Dissecting the Organs—Hillary Clinton is every Terrible Thing on the Planet
Part of the hypnotic effect of the Yorktown speech is that there are little narratives introduced to make his larger points rather than simply coming out and saying them. This is counterintuitive to every principle of speechwriting I’ve ever seen, as the idea is to fit in the most well-crafted, clear statements of policy and rhetoric in an comparatively short period of time. Most political rallies last hours, but most of it is dog and pony stuff leading up to the candidate’s speech. The candidates themselves generally speak for forty-five minutes to an hour, and that includes a bunch of down time while the audience applauds, or in the case of Donald Trump, waits for his “crappy” security to reposition the Hillary decoy before he drops the bomb.
What I call the "Story Time" element is why the Yorktown speech sounds as if it was better suited to a theater stage as a one-man show than on the soap box. It also draws the audience into a willingness to associate incongruent ideas as if they were listening to a narrative rather than (theoretically) non-fiction statements. Whereas one candidate might say “Hillary Clinton is untrustworthy because of Benghazi”, Trump might take all the traditional memes and phrases everyone is accustomed to hearing and weave them into a narrative about a recent female serial rapist. He leads with the same feed line as the other candidates, but follows it with an analogy rather than the statement everyone is expecting to hear. A few carefully calculated twists of the tale later, and instead of a crowd that has the following syllogism rammed into their collective noggin by a guy like Marco Rubio:
"Hillary Clinton is untrustworthy because of Benghazi. People who are untrustworthy can't be president. Hillary Clinton can't be president."
Trump’s crowd—already wishing there was hard evidence Hillary Clinton had a pair of horns underneath her hairdo—has the following collection of Twitter tweets rattling around in their heads for their neurons to play with:
1. Hillary Clinton lied about Benghazi. (This walked into the room with them.)
2. Hillary Clinton is getting off scot-free. (Again, already in there.)
3. The female serial rapist in Montana lured men into her house under false pretenses of being a weak little slutty whore with no stamina for holding her liquor, and then right as she was spreading her legs she stabbed them in the testicles fifty times. (Remember when I told you how weak and pathetic Hillary Clinton was two minutes ago?)
4. The female serial rapist left her victims on the roadside to die.
5. The police were totally incompetent and couldn’t keep the public safe from her.
6. The latest news leads Donald Trump to believe she’s going to get a plea bargain from the DA and be back on the streets in no time.
Then the speech kicks in: “Because that’s how we do it in this country. We have stupid people running our country and our security is weak. We’re losing nine zillion dollars to China because we make the worst deals, and it’s so wrong. It’s so wrong. It’s so, so, so wrong. When I’m president we’re not going to let a dirty rotten serial killer keep wandering around because of a right to privacy. I’ll protect you. I will make sure you are protected. We have to do it because we have to be protected. It’s so important. So important....so important.”
Donald will leave it up to you to figure out what the takeaway from all that shit is, so I’ll extend you the same courtesy.
Now to the speech. This is one of about five examples of something I call Story Time in his speech, but it’s the most obviously transparent. Oh, and it’s a great one. It has all the misogynistic, xenophobic fear-mongering you little heart could ever hope for, and it even contains some incestuous overtones to link Hillary and Obama.
Remember this, it’s so important: this is directly after the crazy female protestor has just been taken out:
-------------
“That was the same person. You know, so far the security is not doing a great job in here, I’ll tell you that. That was the same person. You can do very nice, but who don’t you get her out, ‘cause honestly, it’s inappropriate. So security, strengthen yourself up.
See, your country has this kind of security. It’s a problem. Get her out. Please. Thank you. (She’s been gone for a minute already) Treat her very nicely please, but she should be taken out.
Same person. One person. It’s one person. They let her out, they give her a second chance, and the same thing happens. But you would think—you would think—that every person, we’re all in the same basket. That every single person...
