Episode 342 Scott Adams: Flynn, The Wence, Trump Charity, Sargon and Patreon, Climate

Date: 2018-12-19 | Duration: 57:53

Topics

Climate change debate that wasn’t a debate Michael Mann vs. climate change skeptic Judith Curry
Both sides IGNORE the best arguments of the other Bill Gates and Harvard test: Put particles in the air to cool earth The sketchy trial of General Flynn and all its “buts” The judge used incorrect facts to chastise Flynn Was General Flynn forced to lie in court by our government? Sargon of Akkad used the language of racism to mock racism Anti-Trump glee over President Trump wall vs. fence talk Israel’s “wall” is actually mostly a fence, did you know that? 10.6 Billion for Mexico and South American aid…and no Wence? What if President Trump resigns rather than being pecked endlessly? The Dems are willing to take out an elected President Dangerous precedent, Presidential nullification Endless investigations for the purpose of Presidential nullification Anti-Trump media CREATED the problem they complain about Press business model is assassinating the President slowly The press regularly ruins and assassinates famous people for profit Is Google putting me in danger of death? Top results of image search, Photoshopped into Nazi uniform What Google is doing is hate speech, isn’t it? Please retweet RacistGoogle to help me get image removed

I fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer this method over accepting advertisements or working for a "boss" somewhere because it keeps my voice independent. No one owns me, and that is rare. I'm trying in my own way to make the world a better place, and your contributions help me stay inspired to do that.
See all of my Periscope videos here…
https://www.pscp.tv/ScottAdamsSays/1nAKERDOwylGL
Find my WhenHub Interface app here…
https://interface.whenhub.com

> [!note] Rough Transcript
> 
> This is an auto-generated transcript and may contain errors.

## Transcript

[0:06]

pom pom pom pom pom pom pom pom pom and Murray hello get on in here nice of you to join and the rest of you where are you Jeremy okay you're in there getting in there quickly oh I love it when the first few people are insulting my looks
it is amazing to see all of you you're some of my favorite people in the world did you know that yes you are and now it's time to demonstrate that with the simultaneous up grab your mug your cup your coffee your stein your chalice and bring it to your lips it's time for the simultaneous M so I watched a youtube video the other day of a climate debate so is a debate between Michael Mann

[1:10]

so is a debate between Michael Mann whose author of the famous hockey stick graph that shows temperature's going up steeply with co2 and Judith Curry was there on the other side and there were two other people one on each side and because I had said that I've never seen a debate with the sceptics and the climate alarmist in the same place somebody pointed me to that fairly recent video I think it was last few months and I thought to myself all this would be good this is the first time I will see the skeptics and the climate scientists on the same stage and they'll talk about what they disagree with each other and man I'm gonna really move ahead and then I saw the format so the format was they each get a few minutes to talk and and that's that and then there are a few questions that were sort of off point but here's the the big takeaway the primary claim of Michael

[2:12]

takeaway the primary claim of Michael Mann is that the the temperature is not just going up but going up at a super fast rate that coincides exactly he would say with co2 created by humans now the so the central claim is not that it's getting warmer that's not the claim the claim is that the rate of warming has increased so Michael Mann gets up there he has his five minutes he shows his graphs and he says there the world is getting warmer and it matches co2 and then he says the odds of this graph the the actual heat matching the co2 rise the odds of that being a coincidence are you know astronomically small therefore it must be meaningful and then the skeptics get up and they don't talk about the central claim of climate science the skeptics don't even mention

[3:17]

science the skeptics don't even mention the central claim and I thought to myself what the hell how could they completely ignore the central claim that the rate is going up fast and there's no other explanation now I'm not going to say I'm siding with the climate alarmists because you know I'm not a scientist how would I know but I'm a little bit worried when the skeptics ignore the central claim you know they talked about you know it doesn't look like it's getting so warm and with some other stuff there were actually really good points now there's sort of a related point here which is yeah the related point is that both sides were persuasive so when you listen to Michael Mann before any of the skeptics have talked you look at that and you say man that looks totally persuasive

[4:18]

looks totally persuasive totally and then the skeptics talk Judith curry talks and listen to that and I think that is completely persuasive and it really was so both the pro and the anti sides are completely persuasive but the way that they stay that way is they don't talk about the arguments of the other the only way that those two sides can remain persuasive is by ignoring the argument on the other side and until I saw it myself I didn't think that was true I assumed that somebody would say a is true and then the skeptics would say no let's talk about a a is not true and here are my reasons and then the scientist would say well your reasons are outdated or we have a reason you know we don't think your reasons are true that would look like a debate what

