Transcript of The Trump Effect: Deprogramming the American Mind--A Film By Agustin Blazquez
PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP- At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America. And through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover...
HONOR GUARD- Order arms!
HONOR GUARD- Arms!
PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP- ...our loyalty to each other. When you open your heart to patriotism there is no room for prejudice. Whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots. We will reinforce all the alliances and form new ones and united the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorism. Which we will eradicate completely from the face of the earth. Your voice, your hopes, and your dreams will define our America destiny. And your courage and goodness and love will forever guide us along the way. Together, we will make America strong again. We will make America wealthy again. We will make America proud again. We will make America safe again. And yes, together, we will make America great again. Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America!
LAURENCE JARVIK- The Trump Effect is what I think is the deprogramming of the American mind. And I think Donald Trump's election was really electing the deprogrammer in chief. And I think there's been a lot of misunderstanding about Trump, and a lot of fear about Trump. And, some of the fear mongering has been intentional. But I think there's also been a lot of misunderstanding about who he is, where he comes from, and what he's trying to do. And I think if we really understand The Trump Effect, we'll understand that rather than having any reason to be fearful of a Trump presidency, we have a great opportunity to be happythat we're going to have a president who's gonna able us to relax and not be fear. Because in fact, we've been living in fear, in my opinion, since September 11, 2001. And the destruction of the World Trade Center, the attack on the Pentagon, showed America is terribly vulnerable, despite spending trillions of dollars on national defense. And there has been no successful response in over 15 years. Trump, coming from New York City, represents the very geographical location which came to symbolize 9/11. And coming from the construction industry, obviously represents the very industry that was most affected by 9/11. He builds high office towers. And hotels and giant monumental buildings. And that's what attacked by our enemies Al-Qaeda on 9/11. So I think his running for president is symbolic, it's personal, he's from New York. He's not really a traditional Republican. He was a Democrat most of his life. He's not a born again Christian. He's some kind of moderate Presbyterian He's been married several times. He's certainly not a racist. He had Mohammad Ali at one of his weddings. He had Michael Jackson living in his building. By any normal evaluation a New York liberal on the liberal end of the spectrum. As far as being anti-gay, you can see as somebody joked on the internet, just from the way Trump Tower is decorated that he must know some gay decorators. So thatthere's no question that he's not a bigot, he's not a racist, he's not a homophobe. He's not an Islamophobe. He himself says he has Muslim business partners. He has projects in Muslim countries. He's not an isolationist. When people say, "Oh Trump is an isolationist." They fail to say that his hotel chain is called Trump International Hotels. He's got an international business, which operates internationally. You can't be an internationalist and isolationist at the same time. So one after another the misconceptions about Trump need to be dispelled. And I think people really have to realize what Trump is most of all is a realist. And until now, I'd say from 9/11 to now, the country's been living under a series of fantasies. And not had a realistic leader. Whether it was President Bush, whether it was President Obama. Trump represents the realist approach, a non-ideological approach. And we've previously had ideological of various stripes. And so that's why I want to say in my opinion. Because Scott Adams says he's the hypnotist in chief and others say the persuader in chief. But I think what's important is his role to me as a deprogrammer. Because I think Americans have somehow been programmed, indoctrinated, sort of feed a lot of fantasy ideology, whether in schools, whether in the media, whether in their politics. And he represents a non-ideological, practical approach that is very much in keeping with a New York business background. It's very much in keeping with funnily enough a tradition of the old Democratic Party pre-1968. And, I think you can explain a lot of what he's doing by looking at those non-programmed aspects of his person. In other words he's not programmed, he is who he is. And that's what's so interesting. He's never worked for anybody else, it's always been the family company or himself. He's never lived in anybody else's property until now. Now I think he may have had a property in New York, but they didn't know, but, basically he's lived in Trump properties until now. And so just paradoxically, he was the right man at the right time, because he wasn't encumbered by all the restraints other people had. He didn't have to go through pleasing bosses. He didn't have to go through pleasing superiors. He could do what he wanted to do the way he wanted to do it. Which is really very much of an individualistic approach that Americans used to have. That was American individualism. That was Yankee know how, Yankee ingenuity. And he sort of embodies that pre-1960s tradition of America and hopefully he will be able to break the spell that we've been living under. Because until now I think we've been subject to a lot of misconceptions. Why do I say deprogrammer in chief? Because if you look at the literature on Doctor Nation, mind control, brain washing and so forth, you find that the techniques Trump's using are the same techniques used by de-programmers. First they have to discredit the cult leader. If somebody's following a cult, and I don't want to specify any particular cult, but the de-programmer they take the person away from the cult. They usually put them in a safe house or whatever. And they first try to discredit the leader, by telling you terrible things about the leader. Well he did it with the Clintons and he did it with the Bushes both. And he did it with President Obama, where you personally discredit the leader. The second step is then you show the contradictions between what they say and what they're gonna do on a policy, or an action level. So again he did that. And I think that's where the tweets come in. He's constantly showing you some contradiction over and over and over again, bombarding the public with this information. Part of de-programming strategy. The third stage in which is the tipping point in this is that you have to get the cult member who's being de-programmed to recognize reality. In other words the cult creates a fantasy world that you live in. Once the cult follower is shown the leader can't be trusted, that the policies make no sense and then is exposed to what reality is, the former cult person is gonna begin to think for him or herself. And so Trump has really been carrying out this experiment and de-programming the whole country. Because frankly we have been fed a lot of fantasies up until now, since 9/11. Which was a tremendous trauma, no one knew how to deal with it. People couldn't face reality. Whether you have Bush saying, Islam is peace, everyone wants democracy. We're going to go and, it's gonna be like the Wicked Witch of the West and they're gonna sing the witch is dead, and everyone's gonna live happily ever after. Which didn't happen. Trillions of dollars for that. We had Barack Obama saying equally unrealistic things about, he would pull out the troops and the world would see we're not anti-Islam. So then everyone would be nice to us. That didn't happen either. I think Trump goes, "Let's just deal with things as they are. "Let's find out what's really going on, "and try and isolate the problems and fix them." Because this is what you do. If you're building and the HVAC doesn't work you know you got and go and find the compressor out and replace it and then it can work again. So I think that practical approach is something that is very real. That's where we are now. He's trying to get the country to face reality. And I think this resistance. You know it's funny the term is resistance. The originators of it of course we're thinking of the French Revolution. French resistance to the Nazis. But in fact you could argue there's a psychological dimension to resistance. 'Cause in psychotherapy there's a stage of resistance, where the analysand is resisting facing reality. And so what you have everyone in the resistance is actually resisting reality. They don't want reality, 'cause reality is much scarier than the fantasy world. 'Cause it means America does have enemies. It means there are economic problems. It means there is violence in the inner cities. All these things that you've sort of ignored or wished away or denied are right there and you have to confront them. Trump says we can fix them. But first you have to realize what the problems are before they can be fixed. So this resistance is actually an interesting word, 'cause it tells you a lot about the psychology of Trump's opposition, as well as of Trump's himself. They're almost adapting to his role as de-programmer by resisting him. So Trump's role will be to overcome this resistance. Once the resistance is overcome his opponents can recognize reality, then people can work together I believe, fix the problems. So I'm personally optimistic if he can get through this bumpy, non-honeymoon period and actually begin working to solve problems. I think it could be a very productive presidency. Because he's non-ideological, he's not really right wing, he's not really a Republican. He's practical and results oriented. He's not Hitler. Everything he's done has been purely democratic. If anything the other side with riots, disruptions, has been behaving more like Nazis. So I think we'll see step by step The Trump Effect is gonna be very powerful. We've already seen it, The Trump Effect at the border. Where illegal immigration's already down just in a few days, just by him being elected. We've seen the stock market is up. Again, just by being elected. That's The Trump Effect. And I assume this effect will continue as we go forward. I'm hoping that it won't be too difficult to de-programming. And that's what we're really talking about, the difference between coming out of a fantasy world and moving into a world of reality. And if anything, Trump is a very realistic figure, at least in my perception, not having met him. But I come from New York City, you know. And I've seen his buildings and I think it's interesting what's happening is the New York value as he talks about are real values. I mean it's interesting when that came up in the debate, Cruz tries to use it against Trump, it worked for Trump. It's a shame the people in New York are more loyal to their ideology, to their fantasy, than to their political delusions than they are to geography and history. Which say root for the home team, we've got a New Yorker in the White House. People in New York should support him, just as rooting for the home team. That'll be interesting to see if he can pull that off by the next election because that's traditionally you root for the favorite son. And if there's one thing about Trump he's really from New York. Another thing about Trump which is interesting is he sort of represents the un-university. I mean they say he got a lot of working class support, people who are not highly educate support him. What that means is people who were not indoctrinated. Since 1969 the universities have pretty much become a closed shop, Allan Bloom wrote The Closing of the American Mind in 1987, complaining about what's happening in the universities. And certainly in the last few years any of the old, curmudgeonly professors that were individualists have disappeared and you have basically Cadre who came of age in the '60s, and believed the Weatherman or the Black Panthers or the FMLN, or Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Yasser Arafat, you name it. They believe the purpose of the university is to promote the revolution. And they believe that Communism is good. I was at a talk at a bookstore in Washington by a novelist who wrote a book about Sunnyside, New York in Queens which is a Communist neighborhood. And it had been reviewed by a Chinese American refugee from Communism