light on it.
Because the mainstream media is not talking much about Venezuela, as you point out, David.
And the reason for that is that the mainstream media was very, very keen on one Hugo Chavez when he got into power.
And they thought he was doing wonderful things with nationalization and with growing the government and expanding the civil service and making all of these promises to all of these people about everything he was going to do for them.
Because I don't know if leftists live in this magical fantasy land where resources rain from trees, you know, like the way that baby food gets scooped into your face when you're a toddler.
But because they were also pro Hugo Chavez and they have mounted a multi-decade propaganda against Augustus Pinochet of Chile.
And you've seen endless, endless...
Now, he was a military dictator.
However, he did have some very good free market reforms, which is why Chile is doing very well relative to Venezuela.
So once more, they claim to care about the poor, and they're demonizing a man who helped bring Chile into the 21st century economically.
And they're covering up the crimes of Hugo Chavez, who has helped to destroy a once prosperous nation.
As if the socialists don't have militarized governments as well.
You talk about, yeah, Pinochet is militarized, but look, the economy prospered there.
So the militarization is kind of a wash because both sides are doing that.
But we saw that happen with Bernie Sanders.
And remember that clip that was 30-some-odd years old where he was just gushing with enthusiasm about the Nicaraguan Sandinistas?
And I used to call him Bernie Sandinista because he never...
Never disown those people.
You know, he actually praised these people.
We had the people come after Donald Trump about Ku Klux Klan because the Ku Klux Klan guy said, hey, I like Donald Trump.
It's like, disavow him, disavow him.
And no matter how many times he would do it, they would keep coming back at him.
But nobody ever asked Bernie Sanders to disavow the Sandinistas and the communists and the policies that he endorsed that we've seen now come to fruition in Venezuela.
And he never did.
Well, of course, Trump has to repeatedly disavow a guy he's barely heard of.
Yeah.
Who's, you know, considered to be someone who was part of the KKK at one point.
However, of course, the fact that the head of the Communist Party in America seemed to be enormously keen on Hillary Clinton.
And I would guess I think that the death count of the KKK was a couple of thousand people.
Tragic enough.
Look at that compared to the death count of worldwide communism.
And the idea that the only person you'd focus on is David Duke rather than the Communist Party as a whole.
Again, it just shows you the in-group preference and the sort of very Rousseauian, noble, savage, primitive tribalism, which to me is what the left fundamentally represents.
They claim to be progressive, but every solution they have is going back to coercive tribalism.
It just shows you again the hypocrisy.
And that's the beautiful thing that alternative media is doing.
Soon to be the mainstream media is it is disassembling these false narratives in real time.
And this, of course, is why the legacy media is turning to the state to help control alternative voices in the same way that, you know, crazy religious people will turn to the government to suppress other religions because they simply can't handle it in the free market of ideas.
And so we now have the fake news narrative that they've created.
I believe this was something that was a tactic that they had already decided upon.
They included Donald Trump as part of this because they didn't expect to lose the election.
But they were already working on this legislation.
Three years ago, they removed the prohibitions on propagandizing Americans with the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe.
You know, that was part of the prohibition.
Say, well, we're going to create these propaganda arms, but we're not going to allow them to actually broadcast into America.
Well, they repealed that three years ago.
We said, we know where this is going.
We had Matt Drudge come here, tell us that he had Supreme Court justices tell him where it was going.
This, though, is exactly the tactic they were going to use.
But how absurd that they've got people like Brian Williams, who is going We should tell us about fake news and he's going to attack other people as being fake news.
This is why they are collapsing on every front.
You see all of these mainstream media organizations that are collapsing.
The only one that doesn't seem to be is the one that Washington Post that is flush with cash from Jeff Bezos.
But they have lost more credibility than anybody because of the ways that they have manipulated the news, obviously, to everyone who takes a look at it, the way they've manipulated the news in this run-up to the Trump election.
Oh, David, here's how sad it is, and here's how pathetic the left is and this sort of general collectivist socialist mentality.
So they control the family in general because, of course, there are family courts run by the government that are pretty male hostile, and you have no-fault divorce, and you have alimony, child support.
They've messed up the family quite a bit.
They control academia.
They control the media in terms of the entertainment media.
They control the mainstream media in general.
They control government schools.