[5:18]

true that would look like a debate what I saw was definitely not a debate it was two people talking about whatever they wanted to talk about sort of never really connecting now the best argument that I've heard for why the skeptics do not address the rate of change michael mann's central claim not addressed is that when you look at the historical record we don't have the fine detail to know if it ever did that before so I'm I'm kind of open to that argument but it wasn't made by that any of the skeptics on the stage instead one of the most persuasive skeptics was the guy who had been a founder of Greenpeace who's turned into a climate skeptic and he points out through the historical record that co2 and temperature have been moving in a non-aligned way for eons and

[6:19]

moving in a non-aligned way for eons and therefore it's not the lever that's moving the world you know it's a very persuasive argument except that it doesn't address the primary claim of climate science that the rate is I so that's all I'm going to say about that I will say again that what is needed is an actual debate about climate science if it's the biggest problem in the world talk me into it please please convince me is really the biggest problem in the world by being on the same stage and interacting with somebody who will disagree with you because those people exist and people saying it's not the biggest thing in the world well let me suggest if you think you have a settled opinion on climate change what would that be based on given that nobody

[7:20]

would that be based on given that nobody has ever debated it as far as I can tell at least in public so from the perspective of the public you and I you and I have never seen this debated you have never seen this debated you've only seen people talking completely different so until it's debated I'm going to say I don't think I don't think you should have a firm opinion on any of this now yeah so there's the separate question of whether the worst case scenario is a big deal and the evidence we have suggests it's not even the worst case scenario but that's and that has been debated by the way so I would say that's the case where Bjorn Lomborg did directly address something specific coming out of the climate science world specifically the economic part of it so he said you're saying this about the economics I'm talking about exactly your point and I'm showing you how you've you

[8:20]

point and I'm showing you how you've you know exaggerated its importance that is what a debate looks like but what's missing is where do the climate people get to address what Bjorn Lomborg sent it's not quite a debate until you get a little counterpoint going on right saying something and then hearing somebody's projection - it gets you halfway there then you have to hear the original person's objection to the objection like a court separately it seems that there's a project that Bill Gates is funding through Harvard I guess in which they're going to put some kind of particles in the air with a big blimp they're gonna launch a blimp and see the atmosphere with some particles that are similar to what volcanoes spew to see if it will cool the world now as you might imagine there are people saying my god my god don't do that because if you do that if

[9:22]

don't do that because if you do that if you do that you can't you know can't put the genie back in the bottle you might over cool the world etc well maybe maybe but here's what seems far more likely what seems far more likely is that since Bill Gates and Harvard are behind it there are smart people doing this and there's probably little to no risk of putting some of that stuff into the air to just see if it works so I would not object to a test if it's possible to test it where they could do a little bit of a test and let's say one county and then maybe it only lasts for a month because you know they're not going to put that many particles in the air eventually a dissolve so you do one little area and you do it for about a month you see if it makes any difference just in case because what happens if let's

[10:23]

in case because what happens if let's say twenty years from now well it's it's a super critical problem it's worse than we thought etc I keep seeing people to talk about chemtrails and the comments chemtrails are not real that's tinfoil hat time you there's nothing about chemtrails is real you're just you're you're just reading down some conspiracy theory rabbit hole it's not real not real so anyway I'm not so afraid of the Bill Gates test well the thing is funding because I'm sure that if it's just the same chemistry that a volcano puts in the air there's lots of it here already they can test it small what's the main thing I tell you if you can test something small you don't have to ask if it's a good good idea this apparently can be tested small so they

[11:25]

apparently can be tested small so they are that's exactly the way you'd want to do it this is one of the reasons I think Bill Gates is one of the most important characters in the history of the planet not just for Microsoft but because he's bringing a a logical scientific kind of a mindset to charity and to fixing these big problems and it's good stuff let's talk about a Flynn all right this whole Flynn trial stuff is the sketchiest looking situation you've ever seen in your life and the entire conversation uses the word but a lot and goes like this general Flynn is a patriot who serves the country for 30 years but he may have lied to the FBI but he may not have known he lied but if he did lie we don't

[12:27]

known he lied but if he did lie we don't know why he would do it but that's not really the big problem because the larger crime seemed to be this you know for an agent registration thing that he was working for Turkey the government of Turkey prior to the election but right up to it so that's bad right but Turkey is actually a NATO ally but he should have told somebody but the guy he was advocating about probably probably wasn't anybody who was our friend either but he shouldn't have been doing it but it was legal yes but if it was illegal it had he registered why didn't they charge him with that and so the the whole story is

[13:27]

with that and so the the whole story is all of these butts like well but it's terrible but and then you've got the judge the judge is apparently a now you normally you wouldn't say that about a judge because you'd say well maybe he knows something I don't know but it's pretty clear that this judge was not prepared for this case he didn't even know that Flynn had stopped advocating on behalf of Turkey by election time so the most critical point in that whole situation caused the judge to call a defendant possibly treasonous or a traitor to the country in public on incorrect facts now how in the world do you not get that judge kicked off the case isn't that lawyer 101 if your judge has accused your client incorrectly of a major of a major traitorous behavior you