who said, "Oh this is a great book because it shows how "frightening Communists are." And so he said in his talk, "Oh I don't want "anyone to think that there's anything wrong "with Communism at all." And so that's basically the Gestalt I think in American universities at the highest level. That they're very few people who are willing to say there's anything wrong with Communism at all. Luckily, Trump spent his whole life in the construction industry. He doesn't have any problems saying there's something wrong with Communism. Or any other Totalitarian ideology. And so what you're seeing now is for the first time, somebody who has no particular allegiance or obligation to that constituency. Right before election night there was an item on BBC with Martin Amis and Ann Coulter updating the upcoming election. She said, "Trump's gonna win tomorrow." Amis didn't seem to think so. But he said, "Oh it's been a terrible effect Donald Trump has had on the American people, because people have become disinhibited by what Trump has said. And what did that mean? That mean people felt free to say what they were thinking. Ann Coulter thought that was a good thing. But what's more important in terms of The Trump Effect is that is actually the definition of a liberating effect. If you're freed, you're liberated. So people have not been disinhibited, people have been liberated. Or you can say people have been encouraged. In other words they've been given the courage, to express themselves. Because previously people had been inhibited, which means they have been intimidated. And that means we have been living in a very intimidating environment where people were afraid to speak. That's not the definition of a free society, that's a definition of a fear society. Nathan Sharansky gave some book to Bush right after 9/11. Fear societies versus free society. Well the net result of Bush's response to 9/11 and Obama's was to turn the United States into a fear society, where people were afraid to speak to say the wrong thing. They were afraid somebody would be reading their emails, somebody would listening to their phone calls. They were afraid people would be overhearing what they said in restaurants. They were afraid if they said one wrong thing at work they would lose their job. Well what country does that sound like? It sounds like the former Soviet Union. It sounds like fascist Italy or Nazi Germany. It does not sound like the land of the free and the home of the brave. And Trump's actual ability to speak freely and not back down, encourages people and liberates them and they go, "Hey if he can do it, "I can do it too." Because if you read any of the literature on Totalitarianism whether Arthur Koestler's Darkness at Noon, or George Orwell's 1984, or even Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, it only takes one person, that you can see standing up to the authorities to encourage many, many others. So that's also sort of interesting. Trump, far from being a Hitler figure is a liberator. And you can even say that Twitter plays in that, 'cause one of the things about Twitter was here was this mechanism, which was used by the United States for the so-called color revolutions around the world. And for the so-called Arab Spring that, "Oh we're gonna mobilize the people using Twitter." And Trump came and said, "Hey, we can have a Twitter "revolution right here in the United States. "I'll just tweet." And he just did it. So it's like the Nike ad, just do it. He just did it. And when people said, "He did it." I mean it got to the point that Twitter started censoring people, it wasn't actually a business decision it was a political decision. But it's very interesting 'cause they tried to censor Trump, but they couldn't. So he showed one guy can get away with it. Because up until Trump everybody had somehow been shut up. But Trump wasn't shut up. So he went on to become president. Now other people go, "I can be free too." So I think that is also The Trump Effect, as a liberating effect. Political correctness, you want to talk about the universities which has been dominant in the universities, say at least since 1987 'til today. For the first time has somebody in a position of authority who is willing to say in the words of La Pasionaria, "No pasaran!" You know and then everything's been sort of reversed. The revolutionary, the liberator is Trump. The oppressor is all the establishment in the United States. Which no doubt is very similar to the nomenclatural in the former Soviet Union before Boris Yeltsin and the collapse of Communism. So I think that is a way of understanding what Trump represents in that sort of effect versus the PC. Like Reagan, Trump is a media personality. He came out of television. And a series the Celebrity Apprentice. He's lived his life as a celebrity he's been on Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, he was on the front page of the New York Post when he was young and part of the Studio 54 crowd. Glamorous, high life. I think he'd be a natural for the media to embrace. He's had a lot, provided a lot of copy, a lot of newspaper editors over the years. But strangely despite being an actual celebrity himself, the celebrities turned against him. Now why? Well it's the same thing. He's a dissident. He's gone against the orthodox. As if he were a Communist Party member who left the party, that's the worst possible thing you can be is somebody who knows them and rejects them. He's like a former member of the cult who left the cult. And nobody is more to be despised than a former cult member who turns on you. This was true of ex-Communists, it's true of ex-Scientists, it's true of ex-Harry Krisna, it's true of ex-Moonies, whoever. The person who leaves the cult is a danger to the whole cult because it shows you can survive without the cult. So what do you need to be in the cult for in the first place? Maybe if I'm in the media I don't have to be a leftist. Well that won't do. So I think that's part of the reason is the cult nature of the media. The second thing with the media is they're very politically correct in general. And just by not being politically correct, he creates an irritation. In a way it's interesting 'cause they can't ignore him. The normal thing is you just ignore people. I mean how many pictures has Augustine made and how many of them have been shown on television? None. And what, a dozen. And the reason is you don't exist if you're not part of the party, so to speak. But, with Trump he can't be ignored because he has billions of dollars, he has hotels, he can buy time. And they tried all the usual things. They took away the Miss Universe pageant, boycotted his ties at Macy's, basically tried to make life impossible and he just kept going. So they tried boycotts of his hotels. But it didn't stop him. So the usual tricks didn't work and that's another reason the media is against him. Again you have to put on your cap. If the media were just a business and he gets ratings and he gets copy and he gets attention, and he's an entertainer and he's a celebrity and people watch, what's wrong with that? Why not give him more airtime, why not praise him, why not celebrate him? Because their view is, "We made you, we can break you." Well we'll see. Maybe they didn't make him. Maybe he had another identity through his real estate empire. And maybe they can't break him. I mean we'll see what happens. That's yet to be determined. I would give him a pretty good shot. The other thing about the media that's sort of interesting is these days the media, you know he didn't get any major newspaper endorsements he didn't get any endorsements from any media outlets really. A handful you can count on your fingers. Their authority and legitimacy is sort of on the line. And what happened, what changed was, newspapers used to aimed at everybody. The whole idea was something for everyone. Even the New York Times had genuine Op Eds that were opposed to their editorials, that the Op Eds were published because of Mobile Corporation paying for the Op Ed page during the first Opec boycott. But they had William Sapphire who really did work for Nixon and really was more conservative than your average columnist in the New York Times. And they had a few tokens there even in the most liberal newspapers, because some of their readers and some of their advertisers might not agree with them. So even myself during the PBS debate, they published my Op Ed in the New York Times. Admittedly after the vote was taken, so it wouldn't help. But it was in the newspaper of record, 'cause they go, "Well we have to represent both sides." I don't think they feel that sense of fair play at all operational today are much more partisan. I think this is a result of people in the media now being mostly college educated, many with graduate degrees. From places like the Columbia School of Journalism. And they're writing for their professors and trying to be educated. And the problem is the educational institutions have defined being an educated person these days in a different way. So instead of being open minded, skeptical, trying to see the wide variety, would be a truly a liberal education. Liberal by the way means free. What liberal has come to mean now is again following the party line, that's all political correctness is. I'm looking for deviations from the party line. So the role of the media becomes much more what it would be in any Totalitarian country, where it's simply to denounce and humiliate and insult those who deviate from the party line. Usually the two minutes of hate or whatever from Orwell's 1984, but that's what they do in any Totalitarian country. And that's what they see their role lies. So they're not really working for their subscribers to provide the information they need to make informed decisions on their own. They're truly party organs. That is because it reflects the university being taken over. I was talking to someone I know and she said, "We used to talk about the laboratory of the states "being the laboratories of democracy." You can argue that the universities now the laboratories of the universities are the laboratories of Totalitarianism. So any crazy idea, whether it's white privilege or heteronormativity, or deconstruction, whatever it is, transgender rights, they start in the university. And they're tried out there, microaggressions is the latest, safe spaces, you name it. And they're tried out in the university as a pilot program and they're sort of perfected, then they're rolled out system wide to the whole country subsequently. And so the things we see now in our society, things that were discussed and worked on in universities years ago. Universities not working as true liberal institutions, but truly diverse, faculty looking at a wide viewpoint. But rather as I like to say the higher party school. Where they're just refining the party program to be implemented by the organs after the center decides. So you actually have a neo-Soviet model of education. And that's why you find they can't criticize Communism. And it's all based on party lines. So take Islam. Islam is now considered good. But it's quite possible if the center changes its view subsequently, it will be considered bad. You only have to go back to the 1930s and remember that the Communist Party was pro-Nazi. While they had the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. And it became anti-Nazi after the attack on the Soviet Union. So the party members flipped and they went from being isolationists to interventionists. I mean you could imagine a similar thing happening. The party line is not based on reason, it's based on the unquestioning obedience to the center and whatever the center decides. And how those decisions are made and who is in the center, is still a mystery to me. But it's quite clear when you have universities that have former Weathermen on their faculty and Black Panthers on their faculty, that people are not being chosen on the basis of contributions to the scholarly literature alone. You know that there's some political dynamic which would not be unknown to people. And one of the things about living in the former Soviet Union is now of course, they hate Communism. So you go to Russia, they hate it and they hate feminism and they hate all the things, they hate political correctness, because they suffered under it for 70 years. But unfortunately until Trump we were suffering under it. So the media reflects the ideological project of the educational establishment. Which is unfortunately dominated by the left, the ultra-left and the loony left. There is no, I mean they did some study, like the law schools which used to have a lot of Republicans. They don't