Jan. 22, 2018 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
18:39
3968 Sen. Cory Booker's Unhinged S**thole Breakdown! - Rebutted!
Democratic Sen. Cory Booker recently launched an emotional unhinged torrent of verbiage towards Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen before a Senate committee. Stefan Molyneux breaks down Cory Booker's breakdown and debunks many of the assertions he made while "mansplaining."Your support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
So kind of a fiery slash hysterical face-off between Cory Booker, he's an American politician, junior United States senator from New Jersey, he's been in office since 2013, and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Christian Nielsen.
And it was about this meeting, of course, that Trump had with a bunch of others where, according to a guy, President Trump suggested that Haiti, some African nations and several Central American nations might in fact be shitholes.
No recording, no audio, no video.
The president and many others who were at the meeting say explicitly that President Trump did not use That language.
But hey, what does that matter when there's a narrative to serve?
So the first reports of the comment were reportedly made by very liberal Senator Dick Durbin from Illinois, who has a history of lying about meetings that he has attended, private meetings.
But nonetheless, it becomes true, extraordinarily true, so that nobody has to talk about Project Veritas these days.
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Christian Nielsen was also at this meeting in the White House, and she told reporters recently that she does not recall any shithole country comments.
Now, this guy named Cory Booker, he was grilling this woman, and this woman was under oath.
Now, the fact that she was under oath is kind of important.
See, if you're a Republican and you're under oath...
It might mean something.
There might actually be consequences.
And so if you're a Republican under oath, you kind of have to be really, really careful about what you say.
Unlike, you know, if you're a Democrat under oath or say, let's say that you say, well, I'm going to report all foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation if you're making Secretary of State and so on.
Well, those don't have any consequences.
So, hmm. Perjury, eh, you know, if you're a Democrat, it's fine.
If you're a Republican, even a mistake can cost you big.
So let's talk about what this Booker said, Cory Booker said, and then we will, well, break down a few facts, which hopefully will put things in context.
So he said to her, the commander-in-chief in an Oval Office meeting referring to people from African countries and Haitians with the most violent vulgar language, see right here, Right here we have a problem already.
He did not refer to people.
He refers to countries.
Let's say that it's true. I don't believe it's true.
One or two... One guy says it's true.
Everyone else denies it. But let's say it was true.
Let's say that Trump referred to these countries as shitholes.
Well, what makes a country a shithole is, in general, the government.
So he's not referring to the people.
He's referring to the country, which is generally defined by the laws, the government.
Like, for instance, how do you know...
This is a sort of pop geography quiz.
How do you know there are two countries side by side?
How do you know that there's Heishi and the Dominican Republic on the same island?
Answer is, there's a border.
Now, what is a border? A border is where the legal dominion of one government ends and the legal dominion of another government begins.
The country is defined by governments and the applicability of law in a particular geographical area.
So when you refer to countries as shitholes, you're generally saying they have terrible governments, not every individual.
Anyway, so what does it matter?
These are just It'd be nice if somebody in the government knew about all of that kind of stuff, but that may be too much to ask.
Booker went on to say, A thought language festers.
I couldn't figure it out, but basically this language festers.
When ignorance, he said, and bigotry is allied with power, it is a dangerous force in our country.
I actually completely agree with that.
And it may be a little bit surprising to some of you that I do agree with it and which way it goes.
So, he says, your silence and your amnesia is complicity.
Now, again, if you're under oath, if you say...
If the president never said that, and let's say miraculously there was some recording or whatever it is, then you can be accused of lying under oath.
If you say, I never heard the president say that, and then somehow it shows that you were within earshot and so on.
If you say, I don't remember the president saying that, then no one can deny you.
These people don't wander into oath without talking to their lawyers first.
And so there's a couple of things.
You only talk about your own personal experience.
You don't try and reference objective facts.
This is an old thing from the West Wing, right?
The lawyer asks Allison Jenny's character, do you have the time?
And she looks at her watch and says, one o'clock.
And he says, that is the wrong answer.
Somebody says, you're under oath. Somebody says, do you have the time?
You say, yes. Bare minimum of responses.
Now, another way that they get you if you're under oath is they ask you to repeatedly describe something, and then if you use any different words or there's any different context or anything like that, then they can get you for contradicting yourself, and then they grill you more, and it becomes more of a problem.
Well, was your past statement true or is this?
They don't reconcile. So what you do is you describe something once, and when people ask you, again, you say, I refer you back to my previous statements on the matter.
And I would assume that Cory Booker knows about all of this, and it would be nice if he gave her a smidge of a break on that, but it does not appear that that shall be imminent.
So, your silence and your amnesia is complicity.
See, for him, for Cory...
It absolutely is true that Donald Trump referred to every single person, including those Americans from those nations, according to that epithet.