I mean, just everywhere you go, you're in this hive mind of leftist collectivism, and they still can't win against people with webcams and good arguments.
That just shows to me what a fragile and weak position it is and how they need to keep expanding control over other people's voices in order to pretend that there's any kind of legitimate debate.
Yeah, it's very interesting, too.
We had this article from Daily Mail yesterday talking about how Facebook is going to cut down on what they consider to be hate speech.
And listen to the contradictions here.
This is something that came out of a German newspaper, SZ Magazine.
Claim that they gained access to Facebook's secret rules for deleting hate speech and offensive content.
I know you're going to love this, Stefan.
According to them, the phrase effing Muslims is banned, but if you say effing migrants, that would be allowed if it falls into a quasi-protected category.
Posting migrants are dirty would be acceptable on the site, while migrants are dirt is not, writes the magazine.
Then you could say Irish women are dumb.
That would be breaking the rules, according to the magazine that saw these rules.
While if you say Irish teenagers are dumb, would not be, because terms like teenagers, retiree, and youth do not get special protection.
This is the way they're playing with our language to achieve their goals.
This is going to destroy Facebook if they do this type of thing, and rightfully so.
Thank you.
Well, let me put forward a radical idea.
It may be entirely too alarming to your listeners, but let me put forward a radical idea about how we might deal with these kinds of things.
Rather than have computer algorithms, rather than have a bunch of Cheeto eating lefties on a couch determining which is fake news and what is real news, I've got a radical idea.
Let's all bring our best arguments to the marketplace of ideas and let people judge for themselves.
Let's just throw the doors wide, turn on the sunlight, bring the worst ideas, the most horrible ideas, the most offensive ideas.
Let's bring them into the general marketplace of ideas.
Let's hash it out and let everyone see just how terrible these ideas are.
Because if these ideas are so terrible that they must be banned, well, surely we trust the people enough because we all know how well they've been educated by the government.
We trust the people enough to know what are bad ideas and what are good ideas.
Let's just throw the doors wide.
Let's bring everyone in.
Let's bring the most offensive people in.
Let's give them a big microphone.
Let's let them make their case because people are smart enough to figure out what is a good idea and what is not.
Now, if people aren't smart enough to figure out what is a good idea and what is a bad idea, I fail to see how we can have any kind of representative democracy because that's the whole point of democracy is trying to figure out a good idea from a bad one.
They just want to do the thinking for you.
I've said often that you have two types of people, those who admit their bias and those who don't.
OK, because everybody has bias.
You have bias even in the stories that you choose to report.
Even if you try to do it as objectively as possible, there's going to be a bias that works its way in because you're going to think that story A is important, whereas story B is not.
That's a bias right there.
Somebody else might decide at a different news organization that the other story is more important.
That doesn't go reported.
So everybody has their bias.
And so for years and years, when we just had those three networks and the government and they were all telling us the same thing and there was no discussion about what's fake news and what isn't because everybody was reading from the same script and.
I used to go to the heavy opinion journals so I would get National Review and The Nation and I would compare the two of them and let them give me the arguments on both sides.
And that's really what a thinking population needs to do.
And so in a sense if we can have this discussion about real news and fake news this could work out to our advantage as well.
Because we're going to be able to talk to people and say, well, compare these two things side by side.
And that's what we try to do when we give people stuff that is completely different from what they're hearing from the mainstream media.
You do it as well.
We document this and we say, well, here's, you know, and here's this information that I got from the New York Times.
So deal with it.
You know, this is what this really means in the overall context.
Well, there is a cycle to these kinds of things, David, as I'm sure you're very well aware, which is that those of us who have non-leftist opinions, if you've went your way through higher education, as I did, I ended up getting a master's degree, you have to really, really work hard if your ideas are not mainstream in academia.
So if you say the capitalists exploit the workers, you don't need to provide any footnotes because you're appealing to a lot of the leftist biases in a lot of the professors.
On the other hand, if you say capitalists do not exploit their workers, then you better make a really good argument with really good footnotes so you can get past the skepticism of the lefty professorship.
Exactly.
And so basically, if you're two runners and you're practicing for a race and one of you is running downhill in a gentle decline...
And the other one is marching up at a 45 degree incline.
Well, who's going to win the race?
The guy who's had to work a lot harder in his training.
And this is the general cycle that is occurring.