have Republicans or conservatives on the faculty anymore. Somebody went to the, I think Glen Reynolds wrote about his on this blog. Went to the American Association of Legal Education or whatever it's called, and said, "Under diversity shouldn't we have "a diversity program for "conservative lawyers and faculties?" And they so far haven't gotten any response. So it's pretty much, you know it's defined as, if you want to teach, you have to be on the left. The problem with that is, it's a self fulfilling prophecy. And it's got nothing to do with education. It's very, very dangerous for a society to let any one group of people take over. That's where Trump comes in where they hate Trump, 'cause he doesn't care, you know. The point is universities are very important, 'cause they train your next generation of judges. is gonna be educated in university. The next generation of government officials is gonna come out of university, the teacher come out of the university. So everybody who makes fun of people who and this is a problem with the conservative movement. They say, "Yeah who cares what happens at university. "What are you gonna do with a degree in women studies?" Well the people with a degree in women's studies are gonna be, first of all the diversity officer, your Fortune 500 company. And making policy on hiring and firing and promotion and controlling the cadre formation there. They're gonna be making the laws, they're gonna be on the courts. And they're gonna be running your businesses. And they're gonna be controlling your destiny as government officials as well. So it's not a joke. It becomes an issue because what seems like a very arcane argument in the modern language association about whether gender is socially constructed or biological, you know, becomes a fight between English departments and biology departments. As Camille Paglia talks about. The English departments won. But, the biology hasn't changed. So you can be for evolution and Darwin in some fields, but not in others. So if you say Darwin believed there were two sexes and sexual reproduction was necessary for the continuance of the species. That's now, you can get fired for saying that in many universities, certainly in English departments. Yet it's in Darwin, so what do you do? So what they do is they ignore that. How does that relate to Trump? Here's how. Trump ran a beauty pageant. There is nothing more horrifying to feminists than beauty pageants. It's a symbol of male oppression. Now he could say it was just the opposite. The most beautiful woman has the most power over men, which may well be the case. But nothing is more politically incorrect than a beauty pageant today. Trump is the president to his own beauty pageants. That's The Trump Effect. Beauty is now okay again. Under President Obama, official line was ugly was good. And you have Leah Dunham, who is not an attractive woman, made into a star and given a series, and there's some quite unattractive people who were promoted. I mean I would even argue the tattooing and all the stuff that went with it the disfiguring of the body, that was also making people as ugly as possible. To show that beauty was not a factor. Which it's been a factor forever and will be, because like we were talking about taste, you want a beautiful room, you want a beautiful hotel, you want a beautiful platter of food. And you want people around you to look good. I mean it's a human desire for beauty. And that desire for beauty is politically incorrect. Because it's counter revolutionary. That's where Trump Effect again comes, people are looking good. What's interesting about Trump is the hotel he built in Washington. Which I know you all have been to and I went to. And one of the most striking things about it when you go there is that it's in very good taste. It is not garish, it is not overblown, it is not over done, it doesn't look like Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas, even though that's a competing casino. It has a very relaxed, tasteful and friendly vibe really that it's welcoming and everything is sort of where it ought to be. There's plenty of couches and places to sit. You can have a meal at the bar if you don't have so much money. You can go to an expensive restaurant if you have more money. And what's most significant about it to me, is it looks it was done very economically. If you look, there's just a couple of chandeliers hanging from pre-existing structural steel beams. A few, little bits of textile for accents. But it didn't actually look like they broke the bank during the renovation. Although it had a very nice effect. So you got a lot of bang for the buck. And you go, "What difference does that make?" Well, that's how he renovates his property. If he carries the same principles forward to the country, it's gonna be very nice. Now one of the things I say Ivanka was the decorator of the hotel, all the better, you know. Because all this, he hates women, you wouldn't put your daughter in charge of a project if you didn't like women doing things. And of course, the Trump business, if you look on Wikipedia, the Trump company was actually founded by his grandmother when his grandfather died. And she ran the company as a real estate business. And it was a woman owned business from the get go, the Trump organization. So he's actually just the heir to a woman owned enterprise, which he continued to build up. So again from the women's point of view, Trump not only likes women and like women in business. And has his family going into business as women. But, he is the custodian of a trust, that is a multi-generational aspect of women in business in his family. So, on every level, the business reflects a vision of what he's gonna do as president, I think it's pretty positive. And the issue of taste comes up because what is taste? And what does taste have to do with politics or society? Something people don't talk about anymore. But taste is that sort of indescribable element that elevates an experience. So that if you're in a place, you know it when you see it. And you go, "Hey, this is in good taste." If this person has good taste with this, he has good taste with something else, it means he has good judgment. So we can say we do have a test. Anyone can go in the lobby and see what kind of judgements, what kind of decisions does Trump make? Not bad. So the hotel is an advertisement for his decision making ability. And the extra lagniappe which they have to add is the Trump hotel used to be where the National Endowment for the Arts, and National Endowment for the Humanities was located in the old post office. So it was a bureaucracy in succession to a previous bureaucracy. And I was in it when it was the NEA and NEH headquarters. And it was a very sad, bureaucratic, ugly place. They had a public conference room that was designed by a famous architect that was very depressing. And it was just a downbeat, dreary, dead, dull, depressing, despondent dungeon. And now it's been it's been transformed into a place you would love to go and have a good time. So that shows again how good taste can transform an arts bureaucracy into a lovely hotel. If he can do that with all the other federal bureaucracies we'll be in great shape. That's The Trump Effect again. There's more to it than just the economy. I think he actually is a patriot, I think he believes in America. I think he is in a unique position, because first of all he's not anti-immigrant. His mother was an immigrant, wives are immigrants and I believe he likes immigrants. And he believes they contribute to America. Our first lady is an immigrant, first born I think in a very, very long time. And I think also some of the patriotism again, I don't know him, I never met him, comes from the fact that he's half German American. Because German Americans are our largest immigrant group descendant of immigrants in America. And they have had a difficult acculturation process, because we've had two major wars in the last century against Germany. World War I and World War II there was anti-German sentiment. And there were anti-German measures. And Germans had to continually prove their loyalty to the United States. Not unlike people are asking Muslim Americans to do today. So he is quite aware of the pressures on any sort of ethnic group in the United States in a time of war. And what he shows is, yes German Americans can be loyal Americans. Certainly World War II. You know Eisenhower was a German American. Nimitz was a German American. There are plenty of German Americans fighting the Nazis for the United States. But they were patriotic Americans of German ancestry. Similarly, Muslim Americans can fight for the United States against ISIS. I'm sure he's quite happy for that. But they have to be patriotic Americans fighting for American victory. So I think this awareness comes from being a German American as well. And is something that's very important in this calculation. And far from being a Hitler, he's an anti-Hitler. And his motivation again, like someone I know told me, "He's 70 years old. "If you're Hitler, you don't start at 70 in politics." You know you start in your 20s. There's nothing but a downside really. People are gonna take pot shots at you. They're gonna tap your phone, they're gonna bug you when they talk to you, they're gonna release embarrassing things. So you have to be willing to put up with that. And I honestly believe it's a genuine love of country and a genuine patriotism, which he wants to share with other immigrant groups. Saying, "Look at us. "If we German Americans can now be the most "loyal and patriotic Americans, "so can any group in the United States." So I say he does believe in the melting pot. He does believe in the pre-1960s vision of American pluralism as opposed to the post 1960s version of so-called multi-culturalism. Rather than being about ideology it's about character. It's about patriotism, it's about love of country. And it's about a personal commitment to, "Hey I can fix this, 'cause I know what it's like "to be marginalized, othered. "People are suspicious, uncomfortable." His family, according to press reports, pretended to be Swedish in New York when renting out apartments, because they had so many Jewish customers renting in the building, they didn't want to put them off by saying they were German Americans, so they were Swedish Americans. So even had to pass for another kind of Nordic immigrant ancestry. So I think that's also significant. And again it's a positive, it's not a negative. So it's all good, you know. I think that's something that again we'll see as it goes forward. Anyone looking for American nativism isn't gonna find it. Instead you're gonna find a person who really believes in the melting pot. And I think that's a good thing. A big portion of the Jewish community is pro-Trump, namely the Orthodox Jewish community, the religious Jews are very pro-Trump. And in fact Trump's daughter, Ivanka was converted by an Orthodox rabbi in New York according to reports. Haskel Lookstein who turns out his father was my grandmother's rabbi in East Side Synagogue. My grandmother was Orthodox, so very, very from as we say. Probably she knows how to keep a kosher home, make shabbats and all the rest. Grandson had a bris and he was in attendance, so that's very strict, so that portion of the Jewish community the Orthodox portion obviously, would not have a problem. And his son-in-law Jared Kushner is from an Orthodox family, as well in New Jersey. The other part of the Jewish community, the non-Orthodox part reformed Jews and conservative Jews, and atheist Jews who aren't really practicing the religion at all, but identify as a ethnic group. Well one is they tend to be liberal, they tend to be democrats. Trump is, well not a traditional conservative really and not a traditional Republican. Just by running as a Republican you lose a fair number there. And secondly, I do think that, and I think it's very, very bad that Jewish organizations have worked with the Democratic Party to stoke fears and create panic by emphasizing dangers to the Jewish community. Which may or may not have even come from Trump supporters at all. Death threats, bomb threats, et cetera. At least one case the person arrested was a left wing, African American, reportedly a convert to Islam in St. Louis who had worked in the media for NPR, reportedly in Chicago. And for various internet publications. He was arrested for eight of these bomb threats. We don't know how many he may or may not have made. And being in St. Louis whether or not he was the one who toppled the tombstones in the St. Louis cemetery or not. But suddenly that wasn't an issue and we didn't hear denunciations of