It's absolutely true.
It's complete evidence of racism because, Lord knows, we've never seen a Democrat in the past attempting to elicit a tearful standing ovation by calling a white person a racist.
It's something new and fresh every day in the world of politics, don't you think?
So then he goes on to say, right now in our nation we have a problem.
I don't know if 73% of your time is spent on white supremacist hate groups.
I think he meant to say supremacist.
He says, I don't know if 73% of your time is spent concerned about the people in fear in communities in this country, Sikh Americans, Muslim Americans, black Americans.
The fact pattern is clear of the threats in this country.
So this is a standard leftist talking point that these groups in America live in absolute terror of the giant white Nazi white supremacist party that doesn't exist in America.
I shouldn't laugh because, I mean, it's horrible accusations and serious stuff.
But this idea that this big, giant white supremacy movement exists and is a major threat is, you know, you could say, talk about, this guy's from New Jersey.
New Jersey has designated Antifa as a terrorist group.
So you could talk a little bit about leftist terrorism.
You know, people of color and Muslims and Sikhs, they can have speeches without...
Well, being beaten half to death, having biclocks thrown at them or hit with biclocks, and having their speeches disrupted and so on.
But leftist violence against conservatives is extraordinarily high.
It is very dangerous to go and give a speech at any event.
That threatens any leftist narrative.
I gave a speech a while back ago at a men's rights conference, wherein I had to speak under a bomb threat, that the building had been threatened with a bomb.
And, you know, of course, nobody wants to hear about that, because the really, really important thing is white supremacist violence.
That is the big, big thing.
Now, as far as, let's just say, black communities living in fear, well...
That is a problematic statement.
So, just going back a couple of years, 2013.
So, in 2013, there were about 660,000 crimes involving blacks and whites.
There's violent crimes involving blacks and whites.
Now, in the violent crimes that involve blacks and whites, blacks were the perpetrators 85% of the time.
I mean, I'll do the math for you.
So, in 2013, a black person was 27 times more likely to attack a white person than a white person was to attack a black person.
27 more times.
But you see, the big danger...
Is white people attacking black people?
You see, the data says it's 27 times more likely if there's a violent crime for a black person to be attacking a white person.
27 times. But you see, now, in Cory Booker's world, it is real that blacks are under constant threat from white supremacists, as he says, white supremacists.
But the data seems to be a little bit different.
In 2013, among these violent crime interactions between the races, a Hispanic was eight times more likely to attack a white person than it was for a white person to attack a Hispanic.
Nonetheless, apparently all of these communities live in absolute terror of white people.
And in 2014, New York City, right?
Let's look at New York City. A black, 31 times more likely than a white to be arrested for murder.
And this, actually, people say, oh, well, you know, but they're just arresting blacks like crazy.
No, this number accords with the crime victimization survey, where people say, yes, I was the victim of a crime, or I knew somebody who was a victim of a crime from a particular racial group, and so on.
So, black, 31 times more likely than a white to be arrested for murder.
A Hispanic was over 12 times more likely.
Now, this is crime. It's called shooting.
This is firing a bullet that hits someone.
A black was 98.4 times more likely to be arrested than a white.
Hispanic, 23.6 times more likely.
Now, this again is facts.
This is data. And if New York City was all white, the murder rate in New York City would drop by over 90%.
The robbery rate would drop by over 80%.
And the rate of shootings...
Would drop by 97%.
In other words, there would be 3% of the shootings now if New York was all white.
Now, if it was all East Asian, like Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and so on, those numbers would be even lower because whites commit crimes more so than East Asians do.
Just looking at Chicago, if Chicago was all white, murder would decline 90%, rape by over 80%, and robbery by 90%.
Now, as far as black communities living in fear of white people, well, again, the state is a little older.
In 2005, 37,460 white females were raped or sexually assaulted by a black man.
That's quite a number.
I'll just tell you again.
37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man.
The converse, how many black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man in the same time period, right, versus over 37,000, between 0 and 10.
They don't really track numbers that low.
But again, you see, Black communities live in terror of white people.
So, in the United States, just in 2005, over 100 white women a day were raped or sexually assaulted by a black man, and basically zero black women raped or sexually assaulted by white men.
Now, this guy, you know, I mean, he's got a little bit of crazy eyes and so on.
I mean, it's almost like he can't stop himself.
Like, they avoid contrary data.
They genuinely believe this narrative of this horde of white supremacist Nazis roaming the countryside.
But, of course, this is the reality.
And he seems sincere. He seems passionate.
Perhaps a little theatrical, but I want to talk.
But he genuinely believes all of this stuff.
It seems real to him.
Doesn't look at the crime statistics kept by various American government levels.