[14:30]

major of a major traitorous behavior you can't have to get rid of that judge don't you and then and what's up with the three-month delay who needed three months to do what can you tell me there's any good reason for a three-month delay what we needed was a you know a one-week delay to get a new judge because that judge does not have what it takes
now as Mike sort of itch I'm sure accurately pointed out on Twitter I'm watching the news and all the lawyers and everything and and they they act like they're surprised about why why it is that Flynn may have pleaded guilty to something he doesn't necessarily think he did even though he says he did that in court and otherwise at the same time there was this more serious charge the foreign agent registration thing about and the assumes to me the obvious answer and the one that Mike's arises as well

[15:33]

and the one that Mike's arises as well is that Flynn worked at and deal with prosecutors with the government to take the to plead guilty to the lesser charge now that doesn't necessarily mean he thinks he's guilty or that he wasn't entrapped so you have this weird situation where he may have to wait for it
it des Flynn may have been forced to lie in court by the government as the only way to avoid jail time do you see that the government may have created a situation where the only way he can avoid jail is to lie the way they want him to because if he doesn't lie they've made it pretty clear that they're gonna untap this for an agent registration thing and get him on a far more serious crime so the judge was saying are you sure you want to

[16:35]

was saying are you sure you want to plead guilty because even the judge who was apparently a even that thinks that maybe Flynn should not have been pleading guilty because they were sort of hinting that he had been entrapped etc so Flynn is in this weird situation where he's trying to get it both ways he wants to plead guilty to the lesser charge which is the only way he can get in no jail time but he also wants that lesser charge not to be necessarily binding wouldn't it be great if they just threw it out but if they throw it out isn't the government going to come after him for the greater charge so they can't really throw it out he can't really say he didn't lie because apparently there were some lying going on even if it was just just depends but we don't know why he would lie we're all still confused about that so none of this story makes any sense so

[17:40]

this story makes any sense so everybody in the story is sketchy the judge is sketchy we don't have a real understanding of why Flynn was doing what he was doing but the the turkey consulting is problematic and the government the government looks pretty sketchy in this deal it's like I'm not sure who to root for anymore everybody looks a little bit dirty in this situation that said if if Flynn gets any jail time I believe he will be pardoned just automatically there's a big story today about the Trump charity that got closed down apparently and lots of accusations of irregularities and Trump using it as his personal piggy bank etc
I'm not going to defend anything with anybody's charity I'm not going to defend the Clinton charity I'm not going

[18:41]

defend the Clinton charity I'm not going to defend the Trump charity I'm not going to defend anybody's charity right if rich people have charities I'm not going to defend that if a rich person has a charity and it's anything except their own money somebody wants something and maybe it should just be illegal maybe it should just be illegal to have a charity if you have any influence in the world because it becomes just a way to well it's just this huge opportunity for all kinds of shenanigans so so I'm watching this Trump charity thing and I can't judge whether that's a big problem or a small problem is it his problem or is it somebody else's problem is it whoever ran it is it a civil problem is it a federal problem is it a stay provide oh no what that's I I can't wrap my head around how big a problem that is but it's out there let's talk about we're going to talk about the wall funding in a minute let's talk about

[19:43]

funding in a minute let's talk about sargon of akkad again so he's the guy who got kicked off of a patreon the funding platform for saying some things use the n-word but he used it in the sense of insulting people who use the n-word so the context was I believe his interpretation is he was insulting all the right racist type people by using the n-word in an ironic way the way they use the n-word and so really it was the opposite of racism but because he used the language of racism he was unfairly kicked off the platform something like that I think that's close to what happened and here's why I was trying to figure out why I'm not quite on board with the free speech part of this and I think it comes down to this and you've heard me

[20:43]

comes down to this and you've heard me say this a lot that you are not what you think so your inner thoughts are not who you are who you are in this world is what you do so your actions are what define you and if your actions are bad but your intentions are good you're still the actions if your actions are good but maybe you're evil on the inside you're still the actions you're not the evil on the inside because if you do the evil that near the evil person and what's our gun did was he used the n-word a number of times in public in an insulting fashion now again the technical reason he used it had to do with his inner thoughts so his inner thoughts seemed to be allegedly pure meaning that he was

[21:43]

allegedly pure meaning that he was against racism everybody's happy about that right but those were his inner thoughts we're not judging him on his inner thoughts he's being judged for doing something for actions in other words the things he said using the n-word anybody should have known would get you kicked off a platform no matter what context you use it in so if somebody uses the n-word several times as an insult even if that insult is not directed at a black person that is sort of hate speech the defense that he's internal thinking was non racist seems to be true as far as I can tell right I'm not a I'm not a mind reader but let's say it is true it kind