the left. We didn't hear calls on the left to denounce and disavow this sort of thing. The problem is that many Jewish organizations today are controlled by people who are basically Democratic Party activists. And whose loyalty's to the Democratic Party rather than the well being of the Jewish people. Trump is pro-Israel. Trump is in his family life pro-Jewish, his policies tend to be pro-Jewish. You at least want to give him the benefit of the doubt. But many Jewish organizations have actively attacked him. And in a funny way it repeats, history repeats itself, first time tragedy, second time farce, as the Marxists say. Which may or may not be true, but in this case it seems true because in the 1930s and '40s Jewish organizations supported Franklin Roosevelt, put in quotas in excluding Jews and in keeping them out of the country. And they died as a result. And now Jewish groups support bringing in anti-Israel, Muslim fundamentalists. Some of whom are clearly anti-semitic. Some of whom may actually commit terrorism against Jewish schools. We've had Jewish schools attacked. We've had Jewish organizations attacked. And yet there's a strange silence. And then you have Jewish organizations turning a blind eye to the activities of Palestinian convicted terrorists in the leadership of the Women's March. Linda Sarsour and Miss O'Day. And again, no request or demand to disavow and denounce. No comment, so it's okay, 'cause silence is acquiescence as they said in the AIDS activism community. You know silence equals death. In this case silence equals death, death of Jews. So basically a major group, the Anti-defamation League said they'll choose political partisanship over their express purpose which is to prevent defamation of Jews. By allowing people who have defamed the Jewish state and Jews to continue this and have no criticism. So it's almost a topsy-turvey world, literally Orwellian. A friend of the Jews is criticizes Hitler. People who follow Hitlerian policies are at a minimum greeted with silence and at a maximum with support by Jewish organizations. Including Black Lives Matter, which had many known anti-semites involved, including Al Sharpton. Who organized a program in New York which led to Mayor Giuliani being elected. You have this type of thing where it's not even a double standard, it's a single standard. Pro-Jewish conservatives are accused of anti-semitism. Anti-Jewish leftists are supported. Why? Because the loyalty of some of these Jewish organization individuals is to the Democratic Party. Which unfortunately has been taken over in my opinion and I think you've seen it in this campaign, by the most extreme 1960s leftist elements. So modern Democrats. The modern Democrats are the Trump voters, honestly. The Reagan Democrats and even probably the Hubert Humphrey Democrats. And probably Clinton vote, I mean know Obama voters voted for Trump. They've done studies. I mean I can say myself. I voted of Obama the first time and I voted for Trump the first time, so. I didn't vote for Obama the second time. But the point, so I know my own experience, Trump has recruited Obama voters. So the modern Democratic voter is squeezed out of the Democratic Party by the ultra left leadership. Which for some reason doesn't seem to be in any danger of being replaced. What David Horowitz told me is a Stalinist Party are the Democratic Party now. It's what many Jews in the Soviet Union were loyal to Stalin. And he was anti-semitic, the Doctor's Plot, the tax on the joint, et cetera. It was Ronald Reagan who got Jews out of Russia. I mean history does repeat itself. Stalinist Jews are Stalinist Jews. They are here and now. And I don't think Trump's gonna win them over. But what Trump can do is make them less of a factor as he can go around with Israel, with the Jewish community that's not Stalinist. Success breeds success. You know so the more successful he is the less strong his opposition will be. That's with the Jewish community. And then it relates to the refugee issue because again paradoxically his refugee policies, good for the Jews. And it's good of all Americans. Because you don't want to bring in people who want to kill you, who want to blow you up. Who want to destroy your buildings, who want to make life difficult. And yet Jewish groups are saying bring in what are essentially possibly Nazi equivalents of today. But because they're refugees. Well guess what? The Nazis themselves were refugees. After World War II a large number of Nazis had nowhere to go, they were getting out of Germany, because they were afraid they would be arrested. And they went on a so-called rat line to Latin American with help from the Vatican and others. So among famous Nazi refugees was Adolf Eichmann who went to Argentina and Doctor Mengele. So you know, they were refugees. What does that prove? It doesn't mean all refugees are Nazis. But it means some refugees might be. And anybody taking a reasonable approach to the issue would have to say, Trump's call for so-called heavy vetting, which is a funny term, is not unreasonable. Just who are these people? What do they want to do and so forth? And the fact that Jewish groups are opposing this again shows the, I would say, Stalinists. It's more important to bring in cadre to help overthrow the United States than it is to reasonable process people and determine whether they're a threat to the security of the country or not, to the best of your ability. And on the refugee issue as a whole, again illegal immigration has gone down simply by Trump saying, "I want to do something about it." Simply by Trump saying, "I want to do something about "radical Islamic terrorists coming to the country," it puts pressure on countries to take care of it. 'Cause they don't want their immigration cut off. So he put seven countries on the list. Every country goes now, "Let's see what can we do, "so we don't get on this list." So it's a very good policy to make it not necessary to put limitations on any other country. Because now every country with a terrorism problem will say, "We better take care of our problem, "so that we can have the benefits of our own people "including our own family and friends "going to the United States for a shopping trip." Or going to study or having a second house in Las Vegasor whatever it is you want, Orlando. And again it's common sense why wasn't it done before? Political correctness. Trump's approach is non-ideological. His opponents are purely ideological. They actually have no common sense basis and no reasonable basis, only an ideological basis. You're a Islamophobe, if you limit immigration. Even though we've had religious tests. The most famous is in immigration law there's a special preference for Irish immigrants. Ireland is a majority Catholic country, so you're talking about a Catholic reference. 50,000 I believe the last time I checked a year of a special quota, Teddy Kennedy got into the law, for Ireland to come to the United States with immigration basis. We had it with Cubans until President Obama ended it there. We had it with Soviet Jews. Either for or against, deciding who can benefit the United States. And who would a be a danger to the United States. That's perfectly reasonable. And again I think the realistic approach, the practical approach is the Trump approach. The fantasy approach, the ideological approach is that of his opponents. And unfortunately Jewish groups that should know better are dealing with fantasy here, rather than reality. Again they were wrong in the 1930s and '40s, when they allowed President Roosevelt to do nothing and keep people out who could have helped America. They're wrong now when they're trying to bring people in who want to harm America. And harm the Jewish community, as well. They're consistently wrong, it unfortunate, it's sad to say. But that's the price when you put ideology over reality, the results are very ugly always. You know, it can sometimes be suicide My guess is Trump is gonna pull it off, because he's in fact not who the opposition say he is. I think PC is the major issue that got him elected. People were sick of PC. You saw there was an article in the Wall Street Journal by Shelby Steele. He was called a racist, he just rolled his eyes. And the old attacks that used to shut people up, the denunciations, the threats, don't have the effect that they would have on anybody else. And if one guy can get away with it, everybody can get away with it. And so that shifts the whole dynamic. It completely short circuits the system. I think, you see that's why people are so upset. Because many people have had careers under the old system. Sexist, racist, homophobe, Islamophobe, just going around denouncing people. If people in newspapers, you know they're aren't many reporters anymore, but they have fact checkers. What's a fact checker? A fact checker's a censor who says you can't say this, you can't say that, you can't say the other. That's a job that they used to have again in the old Soviet Union. But it wasn't something newspapers had, 'cause I have my story, you have your story, make up your mind, pick the paper you like best. Well who has the most credibility. But they now identify with the authorities rather than with the readers. And in fact they don't even mind declining circulation. It's a phenomenon that's amazing, as well. So Trump, here's the other point of entrance. He's a known quantity, people knew him. He was a celebrity, he was on The Apprentice, people joked he was elected so he could say to bureaucrats, "You're fired." But for 14 years, the average American who watched TV knows Donald Trump. So anything the media says about him is checked by the knowledge of who he was. So that's a tremendous backstop. That's a insurance policy that others didn't have. If you came nowhere you're dependent on the narrative. But people don't need a narrative, because they have their own experience. So experience is stronger than myth. So I would say, even someone like Richard Nixon, Trump has much more freedom of movement, he's gonna be much tougher. They said, Reagan was the Teflon president, you could say Trump's the Kevlar president. I mean he's, things don't just, mud doesn't just not stick to him, but I was say he's pretty much bullet proof. I mean you know, you know God forbid, probably not against a real assassination attempt, but anything short of that I think he'd probably is... 'Cause every one knows exactly who he is. Anyone who's watched him on TV, anybody who listens to any of his speeches. I watched about a dozen of his rallies on YouTube. They were very fascinating. The other thing is, let's talk about New York City again. Credibility, he was introduced by Rudy Giuliani. Well who's Rudy Giuliani? Rudy Giuliani was the mayor in New York who in the opinion of New Yorkers like myself saved New York. New York was really almost totally destroyed when David Dinkins was mayor. I mean you had riots, you had programs. Businesses were leaving, nothing worked. And Giuliani came in and he said, "Clean up that subway car." And the graffiti disappeared. He said, "Don't cross against the light." People stopped crossing against the light. All he had to do was show he cared and the city became beautiful. Flowers were planted in medians, the sidewalks were cleaned, crime was reduced, And guess what? Business came back. 'Cause, crime and poverty and despair are bad for business. Peace and good government are good for business. You know and it's obvious. And so the common sense attitude was reflected when Giuliani was introducing Trump at the rallies. He will do for America what Giuliani did for New York. If he does half as well as Giuliani, it'll be fine.
PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP - When we celebrate our 250 years of glorious freedom we will look back on tonight as when this new chapter of American greatness began. The time for small thinking is over. The time for trivial fights is behind us. We just need the courage to share the dreams that fill our hearts. The bravery to express the hopes that share our souls. And the confidence to turn those hopes and those dreams into action. From now on, America will be empowered by our aspirations. Not burdened by our fears. Inspired by the future, not bound by failures of the past. And guided by a vision, not blinded by our doubts. I am asking all citizens to embrace this renewal of the American spirit. I am asking all members of Congress to join me in dreaming big, and bold, and daring things for our country. I am asking everyone watching tonight to seize this moment, believe in yourselves, believe in your future. And believe once more in America. Thank you, God bless you and God bless the United States.
