 Now there are other interpretations of the strategy. So let's let's talk about the interpretations. One is for about a week two weeks, there's been a You know big conflict between Nancy Pelosi and the Squad these four congresswomen by the way four congresswomen three of them born in America that he's referring to three of them born in America So there's been a squabble between Nancy Pelosi and the squad and for most of that week Donald Trump actually was embracing Nancy Pelosi and Saying no no Nancy Pelosi is not because the squad was claiming. She was a racist She didn't like women of color and so on and there's this big fight within the Democratic Party. You'd think That that would be a good thing for Republicans So John Trump was supporting Nancy Pelosi and you could argue one of two things here the Donald Trump put out these tweets in order to Support Nancy Pelosi and put these people in their place this these congressmen in their place out of support for Nancy Pelosi and thus Continue the squabbling within the Democratic Party and within You know that's gonna rip the Democratic Party that is ripping the Democratic Party apart And if that's the case then he probably misfired because if that's the case then the opposite happened What happened is that everybody rallied around these against these tweets and rallied against him on the Democratic side And they were all made peace, right? They've all made peace for the sake of You know attacking Donald Trump being against Donald Trump Now an alternative explanation could be that no He wanted the Democrats to unite Because he thinks that there's these four Democrats ultimately gonna destroy the ability of Democrats to win in 2020 both local elections and the national elections and in that case you could argue He succeeded But that's giving Donald Trump a lot of credit I don't think that's what Donald Trump is after think about how Donald Trump functions And you know again, I don't want to spend a huge amount of time on this but think about how much how Donald Trump functions Donald Trump takes an issue Where There is a real issue. There's a real problem Let's take these four congresswomen. These four congresswomen are nasty They're really really really bad Ideologically they have horrible ideas They are they they are in many respects socialists. They're the most socialist of the Democrats They're anti-American. They're anti-Israel. They're anti-American military. They're just Truly ideologically Despicable they're bad bad people with bad ideas and morally condemnable you know The one who came from Somalia who's here's a refugee to escape she hates this country The country that is given a life that made a life possible for her and her family and she hates it. I mean that is Truly despicable now. I don't say She's despicable because she's Somali. I don't say she's despicable because of where she came from I don't say she's despicable because of the color of skin or even her religion She's despicable because of the idea she holds because of the statement she makes because of what she actually argues about So you can criticize these women these women are bad. So he takes an issue where there is something truly bad and then He takes that and he uses it To make a bigger statement in this case a racist statement in this case a statement About where they come from and they're belonging to a particular group a country Now I know as somebody is commenting on the chat I know that by criticizing anybody people can call me a racist But there's times which legitimate to call somebody a racist and this times it's illegitimate to call them a racist criticizing somebody for their ideas and For their moral character is now racism. I don't care what color skin you are Criticizing somebody because of where they were born is What's at least a form of collectivism of nationalism An ugly ugly ugly primitive form It's not where they come from that determines the character of their ideas indeed again Three of these were born in America went to America schools American schools But it is their character their choices their ideas that make them what they are, but you take that you take a legit potentially legitimate criticism and You spin it into a much broader criticism that plays into your nationalist xenophobic theme and you rally the troops and you get people excited and You get everybody interested Right and people agree with you who agrees with you as Donald Trump says some people like this tweets That's who he's targeting That's who he's talking to he also tweeted 12 hours ago our country is free beautiful and very successful if you hate our country if you are not happy here you can leave Okay That's true. Although, you know now we're taxing people to leave. We're making it more difficult for them to leave but So what and if I'm criticizing the country do I hate it? I know I mean I've been told I've been told that Somebody says it is strategy work. No, it didn't work He is now labeled himself and being labeled a racist and look He's been labeled a racist Democratic party is unified in attacking him. They're not unified internally The the the the the disenfranchisement the the the the disagreements among them will continue. Yes It worked in it rallying his base, but what is the purpose of working to? reinforce a xenophobic nationalistic racist strategy Hitler was very successful and I'm not saying Donald Trump Hitler. He's nowhere near as smart, but But so what if something works? Communism so-called work for 75 years That's not the standard by which we evaluate what's good and what's right and what's just so the fact that it worked even if it did work depends on what you consider work is irrelevant Irrelevant to evaluating what Donald Trump we are not pragmatists. I'm an objectivist I'm not a pragmatist and I don't think it worked not if you believe in making America great again This is making America You know, this is making America what this is making America Terrible again, this is making America racist again. This