*Echoing interruption*
I have a lot of time. Does everybody have a lot of time for this?
I don’t want this person to be hurt, but I will tell you security is very weak. I can’t believe the security people. One person. One person and we’ve wasted five minutes. Alright—get ‘em out! Thank you.
So you’d think if we could get together we’d all be in the same boat.”
-------------
Just looking at the rule of three, or in this case, a protracted daisy chain of multiple repetitions of the rule of three, the following information injected into the skulls of an audience that is already going crazy:
1. Security is weak here.
2. It’s all one person.
3. You’d think we’d all be in the same boat on this.
Now Story Time begins. Line 218.
“Last night we all saw, we witnessed something that I thought was highly inappropriate. In fact, I Tweeted, “is that all there is?” about the President’s speech. And I wrote something today that I think is very salient, very important, and probably not politically correct, but I don’t care.”
This could very well be in your average political stump speech, but take a few seconds and think about what you would expect to be hearing right after that. Probably something about what Obama said that was inappropriate and what Trump had to say about it.
“You know, we had a situation in California very recently where somebody was making bombs in an apartment.”
Objectively, that is a total non sequitur. Story Time has begun. The audience was already beginning to fill in the blanks about what they expected Trump to say next, but then he subtly diverts the conversation to the San Bernadino attacks. It’s like a magician flagrantly showing you there’s nothing in his left hand to lend credibility that the ball is indeed not where you think it’s supposed to be, and while your attention is focussed there he slides the ball in his right hand into the asshole of the rabbit he’s about to pull out of a hat you didn’t know he had stashed up his own asshole when he walked out on stage.
He continues from there:
“The mother saw him—the mother didn’t notice anything wrong. I watched the sister being interviewed. Believe me, in my opinion she was lying like crazy; I watched the interview. “Oh, my brother was such a wonderful guy! “I didn’t know, I didn’t know, I didn’t know.” And I watched the next door neighbor saying ‘well, we didn’t report them because we didn’t want to racially profile’, or ‘we didn’t want to profile.’ Give me a break. Give me a break.”
What did Obama say about San Bernadino that was so inappropriate? Did anyone even watch the speech? None of that matters, because in case you forgot Donald just reminded you that it was something like this:
“Obama won’t let us racially profile, and because of that, the guy who killed everyone in San Bernadino was allowed to carry on his merry way making bombs in his apartment. The women in his life missed all this, and in particular his 'sister'—who was 'lying like crazy'— said of her 'brother', who was 'such a wonderful guy', 'I didn’t know, I didn’t know, I didn’t know.'
Truthfully, I still can't quite connect the dots, but there has definitely been a lot of talk about racial profiling and a women lying about not knowing things in the news lately.
Moving forward, Line 229:
“We’re like the stupid country in so many different ways. Can you imagine what our great leaders of the past would have said with that kind of crap happening to us? They didn’t want to report them because they thought it was profiling.”
Go on...
“OK, they saw bombs, they saw pipe bombs, although this wasn’t to build [for, in?] a bathroom. When a bomb is this long, can’t put too many of them in a bathroom, right?”
That’s true, I remember bombs. Go on...
“And we thought maybe, but we didn’t want to racially prof...’Oh, OK, OK, you, you’re innocent.”
Something's brewing here. Go on...
“Or how about when the families and the girlfriends and the wives and everything? They go back to the World Trade Center The worse—worse than Pearl Harbor. Because with the World Trade Center they were killing innocent civilians. At least while it was a dirty, rotten, sneak attack, at least...(yell in crowd)...at least...Wow that was a hell of a—thank goodness he’s on my side! But while it was an attack at least it was military. But this was an attack on the World Trade Center.”
That’s right!!! I have attained the critical mass of sound bites to go nuclear with this!
Women are weak liars, Muslims, Hillary loves Obama, not racially profiling is stupid, big bombs, more irritating women hollering at us and telling us what to do, World Trade Center, World Trade Center, World Trade Center!”