The left has gotten lazy.
They decided not to win the case, not to win arguments, simply stuffed the ballots with immigrants, illegal and legal.
And basically what's happened is they've gotten lazy.
They've been in control for so long that the lean, mean fighting machines of the non-leftists are able to take them down pretty easily.
And now, since Gamergate, that the right, has found its voice and is willing to hit back, I think they're seeing the differences in training that has occurred over the past few decades.
That's a good point.
As you pointed out, they're educating the kids, and so all you had to do for the lazy left was speak to their confirmation bias.
If we wanted to do something else, we had to get very adept at research and documentation and argumentation and debate in order to push something that was contrary to their bias that they've already been taught.
And the amount of time we got, we got another segment that's coming up.
We're not going to be able to finish this here probably, but...
I want to talk to another aspect.
We talked about fiat currency.
Let's talk about another aspect of the Federal Reserve, and that is the way they manipulate the economy, not just through the currency, but through these rate increases.
Now, we've just had the first rate increase in, I think it's only the second one in a decade, I believe, that they just announced.
And they announced that they're going to do another three next year.
And we've seen this whole thing before with the rope-a-dope done by Alan Greenspan, where he did, and I can't remember the number, it was something like 12 rate decreases in a row, held it for a second, and then did 17 rate increases in a row over a very short period of time.
Looks just like a regular step.
It was like every quarter he was raising it, the interest rates.
And that created a kind of rope-a-dope bubble to pull people in.
And then he burst that bubble out.
Is this what they're trying to do now with Trump?
Are they trying to manipulate and push back against any advantage that we might have with a reduction of taxes and regulations by increasing interest rates?
This, of course, is the great danger of getting a free-market-oriented kind of fellow into power.
And this would, of course, have been the case with Ron Paul or other people, is that the embedded power structures, and in particular the fiat currency power structure, which is where so much of government power derives, well, think of them as an organism that's cornered, and they will lash out.
And so there's a reason why you could say post-JFK... Presidents have not really decided to go after the Federal Reserve because the Federal Reserve has a hand grenade called interest rates, called money printing, and they can, I think, choose to do things that would be extremely deleterious to the country.
And because not one person in a thousand in America or throughout the West understands the incredible power that central banks have over the economy, they think we're in some sort of free market.
But if you don't have a free market in currency, you don't have a free market at all.
Everything else is just tertiary.
Absolutely.
We've got to go to a break.
Stay with us.
Hang on, Stephan.
We've got to go to a break.
We've got a hard break.
We'll be right back with Stephan Molyneux.
I want to continue this.
Joining us again is Stephan Molyneux, founder and host of Free Domain Radio, largest popular philosophical show in the world.
As he points out, he's gotten millions and millions of views in his Truth About video series that looks at an unbiased...
Objective facts regarding current news stories and historical events.
You'll find that at Free Domain Radio, as well as he's on Twitter at Stefan Molyneux.
Now, Stefan, we're talking about the rate increases.
You pointed out nobody's really seriously challenged the central bank since JFK. There's reason for that, I think.
The first person to challenge the central bank was Andrew Jackson.
He had an assassination attempt on him as well, but he survived that.
The central bank did not survive Andrew Jackson, but they did weasel their way back in.
These rate increases are something that I think is going to be a key tactic as the left fights back in the next year.
There are, I think, two groups that are currently at war with the way things are going with regards to Donald Trump.
The first, of course, is the leftists, and they are ideological.
In other words, they truly believe that rich people are rich because they've stolen from poor people, and there's no bell curve in intelligence, and everyone's the same, and all inequalities arise from exploitation.
They fully double down on that ideology, and they're just going to fight using whatever tactics they have.
On the other hand, though, there are the pragmatists who use leftist ideology to do the classic Marxist divide and set people against each other and destroy the family and all this kind of stuff.
Now, the pragmatists, I think, are going to have some sympathy for what Donald Trump is doing.
Because if there's any indication from what's been happening with the Dow and what's been happening with the retention of jobs in America as a result of Donald Trump's phone calls to particular people...
Then what's going to happen is the economy is going to improve under Donald Trump, and the people who are in charge, they don't want to milk the cow until it dies.
You know, they don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
So there are the useful idiots on the left who are just going to double down on their philosophy no matter what and don't have any long-term survivability but are just ideologically programmed.