HONOR GUARD- Order arms!
HONOR GUARD- Arms!
PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP- ...our loyalty to each other. When you open your heart to patriotism there is no room for prejudice. Whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots. We will reinforce all the alliances and form new ones and united the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorism. Which we will eradicate completely from the face of the earth. Your voice, your hopes, and your dreams will define our America destiny. And your courage and goodness and love will forever guide us along the way. Together, we will make America strong again. We will make America wealthy again. We will make America proud again. We will make America safe again. And yes, together, we will make America great again. Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America!
LAURENCE JARVIK- The Trump Effect is what I think is the deprogramming of the American mind. And I think Donald Trump's election was really electing the deprogrammer in chief. And I think there's been a lot of misunderstanding about Trump, and a lot of fear about Trump. And, some of the fear mongering has been intentional. But I think there's also been a lot of misunderstanding about who he is, where he comes from, and what he's trying to do. And I think if we really understand The Trump Effect, we'll understand that rather than having any reason to be fearful of a Trump presidency, we have a great opportunity to be happythat we're going to have a president who's gonna able us to relax and not be fear. Because in fact, we've been living in fear, in my opinion, since September 11, 2001. And the destruction of the World Trade Center, the attack on the Pentagon, showed America is terribly vulnerable, despite spending trillions of dollars on national defense. And there has been no successful response in over 15 years. Trump, coming from New York City, represents the very geographical location which came to symbolize 9/11. And coming from the construction industry, obviously represents the very industry that was most affected by 9/11. He builds high office towers. And hotels and giant monumental buildings. And that's what attacked by our enemies Al-Qaeda on 9/11. So I think his running for president is symbolic, it's personal, he's from New York. He's not really a traditional Republican. He was a Democrat most of his life. He's not a born again Christian. He's some kind of moderate Presbyterian He's been married several times. He's certainly not a racist. He had Mohammad Ali at one of his weddings. He had Michael Jackson living in his building. By any normal evaluation a New York liberal on the liberal end of the spectrum. As far as being anti-gay, you can see as somebody joked on the internet, just from the way Trump Tower is decorated that he must know some gay decorators. So thatthere's no question that he's not a bigot, he's not a racist, he's not a homophobe. He's not an Islamophobe. He himself says he has Muslim business partners. He has projects in Muslim countries. He's not an isolationist. When people say, "Oh Trump is an isolationist." They fail to say that his hotel chain is called Trump International Hotels. He's got an international business, which operates internationally. You can't be an internationalist and isolationist at the same time. So one after another the misconceptions about Trump need to be dispelled. And I think people really have to realize what Trump is most of all is a realist. And until now, I'd say from 9/11 to now, the country's been living under a series of fantasies. And not had a realistic leader. Whether it was President Bush, whether it was President Obama. Trump represents the realist approach, a non-ideological approach. And we've previously had ideological of various stripes. And so that's why I want to say in my opinion. Because Scott Adams says he's the hypnotist in chief and others say the persuader in chief. But I think what's important is his role to me as a deprogrammer. Because I think Americans have somehow been programmed, indoctrinated, sort of feed a lot of fantasy ideology, whether in schools, whether in the media, whether in their politics. And he represents a non-ideological, practical approach that is very much in keeping with a New York business background. It's very much in keeping with funnily enough a tradition of the old Democratic Party pre-1968. And, I think you can explain a lot of what he's doing by looking at those non-programmed aspects of his person. In other words he's not programmed, he is who he is. And that's what's so interesting. He's never worked for anybody else, it's always been the family company or himself. He's never lived in anybody else's property until now. Now I think he may have had a property in New York, but they didn't know, but, basically he's lived in Trump properties until now. And so just paradoxically, he was the right man at the right time, because he wasn't encumbered by all the restraints other people had. He didn't have to go through pleasing bosses. He didn't have to go through pleasing superiors. He could do what he wanted to do the way he wanted to do it. Which is really very much of an individualistic approach that Americans used to have. That was American individualism. That was Yankee know how, Yankee ingenuity. And he sort of embodies that pre-1960s tradition of America and hopefully he will be able to break the spell that we've been living under. Because until now I think we've been subject to a lot of misconceptions. Why do I say deprogrammer in chief? Because if you look at the literature on Doctor Nation, mind control, brain washing and so forth, you find that the techniques Trump's using are the same techniques used by de-programmers. First they have to discredit the cult leader. If somebody's following a cult, and I don't want to specify any particular cult, but the de-programmer they take the person away from the cult. They usually put them in a safe house or whatever. And they first try to discredit the leader, by telling you terrible things about the leader. Well he did it with the Clintons and he did it with the Bushes both. And he did it with President Obama, where you personally discredit the leader. The second step is then you show the contradictions between what they say and what they're gonna do on a policy, or an action level. So again he did that. And I think that's where the tweets come in. He's constantly showing you some contradiction over and over and over again, bombarding the public with this information. Part of de-programming strategy. The third stage in which is the tipping point in this is that you have to get the cult member who's being de-programmed to recognize reality. In other words the cult creates a fantasy world that you live in. Once the cult follower is shown the leader can't be trusted, that the policies make no sense and then is exposed to what reality is, the former cult person is gonna begin to think for him or herself. And so Trump has really been carrying out this experiment and de-programming the whole country. Because frankly we have been fed a lot of fantasies up until now, since 9/11. Which was a tremendous trauma, no one knew how to deal with it. People couldn't face reality. Whether you have Bush saying, Islam is peace, everyone wants democracy. We're going to go and, it's gonna be like the Wicked Witch of the West and they're gonna sing the witch is dead, and everyone's gonna live happily ever after. Which didn't happen. Trillions of dollars for that. We had Barack Obama saying equally unrealistic things about, he would pull out the troops and the world would see we're not anti-Islam. So then everyone would be nice to us. That didn't happen either. I think Trump goes, "Let's just deal with things as they are. "Let's find out what's really going on, "and try and isolate the problems and fix them." Because this is what you do. If you're building and the HVAC doesn't work you know you got and go and find the compressor out and replace it and then it can work again. So I think that practical approach is something that is very real. That's where we are now. He's trying to get the country to face reality. And I think this resistance. You know it's funny the term is resistance. The originators of it of course we're thinking of the French Revolution. French resistance to the Nazis. But in fact you could argue there's a psychological dimension to resistance. 'Cause in psychotherapy there's a stage of resistance, where the analysand is resisting facing reality. And so what you have everyone in the resistance is actually resisting reality. They don't want reality, 'cause reality is much scarier than the fantasy world. 'Cause it means America does have enemies. It means there are economic problems. It means there is violence in the inner cities. All these things that you've sort of ignored or wished away or denied are right there and you have to confront them. Trump says we can fix them. But first you have to realize what the problems are before they can be fixed. So this resistance is actually an interesting word, 'cause it tells you a lot about the psychology of Trump's opposition, as well as of Trump's himself. They're almost adapting to his role as de-programmer by resisting him. So Trump's role will be to overcome this resistance. Once the resistance is overcome his opponents can recognize reality, then people can work together I believe, fix the problems. So I'm personally optimistic if he can get through this bumpy, non-honeymoon period and actually begin working to solve problems. I think it could be a very productive presidency. Because he's non-ideological, he's not really right wing, he's not really a Republican. He's practical and results oriented. He's not Hitler. Everything he's done has been purely democratic. If anything the other side with riots, disruptions, has been behaving more like Nazis. So I think we'll see step by step The Trump Effect is gonna be very powerful. We've already seen it, The Trump Effect at the border. Where illegal immigration's already down just in a few days, just by him being elected. We've seen the stock market is up. Again, just by being elected. That's The Trump Effect. And I assume this effect will continue as we go forward. I'm hoping that it won't be too difficult to de-programming. And that's what we're really talking about, the difference between coming out of a fantasy world and moving into a world of reality. And if anything, Trump is a very realistic figure, at least in my perception, not having met him. But I come from New York City, you know. And I've seen his buildings and I think it's interesting what's happening is the New York value as he talks about are real values. I mean it's interesting when that came up in the debate, Cruz tries to use it against Trump, it worked for Trump. It's a shame the people in New York are more loyal to their ideology, to their fantasy, than to their political delusions than they are to geography and history. Which say root for the home team, we've got a New Yorker in the White House. People in New York should support him, just as rooting for the home team. That'll be interesting to see if he can pull that off by the next election because that's traditionally you root for the favorite son. And if there's one thing about Trump he's really from New York. Another thing about Trump which is interesting is he sort of represents the un-university. I mean they say he got a lot of working class support, people who are not highly educate support him. What that means is people who were not indoctrinated. Since 1969 the universities have pretty much become a closed shop, Allan Bloom wrote The Closing of the American Mind in 1987, complaining about what's happening in the universities. And certainly in the last few years any of the old, curmudgeonly professors that were individualists have disappeared and you have basically Cadre who came of age in the '60s, and believed the Weatherman or the Black Panthers or the FMLN, or Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Yasser Arafat, you name it. They believe the purpose of the university is to promote the revolution. And they believe that Communism is good. I was at a talk at a bookstore in Washington by a novelist who wrote a book about Sunnyside, New York in Queens which is a Communist neighborhood. And it had been reviewed by a Chinese American refugee from Communism who said, "Oh this is a great book because it shows how "frightening Communists are." And so he said in his talk, "Oh I don't want "anyone to think that there's anything wrong "with Communism at all." And so