THANK YOU GLENN BECK! NOW I UNDERSTAND!
Trump: “Damn, you let one crazy, screaming bitch into the White House and it fucks up shit for everyone. Let's keep her out of here.
Anyway. I know it’s not cool to say, but I’m not going to beat around the bush about this. Obama doesn’t want us to racially profile crazy Muslims. Weak women like Hillary Clinton agree, and let’s not forget this is the same Hillary Clinton who lied when she said she didn’t know about Benghazi, or email accounts, or whatever the hell it was we all heard about on the news we never actually watched. Then shit gets blown up, and we have to listen to idiots—particularly Hillary Clinton, liberals and Muslims—bitching at us about racial profiling while we’re trying to prevent another World Trade Center, World Trade Center, World Trade Center.
God, ‘stereotypical sit-com husbands whose wives bitch at you all the time to take out the trash when you’re trying to watch a game’, can we just stop with the politically correct stuff and tell Hillary Clinton to please—and I’ll say this very nicely sweetie— shut the fuck up and get off our fucking back so we can start making this country great again? Jesus...I treat you so nicely and you’re up my asshole again like a ball in a rabbit’s asshole that’s in the hat shoved up my own asshole. DINNER, ROSIE O’DONNELL!”
This is what social media like Facebook, Instagram, and Trump's favorite, Twitter, has done to the political landscape. As a result, the media reflects this type communication because it's brain crack and they're selling a product. His speech is extremely effective because of how we have been trained to take our information in and how our brains process it, and there could not be a more clear example that politicians aren't the problem: they only seek give us what we ask for. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm not saying social media is bad. It's a lot of fun, but if we make it our primary and preferred way of taking in what we want and censoring what we don't, we should expect politicians do serve that up to us on a silver platter.
If you demand cogent speech and factual accountability, you will get it. A politician who is raked over the coals for talking nonsense or communicates solely by Twitter is rewarded with political failure by an electorate that demands honesty and substance, politicians will not try it on you. In fact, the quality of your candidates will increase exponentially because the system will engender honest, sophisticated leaders. However, it also requires you to read and research to keep them honest and be willing to speak up and participate in the process. On the other hand, if you're perfectly happy hearing things that you would like to be true whether they are or aren't, and you're disinterested in doing some work on your own account, then don't be surprised when the White House you just bought has rotten rafters, faulty wiring, and plumbing backed up so far there's raw bullshit flooding the bathrooms of every politician's office in D.C.
The biggest copout in a democratic society is for a citizens to throw up their hands and say "all politicians are liars." They are not liars. They are a mirror, and the image in that mirror is your own.
I will leave it there, but if you go back and read that speech you’ll find many other examples. I do want to make one thing absolutely clear before I wrap this up though. I mentioned Glenn Beck and the word association nonsense. Perhaps you think I’m just doing some Da Vinci Code numerology with all this, and desperately searching for connections where they just don’t exist to support a pre-existing liberal bias. Fine. I ask you to consider only this, given the pile of evidence I’ve laid out in this series:
Is that, or is that not the general platform and sentiment you associate with Donald Trump, and if it is, do you think there is some correlation between that message and the main policy stump speech he has been delivering to massive audiences all over the country, during television interviews, and in live debates, for months and months and months?
I rest my case. That’s so important.
Politics, Current Events: Anatomy of a Trump Speech Pt. I
Politics, Current Events: Anatomy of a Trump Speech Pt. II, Rule of Three
Politics, Current Events: Anatomy of a Trump Speech pt. III - "Remember This..."
Politics, Current Events: Anatomy of a Trump Speech pt. IV - Gross Anatomy
Politics, Current Events: Anatomy of a Trump Speech pt. V - The Skeleton
Politics, Current Events: Anatomy of a Trump Speech pt. VI—The Organs
Politics, Current Events: Transcription of Trump's Yorktown Speech