is making America xenophobic again This isn't making America great again. This is the opposite. So if the real standard is the success of America Then it failed and it is failing and it will fail He says if you come after the president the country the flag He's going to defend himself What the squad doesn't like is that Donald Trump is enforcing the very laws. Okay, that's the immigration laws Yeah, the question is are you coming after them for the right work or not? Okay, so this is this is my broader point What Donald Trump does is he mixes a legitimate issue? these four women have really really bad ideas with a Really bad issue racism and he combines it and That's People don't know what to do exactly. They don't know which I you know uses this is called in You know, I recall this a package deal. He creates a new package deal and He uses that and people don't know what we hate these women But what Donald Trump sounds a little racist, but he's criticizing these women and they should be criticized But is this the right criticism? Oh, well, let's support Donald Trump because these women are really bad And we should go after them and by doing that you embrace The racist ideas that he's articulated because you land up supporting him and his ideology He does the same thing with immigration. There's a real issue on the southern border right now No question, but no nobody is talking about real solutions to the issue on the southern border Nobody's talking about changing the laws to really make This issue Resolve itself. They're real problems with immigration real problems. I mean, it's ridiculous that young children are crossing the border Alone it's ridiculous that anybody Just can file for asylum as if it's some magic word but Are we rewriting the laws? Are we? You know, are we redoing? Comprehensive immigration reform. Are we attacking or we really redoing asylum? Are we? Addressing the core issues No, instead we're using it opportunity to scare people about these people now While I think there's a real problem on the border. I don't think it's a problem of oh my god These motorists and rapists are coming into this country. Oh my god. Mexicans are replacing you No, it's it's chaos down there. That's ridiculous This isn't how you run any kind of immigration policy, but We can't even get to that because he's mixing a real problem with illegitimate issues and Combining it into this fear-mongering and people see the real issues and they adopt His interpretations of them. They see these four congresswomen and they adopt his interpretation of these congresswomen They see China. They're real issues with China theft of intellectual property Oppression of all kinds of minorities in China Potential organ harvesting of prisoners all kinds of rights violation, you know huge surveillance state that we are problems with China Trade deficit is not one of them, but let's lump them all together and then oh, yeah We need tariffs because they're oppressing Muslims or we need tariffs because they steal IP or there's no relation between The two things So he constantly does this right he constantly points to a country and uses a people or uses an issue where there's legitimate concern and Then he focuses attention not to the legitimate concern, but to an illegitimate concern trade imbalances Round people coming replacing us or crime crime is not a big issue when it comes to immigration or Where there's countries that these women came from not a legitimate issue their ideas are so You know he he uses this and that's his genius if you will that's his brilliance is his ability to manipulate people like that he is a people's person a manipulator of people and To that extent he is a horrible person. He is an immoral person He's a pragmatist who can only think about Does it work? Not is it moral? Is it right? He is a manipulator who is leading the American people down a very very very ugly dangerous path Well, the new intellectual then you would you would imagine to be a fairly recent Other than any this type in the past you can remember that you would like to point out What type I would hold as the new intellectual well only to name a few historical Examples in the most general way Aristotle is the man I would talk as take as the first intellectual in history in the best sense of the word the founding fathers were Americans America's first intellectuals because they were thinkers who were also men of actions They were the man who knew that a reason is men's dietary Reality that men can achieve an ideal way of life on earth by means of his reasons and that men requires Freedom in order to be guided by his judgment and his mind that men should deal with one another By trade by persuasion, but not by force and compulsion. It's the founding fathers who established in the United States of America the first and only pre-society in history And the economic system which was the corollary of the American political system was capitalism the system of total Unregulated laissez-faire This was the basic principle of the American Way of life or the American political system, however in practice It has never yet been practiced at total separation of government and economics Had not been established from the first it was implied in principle But certain look hold or contradictions were still allowed into the American setup and into the American Constitution which permitted Collectivist influences to undermine the American way of life and today it is Practically collapsing today. There is nothing left except an undefined tradition the active intellectual direction of our society at present is Anti-American and anti-intellectual it is going back to the primordial mysticism of dictatorships and rule by force Therefore the new intellectuals now should be those men who will stand up For two fundamental values the value of their own life of their inalienable rights of their self esteem their independence and The value of a non coercive free society in which men do not use force against one another