that's basically the Gestalt I think in American universities at the highest level. That they're very few people who are willing to say there's anything wrong with Communism at all. Luckily, Trump spent his whole life in the construction industry. He doesn't have any problems saying there's something wrong with Communism. Or any other Totalitarian ideology. And so what you're seeing now is for the first time, somebody who has no particular allegiance or obligation to that constituency. Right before election night there was an item on BBC with Martin Amis and Ann Coulter updating the upcoming election. She said, "Trump's gonna win tomorrow." Amis didn't seem to think so. But he said, "Oh it's been a terrible effect Donald Trump has had on the American people, because people have become disinhibited by what Trump has said. And what did that mean? That mean people felt free to say what they were thinking. Ann Coulter thought that was a good thing. But what's more important in terms of The Trump Effect is that is actually the definition of a liberating effect. If you're freed, you're liberated. So people have not been disinhibited, people have been liberated. Or you can say people have been encouraged. In other words they've been given the courage, to express themselves. Because previously people had been inhibited, which means they have been intimidated. And that means we have been living in a very intimidating environment where people were afraid to speak. That's not the definition of a free society, that's a definition of a fear society. Nathan Sharansky gave some book to Bush right after 9/11. Fear societies versus free society. Well the net result of Bush's response to 9/11 and Obama's was to turn the United States into a fear society, where people were afraid to speak to say the wrong thing. They were afraid somebody would be reading their emails, somebody would listening to their phone calls. They were afraid people would be overhearing what they said in restaurants. They were afraid if they said one wrong thing at work they would lose their job. Well what country does that sound like? It sounds like the former Soviet Union. It sounds like fascist Italy or Nazi Germany. It does not sound like the land of the free and the home of the brave. And Trump's actual ability to speak freely and not back down, encourages people and liberates them and they go, "Hey if he can do it, "I can do it too." Because if you read any of the literature on Totalitarianism whether Arthur Koestler's Darkness at Noon, or George Orwell's 1984, or even Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, it only takes one person, that you can see standing up to the authorities to encourage many, many others. So that's also sort of interesting. Trump, far from being a Hitler figure is a liberator. And you can even say that Twitter plays in that, 'cause one of the things about Twitter was here was this mechanism, which was used by the United States for the so-called color revolutions around the world. And for the so-called Arab Spring that, "Oh we're gonna mobilize the people using Twitter." And Trump came and said, "Hey, we can have a Twitter "revolution right here in the United States. "I'll just tweet." And he just did it. So it's like the Nike ad, just do it. He just did it. And when people said, "He did it." I mean it got to the point that Twitter started censoring people, it wasn't actually a business decision it was a political decision. But it's very interesting 'cause they tried to censor Trump, but they couldn't. So he showed one guy can get away with it. Because up until Trump everybody had somehow been shut up. But Trump wasn't shut up. So he went on to become president. Now other people go, "I can be free too." So I think that is also The Trump Effect, as a liberating effect. Political correctness, you want to talk about the universities which has been dominant in the universities, say at least since 1987 'til today. For the first time has somebody in a position of authority who is willing to say in the words of La Pasionaria, "No pasaran!" You know and then everything's been sort of reversed. The revolutionary, the liberator is Trump. The oppressor is all the establishment in the United States. Which no doubt is very similar to the nomenclatural in the former Soviet Union before Boris Yeltsin and the collapse of Communism. So I think that is a way of understanding what Trump represents in that sort of effect versus the PC. Like Reagan, Trump is a media personality. He came out of television. And a series the Celebrity Apprentice. He's lived his life as a celebrity he's been on Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, he was on the front page of the New York Post when he was young and part of the Studio 54 crowd. Glamorous, high life. I think he'd be a natural for the media to embrace. He's had a lot, provided a lot of copy, a lot of newspaper editors over the years. But strangely despite being an actual celebrity himself, the celebrities turned against him. Now why? Well it's the same thing. He's a dissident. He's gone against the orthodox. As if he were a Communist Party member who left the party, that's the worst possible thing you can be is somebody who knows them and rejects them. He's like a former member of the cult who left the cult. And nobody is more to be despised than a former cult member who turns on you. This was true of ex-Communists, it's true of ex-Scientists, it's true of ex-Harry Krisna, it's true of ex-Moonies, whoever. The person who leaves the cult is a danger to the whole cult because it shows you can survive without the cult. So what do you need to be in the cult for in the first place? Maybe if I'm in the media I don't have to be a leftist. Well that won't do. So I think that's part of the reason is the cult nature of the media. The second thing with the media is they're very politically correct in general. And just by not being politically correct, he creates an irritation. In a way it's interesting 'cause they can't ignore him. The normal thing is you just ignore people. I mean how many pictures has Augustine made and how many of them have been shown on television? None. And what, a dozen. And the reason is you don't exist if you're not part of the party, so to speak. But, with Trump he can't be ignored because he has billions of dollars, he has hotels, he can buy time. And they tried all the usual things. They took away the Miss Universe pageant, boycotted his ties at Macy's, basically tried to make life impossible and he just kept going. So they tried boycotts of his hotels. But it didn't stop him. So the usual tricks didn't work and that's another reason the media is against him. Again you have to put on your cap. If the media were just a business and he gets ratings and he gets copy and he gets attention, and he's an entertainer and he's a celebrity and people watch, what's wrong with that? Why not give him more airtime, why not praise him, why not celebrate him? Because their view is, "We made you, we can break you." Well we'll see. Maybe they didn't make him. Maybe he had another identity through his real estate empire. And maybe they can't break him. I mean we'll see what happens. That's yet to be determined. I would give him a pretty good shot. The other thing about the media that's sort of interesting is these days the media, you know he didn't get any major newspaper endorsements he didn't get any endorsements from any media outlets really. A handful you can count on your fingers. Their authority and legitimacy is sort of on the line. And what happened, what changed was, newspapers used to aimed at everybody. The whole idea was something for everyone. Even the New York Times had genuine Op Eds that were opposed to their editorials, that the Op Eds were published because of Mobile Corporation paying for the Op Ed page during the first Opec boycott. But they had William Sapphire who really did work for Nixon and really was more conservative than your average columnist in the New York Times. And they had a few tokens there even in the most liberal newspapers, because some of their readers and some of their advertisers might not agree with them. So even myself during the PBS debate, they published my Op Ed in the New York Times. Admittedly after the vote was taken, so it wouldn't help. But it was in the newspaper of record, 'cause they go, "Well we have to represent both sides." I don't think they feel that sense of fair play at all operational today are much more partisan. I think this is a result of people in the media now being mostly college educated, many with graduate degrees. From places like the Columbia School of Journalism. And they're writing for their professors and trying to be educated. And the problem is the educational institutions have defined being an educated person these days in a different way. So instead of being open minded, skeptical, trying to see the wide variety, would be a truly a liberal education. Liberal by the way means free. What liberal has come to mean now is again following the party line, that's all political correctness is. I'm looking for deviations from the party line. So the role of the media becomes much more what it would be in any Totalitarian country, where it's simply to denounce and humiliate and insult those who deviate from the party line. Usually the two minutes of hate or whatever from Orwell's 1984, but that's what they do in any Totalitarian country. And that's what they see their role lies. So they're not really working for their subscribers to provide the information they need to make informed decisions on their own. They're truly party organs. That is because it reflects the university being taken over. I was talking to someone I know and she said, "We used to talk about the laboratory of the states "being the laboratories of democracy." You can argue that the universities now the laboratories of the universities are the laboratories of Totalitarianism. So any crazy idea, whether it's white privilege or heteronormativity, or deconstruction, whatever it is, transgender rights, they start in the university. And they're tried out there, microaggressions is the latest, safe spaces, you name it. And they're tried out in the university as a pilot program and they're sort of perfected, then they're rolled out system wide to the whole country subsequently. And so the things we see now in our society, things that were discussed and worked on in universities years ago. Universities not working as true liberal institutions, but truly diverse, faculty looking at a wide viewpoint. But rather as I like to say the higher party school. Where they're just refining the party program to be implemented by the organs after the center decides. So you actually have a neo-Soviet model of education. And that's why you find they can't criticize Communism. And it's all based on party lines. So take Islam. Islam is now considered good. But it's quite possible if the center changes its view subsequently, it will be considered bad. You only have to go back to the 1930s and remember that the Communist Party was pro-Nazi. While they had the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. And it became anti-Nazi after the attack on the Soviet Union. So the party members flipped and they went from being isolationists to interventionists. I mean you could imagine a similar thing happening. The party line is not based on reason, it's based on the unquestioning obedience to the center and whatever the center decides. And how those decisions are made and who is in the center, is still a mystery to me. But it's quite clear when you have universities that have former Weathermen on their faculty and Black Panthers on their faculty, that people are not being chosen on the basis of contributions to the scholarly literature alone. You know that there's some political dynamic which would not be unknown to people. And one of the things about living in the former Soviet Union is now of course, they hate Communism. So you go to Russia, they hate it and they hate feminism and they hate all the things, they hate political correctness, because they suffered under it for 70 years. But unfortunately until Trump we were suffering under it. So the media reflects the ideological project of the educational establishment. Which is unfortunately dominated by the left, the ultra-left and the loony left. There is no, I mean they did some study, like the law schools which used to have a lot of Republicans. They don't have Republicans or conservatives on the faculty anymore. Somebody went to the, I think Glen Reynolds wrote about his on this blog. Went to the