And believes, of course, that all discrepancies in arrests are due to massive racism.
No other information can be allowed into the narrative.
And this is a huge problem.
So, in his interrogation of this woman, he says, I hurt you.
Where Dick Durbin called me, I had tears of rage when I heard about his experience in that meeting.
And for you to not feel that hurt and that pain and to dismiss some of the questions of my colleagues saying, I've already answered that line of questions, when tens of millions of Americans are hurting right now because of what they're worried about, what happened in the White House, that's unacceptable to me.
Being hurt. Being hurt.
I don't know. This offense, you know, somebody's upset, therefore whoever upset them is wrong.
Well, I mean, I was grown up told that I was part of a patriarchy, that I'm racist for being white, that I'm a misogynist for being male.
I mean, precious few people cared about offending me or upsetting me, and I just find this, I'm hurt, I'm angry, therefore I should get my way.
A polysyllabic tantrum is still a tantrum.
Neither is an argument. And again, he says, when she refers back to saying, I've already answered that line of questions, well, that's what you do when you're under oath.
You don't tell the same story twice.
You have to say, if somebody asks you about something you've already answered, you say, I refer you back to my previous statement.
That way you don't end up...
Quote, contradicting yourself because you use a different word.
Standard operating procedure. So he goes on to say, there are threats in this country, people plotting.
I receive enough death threats to know the reality.
And then he talks about other colleagues of his who receive death threats.
And that is true.
That is tragic.
And he's got security.
He's got protection. His family have received death threats.
Terrible stuff. He's certainly not alone in that.
I mean, the Republicans, when they were practicing their baseball game, a guy from the left came up and gunned a whole bunch of them down.
And that's pretty significant.
That was left-wing violence against conservatives.
Again, if you're going to look statistically, that's where you want to go.
And you just have to ask yourself, If you had to pay for security for an event where a leftist spoke at a university versus an event where somebody who was a conservative spoke at a university, which bill do you think would be higher?
Which, if you wanted to save money, which talk would you offer to pay the security costs off?
So he goes on to say, I've got a president, the United States, president of the United States, whose office I respect, who talks about the countries of origins, my fellow citizens, in the most despicable of manner.
You don't remember, he says to this woman, you can't remember the words of your commander-in-chief.
I find that it's unacceptable.
I mean, it's interesting.
If you struggle to get out of a country and go through the enormous amount of paperwork in order to get into America, let's just assume he's talking about legal immigrants, then clearly...
You desperately prefer America to your country of origin.
Now, does that mean it's a shithole?
No, that's a coarse phrase, and there's no evidence at all that Trump used that phrase, President Trump used that phrase.
But clearly, if you come to America, it's because you think that America is vastly preferable to the country that you left.
If you trade, let's say you end up in Minnesota from Somalia, well, It's a little colder.
And, well, it's New Jersey, or as soon as Minnesota.
And so, clearly, you have crossed half the world.
You've given up your large sections of your culture and your history and your country and your climate and so on.
And you're risking new germs, although you're more likely to bring them.
Yeah, there is a vast preference.
It's sort of like if I had some ex-girlfriend who was some, you know, crazy stalker.
Let's just sort of go to an extreme example.
I'm happily married now, just past 15 year anniversary.
So I have some ex-girlfriend who's nuts and was difficult and abusive and I had to flee in the middle of the night and have restraining orders and all that kind of stuff.
And then somebody says, you know, that ex-girlfriend of yours is kind of crazy.
If I get really offended, well, I did work really hard to try and get out of that relationship.
And it's kind of hard to be hugely upset at anybody who denigrates a country that just about anybody would try and get out of.
And of course... I mean, you look at Haiti, it is a mess.
I did a whole other show on this.
It's a complete mess. And, of course, people know that.
They don't go on vacation. In Haiti, all these people who are like, oh, he said what?
He said what? They don't go on vacation. Think of Hollywood.
Think how much money Hollywood could save by shooting movies in Haiti.
I mean, it would be an amazing thing for them to do.
So, there is a great divide.
It's a great divide.
There's a great divide in that Americans of different ethnicities live in different worlds in many ways.
They live in different worlds of cause and effect.
They live in different worlds of facts and of data.
They live in different worlds of perspective.
They live in different worlds of real versus perceived threats.
And this is a great divide.
And this great divide escalates often to the level of enormous and sometimes intractable conflicts, We have to kind of agree to meet under the umbrella of facts, you know, like scientists do, right?
They use a scientific method, reproducibility and so on, methodology of turning conjectures into hypotheses, into theories, into unaccepted theories.
Like mathematicians, we have to have a common methodology for agreeing upon reality.
If we all live in our own house of mirrors, if we all live in our own echo chambers, the divide between us is not fundamentally of race.