But there are, in some ways more sinister, the people who are in charge who want to stay in charge and recognize that they do need a boost to the economy in order to continue being in charge.
And I think there is going to be a conflict between those two groups in terms of supporting Donald Trump in the short run versus trying to take him down from an ideological perspective.
Hang on, we're going to be right back with Stefan Molyneux.
We've got another five minutes with Stefan.
He's graciously accepted to stay on.
Welcome back to The Alex Jones Show.
I'm David Knight, and we're talking to Stefan Molyneux in this last segment.
And as we went to break, Stefan, you were talking about how there's two different groups that are going to be there in Washington.
We're going to have leftist ideologues and pragmatists.
I want to get to those leftist ideologues here.
We need to talk about the Obama transition team because Obama is not going to go away.
He's made it very clear he's going to operate a shadow government.
And we've seen...
Things that are really unprecedented in this country.
Usually there's what they call a honeymoon period.
After the voters have voted, most of the time the opposition will kind of lay off and kind of lick their wounds and kind of reassess the situation.
Not so in this particular case.
Right away, riots in the streets and so forth.
Now we see Obama saying that he's going to remain in Washington.
This is something we've not seen since Woodrow Wilson, that we've had a president remain in Washington.
He's also had some of his key advisors, like John Holdren, say, I'm not going anywhere.
I'm going to be here to speak out against anything that Trump does against our climate change agenda.
and we've had Obama announce that he's going to get with Eric Holder and he's going to challenge redistricting plans throughout the country because we have so many Republican legislatures that have redistricted to their favor just as the Democrats always do.
So he's going to try to overturn in the courts what they couldn't win at the ballot box.
And then he's also talking about how he's going to coach young talent.
So we've got all of these different aspects here, his youth core perhaps, if you want to look at it, or identifying the next group of leaders.
But they're coalescing into a shadow government.
This is something we haven't seen before.
Let's talk a little bit about the ideologue left.
you Well, I mean, my argument has been, David, for a long time that all Donald Trump's victory has done is buy his time.
It has not solved the problem.
It has simply bought us some time.
In the same way that McCarthy, in the 1950s, going after the intense Soviet infiltration of the State Department and other departments within the U.S. government, bought some time.
It did not solve the problem, as we can see, with the endless revivals of Marxism that comes back like whack-a-mole till your arm falls off.
So we do need to stay.
I think the job for the alternative media is to continue to bring good reasons, good arguments, and very passionate and powerful diatribes, if that's what's necessary, to the masses as a whole to help bring them to a more rational state of mind.
Because sure, the left has their particular agenda, they have their particular goals, and they're not going to give up.
The left never sleeps, they never give up, they always double down.
And so we need to be resolute.
You know, as the old saying goes, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
Trump has bought us some time if he's able to achieve what he wants, and even if he's only able to achieve 25% of it, which is pretty good for a lot of these promises, he's bought us time.
And what we need to do is take that time to continue to educate, take the continuing freedom of speech that we possess to continue to educate people so that we can build a more philosophical groundswell against leftism rather than just like, Oh, well, you know, the economy's improved a little, and that's all great, but that's the effect of pursuing particular moral values like protection of property, freedom of speech, and so on.
Let's continue to educate people on that so that we can disarm the left fundamentally rather than playing whack-a-mole with each policy proposal.
I agree, and I think it's actually kind of a good sign, just like I said with fake news.
If we can have this debate as to what's fake and what is real, I think we're going to win that debate.
If Obama and the leftist ideologues are going to double down on this, as they indicate they're going to do, rather than looking and saying, you know what, the country has kind of understood some things about how globalism isn't working out and some of these other policies that they don't like, so we're going to try to adapt to that and try to shift the party a little bit.
No, they're not going to do that.
They're going to double down.
They've already done it in an unprecedented way.
I think that's going to be a very good case for us because I really do think this is a fight we can win, Stefan.
Oh, absolutely.
You know, I was thinking about way back in the day, David, if you wanted to pursue the truth outside of the mainstream agenda before the internet, you were just a crazy guy in a library.
And, you know, now, of course, we've been able to join hands.
You know, before we were kind of individual stars in the night sky.
Now there are lines between us and we're turning to constellations that can actually tell stories and undo mythology.
So I think we absolutely have been handed an incredible...