American Association of Legal Education or whatever it's called, and said, "Under diversity shouldn't we have "a diversity program for "conservative lawyers and faculties?" And they so far haven't gotten any response. So it's pretty much, you know it's defined as, if you want to teach, you have to be on the left. The problem with that is, it's a self fulfilling prophecy. And it's got nothing to do with education. It's very, very dangerous for a society to let any one group of people take over. That's where Trump comes in where they hate Trump, 'cause he doesn't care, you know. The point is universities are very important, 'cause they train your next generation of judges. is gonna be educated in university. The next generation of government officials is gonna come out of university, the teacher come out of the university. So everybody who makes fun of people who and this is a problem with the conservative movement. They say, "Yeah who cares what happens at university. "What are you gonna do with a degree in women studies?" Well the people with a degree in women's studies are gonna be, first of all the diversity officer, your Fortune 500 company. And making policy on hiring and firing and promotion and controlling the cadre formation there. They're gonna be making the laws, they're gonna be on the courts. And they're gonna be running your businesses. And they're gonna be controlling your destiny as government officials as well. So it's not a joke. It becomes an issue because what seems like a very arcane argument in the modern language association about whether gender is socially constructed or biological, you know, becomes a fight between English departments and biology departments. As Camille Paglia talks about. The English departments won. But, the biology hasn't changed. So you can be for evolution and Darwin in some fields, but not in others. So if you say Darwin believed there were two sexes and sexual reproduction was necessary for the continuance of the species. That's now, you can get fired for saying that in many universities, certainly in English departments. Yet it's in Darwin, so what do you do? So what they do is they ignore that. How does that relate to Trump? Here's how. Trump ran a beauty pageant. There is nothing more horrifying to feminists than beauty pageants. It's a symbol of male oppression. Now he could say it was just the opposite. The most beautiful woman has the most power over men, which may well be the case. But nothing is more politically incorrect than a beauty pageant today. Trump is the president to his own beauty pageants. That's The Trump Effect. Beauty is now okay again. Under President Obama, official line was ugly was good. And you have Leah Dunham, who is not an attractive woman, made into a star and given a series, and there's some quite unattractive people who were promoted. I mean I would even argue the tattooing and all the stuff that went with it the disfiguring of the body, that was also making people as ugly as possible. To show that beauty was not a factor. Which it's been a factor forever and will be, because like we were talking about taste, you want a beautiful room, you want a beautiful hotel, you want a beautiful platter of food. And you want people around you to look good. I mean it's a human desire for beauty. And that desire for beauty is politically incorrect. Because it's counter revolutionary. That's where Trump Effect again comes, people are looking good. What's interesting about Trump is the hotel he built in Washington. Which I know you all have been to and I went to. And one of the most striking things about it when you go there is that it's in very good taste. It is not garish, it is not overblown, it is not over done, it doesn't look like Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas, even though that's a competing casino. It has a very relaxed, tasteful and friendly vibe really that it's welcoming and everything is sort of where it ought to be. There's plenty of couches and places to sit. You can have a meal at the bar if you don't have so much money. You can go to an expensive restaurant if you have more money. And what's most significant about it to me, is it looks it was done very economically. If you look, there's just a couple of chandeliers hanging from pre-existing structural steel beams. A few, little bits of textile for accents. But it didn't actually look like they broke the bank during the renovation. Although it had a very nice effect. So you got a lot of bang for the buck. And you go, "What difference does that make?" Well, that's how he renovates his property. If he carries the same principles forward to the country, it's gonna be very nice. Now one of the things I say Ivanka was the decorator of the hotel, all the better, you know. Because all this, he hates women, you wouldn't put your daughter in charge of a project if you didn't like women doing things. And of course, the Trump business, if you look on Wikipedia, the Trump company was actually founded by his grandmother when his grandfather died. And she ran the company as a real estate business. And it was a woman owned business from the get go, the Trump organization. So he's actually just the heir to a woman owned enterprise, which he continued to build up. So again from the women's point of view, Trump not only likes women and like women in business. And has his family going into business as women. But, he is the custodian of a trust, that is a multi-generational aspect of women in business in his family. So, on every level, the business reflects a vision of what he's gonna do as president, I think it's pretty positive. And the issue of taste comes up because what is taste? And what does taste have to do with politics or society? Something people don't talk about anymore. But taste is that sort of indescribable element that elevates an experience. So that if you're in a place, you know it when you see it. And you go, "Hey, this is in good taste." If this person has good taste with this, he has good taste with something else, it means he has good judgment. So we can say we do have a test. Anyone can go in the lobby and see what kind of judgements, what kind of decisions does Trump make? Not bad. So the hotel is an advertisement for his decision making ability. And the extra lagniappe which they have to add is the Trump hotel used to be where the National Endowment for the Arts, and National Endowment for the Humanities was located in the old post office. So it was a bureaucracy in succession to a previous bureaucracy. And I was in it when it was the NEA and NEH headquarters. And it was a very sad, bureaucratic, ugly place. They had a public conference room that was designed by a famous architect that was very depressing. And it was just a downbeat, dreary, dead, dull, depressing, despondent dungeon. And now it's been it's been transformed into a place you would love to go and have a good time. So that shows again how good taste can transform an arts bureaucracy into a lovely hotel. If he can do that with all the other federal bureaucracies we'll be in great shape. That's The Trump Effect again. There's more to it than just the economy. I think he actually is a patriot, I think he believes in America. I think he is in a unique position, because first of all he's not anti-immigrant. His mother was an immigrant, wives are immigrants and I believe he likes immigrants. And he believes they contribute to America. Our first lady is an immigrant, first born I think in a very, very long time. And I think also some of the patriotism again, I don't know him, I never met him, comes from the fact that he's half German American. Because German Americans are our largest immigrant group descendant of immigrants in America. And they have had a difficult acculturation process, because we've had two major wars in the last century against Germany. World War I and World War II there was anti-German sentiment. And there were anti-German measures. And Germans had to continually prove their loyalty to the United States. Not unlike people are asking Muslim Americans to do today. So he is quite aware of the pressures on any sort of ethnic group in the United States in a time of war. And what he shows is, yes German Americans can be loyal Americans. Certainly World War II. You know Eisenhower was a German American. Nimitz was a German American. There are plenty of German Americans fighting the Nazis for the United States. But they were patriotic Americans of German ancestry. Similarly, Muslim Americans can fight for the United States against ISIS. I'm sure he's quite happy for that. But they have to be patriotic Americans fighting for American victory. So I think this awareness comes from being a German American as well. And is something that's very important in this calculation. And far from being a Hitler, he's an anti-Hitler. And his motivation again, like someone I know told me, "He's 70 years old. "If you're Hitler, you don't start at 70 in politics." You know you start in your 20s. There's nothing but a downside really. People are gonna take pot shots at you. They're gonna tap your phone, they're gonna bug you when they talk to you, they're gonna release embarrassing things. So you have to be willing to put up with that. And I honestly believe it's a genuine love of country and a genuine patriotism, which he wants to share with other immigrant groups. Saying, "Look at us. "If we German Americans can now be the most "loyal and patriotic Americans, "so can any group in the United States." So I say he does believe in the melting pot. He does believe in the pre-1960s vision of American pluralism as opposed to the post 1960s version of so-called multi-culturalism. Rather than being about ideology it's about character. It's about patriotism, it's about love of country. And it's about a personal commitment to, "Hey I can fix this, 'cause I know what it's like "to be marginalized, othered. "People are suspicious, uncomfortable." His family, according to press reports, pretended to be Swedish in New York when renting out apartments, because they had so many Jewish customers renting in the building, they didn't want to put them off by saying they were German Americans, so they were Swedish Americans. So even had to pass for another kind of Nordic immigrant ancestry. So I think that's also significant. And again it's a positive, it's not a negative. So it's all good, you know. I think that's something that again we'll see as it goes forward. Anyone looking for American nativism isn't gonna find it. Instead you're gonna find a person who really believes in the melting pot. And I think that's a good thing. A big portion of the Jewish community is pro-Trump, namely the Orthodox Jewish community, the religious Jews are very pro-Trump. And in fact Trump's daughter, Ivanka was converted by an Orthodox rabbi in New York according to reports. Haskel Lookstein who turns out his father was my grandmother's rabbi in East Side Synagogue. My grandmother was Orthodox, so very, very from as we say. Probably she knows how to keep a kosher home, make shabbats and all the rest. Grandson had a bris and he was in attendance, so that's very strict, so that portion of the Jewish community the Orthodox portion obviously, would not have a problem. And his son-in-law Jared Kushner is from an Orthodox family, as well in New Jersey. The other part of the Jewish community, the non-Orthodox part reformed Jews and conservative Jews, and atheist Jews who aren't really practicing the religion at all, but identify as a ethnic group. Well one is they tend to be liberal, they tend to be democrats. Trump is, well not a traditional conservative really and not a traditional Republican. Just by running as a Republican you lose a fair number there. And secondly, I do think that, and I think it's very, very bad that Jewish organizations have worked with the Democratic Party to stoke fears and create panic by emphasizing dangers to the Jewish community. Which may or may not have even come from Trump supporters at all. Death threats, bomb threats, et cetera. At least one case the person arrested was a left wing, African American, reportedly a convert to Islam in St. Louis who had worked in the media for NPR, reportedly in Chicago. And for various internet publications. He was arrested for eight of these bomb threats. We don't know how many he may or may not have made. And being in St. Louis whether or not he was the one who toppled the tombstones in the St. Louis cemetery or not. But suddenly that wasn't an issue and we didn't hear denunciations of the left. We didn't hear calls on the left to denounce and disavow this sort of thing. The problem is that many Jewish organizations today are controlled by people who are basically Democratic Party activists. And whose loyalty's to the Democratic Party rather than the well being of the Jewish people. Trump is pro-Israel. Trump is in his family life pro-Jewish, his policies tend to be pro-Jewish. You at least want to give him the benefit of the doubt. But many Jewish organizations have actively attacked him. And in a funny way it repeats, history repeats itself, first time tragedy, second time farce, as the Marxists say. Which may or may not be true, but in this case it seems true because in the 1930s and '40s Jewish organizations supported Franklin Roosevelt, put in quotas in excluding Jews and in keeping them out of the country. And they died as a result. And now Jewish groups support bringing in anti-Israel, Muslim fundamentalists. Some of whom are clearly anti-semitic. Some of whom may actually commit terrorism against Jewish schools. We've had Jewish schools attacked. We've had Jewish organizations attacked. And yet there's a strange silence. And then you have Jewish organizations turning a blind eye to the activities of Palestinian convicted terrorists in the leadership of the Women's March. Linda Sarsour and Miss O'Day. And again, no request or demand to disavow and denounce. No comment, so it's okay, 'cause silence is acquiescence as they said in the AIDS activism community. You know silence equals death. In this case silence equals death, death of Jews. So basically a major group, the Anti-defamation League said they'll choose political partisanship over their express purpose which is to prevent defamation of Jews. By allowing people who have defamed the Jewish state and Jews to continue this and have no criticism. So it's almost a topsy-turvey world, literally Orwellian. A friend of the Jews is criticizes Hitler. People who follow Hitlerian policies are at a minimum greeted with silence and at a maximum with support by Jewish organizations. Including Black Lives Matter, which had many known anti-semites involved, including Al Sharpton. Who organized a program in New York which led to Mayor Giuliani being elected. You have this type of thing where it's not even a double standard, it's a single standard. Pro-Jewish conservatives are accused of anti-semitism. Anti-Jewish leftists are supported. Why? Because the loyalty of some of these Jewish organization individuals is to the Democratic Party. Which unfortunately has been taken over in my opinion and I think you've seen it in this campaign, by the most extreme 1960s leftist elements. So modern Democrats. The modern Democrats are the Trump voters, honestly. The Reagan Democrats and even probably the Hubert Humphrey Democrats. And probably Clinton vote, I mean know Obama voters voted for Trump. They've done studies. I mean I can say myself. I voted of Obama the first time and I voted for Trump the first time, so. I didn't vote for Obama the second time. But the point, so I know my own experience, Trump has recruited Obama voters. So the modern Democratic voter is squeezed out of the Democratic Party by the ultra left leadership. Which for some reason doesn't seem to be in any danger of being replaced. What David Horowitz told me is a Stalinist Party are the Democratic Party now. It's what many Jews in the Soviet Union were loyal to Stalin. And he was anti-semitic, the Doctor's Plot, the tax on the joint, et cetera. It was Ronald Reagan who got Jews out of Russia. I mean history does repeat itself. Stalinist Jews are Stalinist Jews. They are here and now. And I don't think Trump's gonna win them over. But what Trump can do is make them less of a factor as he can go around with Israel, with the Jewish community that's not Stalinist. Success breeds success. You know so the more successful he is the less strong his opposition will be. That's with the Jewish community. And then it relates to the refugee issue because again paradoxically his refugee policies, good for the Jews. And it's good of all Americans. Because you don't want to bring in people who want to kill you, who want to blow you up. Who want to destroy your buildings, who want to make life difficult. And yet Jewish groups are saying bring in what are essentially possibly Nazi equivalents of today. But because they're refugees. Well guess what? The Nazis themselves were refugees. After World War II a large number of Nazis had nowhere to go, they were getting out of Germany, because they were afraid they would be arrested. And they went on a so-called rat line to Latin American with help from the Vatican and others. So among famous Nazi refugees was Adolf Eichmann who went to Argentina and Doctor Mengele. So you know, they were refugees. What does that prove? It doesn't mean all refugees are Nazis. But it means some refugees might be. And anybody taking a reasonable approach to the issue would have to say, Trump's call for so-called heavy vetting, which is a funny term, is not unreasonable. Just who are these people? What do they want to do and so forth? And the fact that Jewish groups are opposing this again shows the, I would say, Stalinists. It's more important to bring in cadre to help overthrow the United States than it is to reasonable process people and determine whether they're a threat to the security of the country or not, to the best of your ability. And on the refugee issue as a whole, again illegal immigration has gone down simply by Trump saying, "I want to do something about it." Simply by Trump saying, "I want to do something about "radical Islamic terrorists coming to the country," it puts pressure on countries to take care of it. 'Cause they don't want their immigration cut off. So he put seven countries on the list. Every country goes now, "Let's see what can we do, "so we don't get on this list." So it's a very good policy to make it not necessary to put limitations on any other country. Because now every country with a terrorism problem will say, "We better take care of our problem, "so that we can have the benefits of our own people "including our own family and friends "going to the United States for a shopping trip." Or going to study or having a second house in Las Vegasor whatever it is you want, Orlando. And again it's common sense why wasn't it done before? Political correctness. Trump's approach is non-ideological. His opponents are purely ideological. They actually have no common sense basis and no reasonable basis, only an ideological basis. You're a Islamophobe, if you limit immigration. Even though we've had religious tests. The most famous is in immigration law there's a special preference for Irish immigrants. Ireland is a majority Catholic country, so you're talking about a Catholic reference. 50,000 I believe the last time I checked a year of a special quota, Teddy Kennedy got into the law, for Ireland to come to the United States with immigration basis. We had it with Cubans until President Obama ended it there. We had it with Soviet Jews. Either for or against, deciding who can benefit the United States. And who would a be a danger to the United States. That's perfectly reasonable. And again I think the realistic approach, the practical approach is the Trump approach. The fantasy approach, the ideological approach is that of his opponents. And unfortunately Jewish groups that should know better are dealing with fantasy here, rather than reality. Again they were wrong in the 1930s and '40s, when they allowed President Roosevelt to do nothing and keep people out who could have helped America. They're wrong now when they're trying to bring people in who want to harm America. And harm the Jewish community, as well. They're consistently wrong, it unfortunate, it's sad to say. But that's the price when you put ideology over reality, the results are very ugly always. You know, it can sometimes be suicide My guess is Trump is gonna pull it off, because he's in fact not who the opposition say he is. I think PC is the major issue that got him elected. People were sick of PC. You saw there was an article in the Wall Street Journal by Shelby Steele. He was called a racist, he just rolled his eyes. And the old attacks that used to shut people up, the denunciations, the threats, don't have the effect that they would have on anybody else. And if one guy can get away with it, everybody can get away with it. And so that shifts the whole dynamic. It completely short circuits the system. I think, you see that's why people are so upset. Because many people have had careers under the old system. Sexist, racist, homophobe, Islamophobe, just going around denouncing people. If people in newspapers, you know they're aren't many reporters anymore, but they have fact checkers. What's a fact checker? A fact checker's a censor who says you can't say this, you can't say that, you can't say the other. That's a job that they used to have again in the old Soviet Union. But it wasn't something newspapers had, 'cause I have my story, you have your story, make up your mind, pick the paper you like best. Well who has the most credibility. But they now identify with the authorities rather than with the readers. And in fact they don't even mind declining circulation. It's a phenomenon that's amazing, as well. So Trump, here's the other point of entrance. He's a known quantity, people knew him. He was a celebrity, he was on The Apprentice, people joked he was elected so he could say to bureaucrats, "You're fired." But for 14 years, the average American who watched TV knows Donald Trump. So anything the media says about him is checked by the knowledge of who he was. So that's a tremendous backstop. That's a insurance policy that others didn't have. If you came nowhere you're dependent on the narrative. But people don't need a narrative, because they have their own experience. So experience is stronger than myth. So I would say, even someone like Richard Nixon, Trump has much more freedom of movement, he's gonna be much tougher. They said, Reagan was the Teflon president, you could say Trump's the Kevlar president. I mean he's, things don't just, mud doesn't just not stick to him, but I was say he's pretty much bullet proof. I mean you know, you know God forbid, probably not against a real assassination attempt, but anything short of that I think he'd probably is... 'Cause every one knows exactly who he is. Anyone who's watched him on TV, anybody who listens to any of his speeches. I watched about a dozen of his rallies on YouTube. They were very fascinating. The other thing is, let's talk about New York City again. Credibility, he was introduced by Rudy Giuliani. Well who's Rudy Giuliani? Rudy Giuliani was the mayor in New York who in the opinion of New Yorkers like myself saved New York. New York was really almost totally destroyed when David Dinkins was mayor. I mean you had riots, you had programs. Businesses were leaving, nothing worked. And Giuliani came in and he said, "Clean up that subway car." And the graffiti disappeared. He said, "Don't cross against the light." People stopped crossing against the light. All he had to do was show he cared and the city became beautiful. Flowers were planted in medians, the sidewalks were cleaned, crime was reduced, And guess what? Business came back. 'Cause, crime and poverty and despair are bad for business. Peace and good government are good for business. You know and it's obvious. And so the common sense attitude was reflected when Giuliani was introducing Trump at the rallies. He will do for America what Giuliani did for New York. If he does half as well as Giuliani, it'll be fine.
PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP - When we celebrate our 250 years of glorious freedom we will look back on tonight as when this new chapter of American greatness began. The time for small thinking is over. The time for trivial fights is behind us. We just need the courage to share the dreams that fill our hearts. The bravery to express the hopes that share our souls. And the confidence to turn those hopes and those dreams into action. From now on, America will be empowered by our aspirations. Not burdened by our fears. Inspired by the future, not bound by failures of the past. And guided by a vision, not blinded by our doubts. I am asking all citizens to embrace this renewal of the American spirit. I am asking all members of Congress to join me in dreaming big, and bold, and daring things for our country. I am asking everyone watching tonight to seize this moment, believe in yourselves, believe in your future. And believe once more in America. Thank you, God bless you and God bless the United States.