[22:44]

reader but let's say it is true it kind of doesn't matter because what he did was unambiguously hate speech in other words the words were his internal intentions and even the way you internally processed it many of you were not bad but it probably doesn't matter
it's hard to give an analogy of how this would be a good thing but you know if if you steal food because you're hungry it's still a crime right if you steal if you steal food because you're hungry still a crime right he he did a bad thing in other words he used words that everybody in society knows are bad words and it doesn't matter that his internal process was pure so that's probably why I'm differing with you because I don't

[23:45]

I'm differing with you because I don't think you can judge him by his internal process you can only judge in what he did and those are generally universally considered hate words so I've got a little bit of let's see I've got disavowal of fatigue because I feel like I need to disavow people all the time I had a disavow this person for this I kind of disappeared people with that and I'm a little disappointed
but in any in any event it doesn't matter what his internal thoughts were we can't judge them for that let's talk about the wall so we're seeing reports in the news the highly non credible fake news that President Trump is backing down on a wall funding backing down they say and they he's giving up he's

[24:47]

say and they he's giving up he's surrendering he's capitulating and it looks like the anti Trump errs are gonna have a good time with that but somebody says come on lol so whoever just said come on lol someday they will come after you well if they come after me wouldn't they have to come after me for something I did well let me put it this way if I said what sargon said no matter what I meant would I expect to be kicked off platforms and the answer is yes I would expect to be kicked off social media platforms if I use the words he said even if my thoughts were the opposite even if I was thinking in pure ways I would definitely expect to be kicked off so making an analogy between what he

[25:49]

off so making an analogy between what he did or anybody else did and what might it might come back to affect me is that's not a stretch all right let's talk about the wall so what we don't know about this wall situation is what the president's strategy is what the president's strategy is now if his strategy is to get as much wall as he can
can and turn it over to the engineers I would say that he's sort of ahead of the curve in the sense that there was only one way this wall was ever going to happen the only way the wall was ever going to happen was if we handed over to the engineers and the engineers decide how much his wall how much his fence how much his other that's the only way this ever could have gone there was no situation in which the politicians were going to decide every inch of the wall

[26:50]

going to decide every inch of the wall so it looks like the president is if I had to guess it's just the gas but it looks like he's prepping to go the only way this effort was going to go to to kind of climb down for a moment from it's a wall wall wall all I want as a wall to I'm not an engineer neither is Nancy Pelosi so why are the two of us discussing how much is wall and how much is fence because we don't know why don't we let the experts do it we'll have a you know a pile of money and we'll try to negotiate something maybe we test a little bit wall maybe we build a little wall a little fence to see which one works best because it turns out you can't spend 25 billion in one year anyway so you don't really need to make that decision just make a decision about what you're going to test and then just get on it and then make another decision after you see how that goes so I would

[27:50]

after you see how that goes so I would say we might be very close to something that looks like you know a creative funding plan for border security that will get you better border security now it would be interesting to see if the engineers could come up with an estimate such as if you take a section and we put a wall there or if we put a fence you should assume that there's probably a different degree of violation of a fence than there would be for a wall fewer people will get over the wall then we'll get over the fence if it's a good wall and you should be able to measure that so you should be able to make an estimate that says okay if we have a wall it stops ninety percent of the people would try to get through if we have a fence it stops 75% of the people something like that something you could measure measure you can measure it and then you could take that further and

[28:54]

and then you could take that further and you could say all right with this this amount of extra people getting in with a fence we estimate that 25 legal American citizens will be murdered in the next five years so just put your estimates in terms of money and then murder so what does you know what is the cost-benefit analysis of letting that many extra people get over a fence versus a wall and then you know that do the different costs costs of a wall versus a fence so figure out how many extra people get murdered you know on estimates implying that is racist it is but it's also based on statistics and and how much of cost and then agree to build a little of each of measure measure it you all say

[29:55]

of measure measure it you all say measure wrong how can you measure the effectiveness if they can go around a small wall well you would only put the wall in the places where people have already for whatever reason decided it's easy to get there and it's a good place for a crossing so people might leave there and go to where there are more coyotes where it's more dangerous where it's a desert and if they cross there there's no no human facilities for miles and they die in the desert so it's not that easy to go around a wall if the wall is big enough so you would have to you would definitely have to pick your parts but let's say let's say there is no way to ever know if a fence or a wall works better let's say you put up a little of both and you just can't tell because as somebody said people just go to other places and you never really know what's happened well I think that tells

[30:58]

what's happened well I think that tells you that all you need is a fence so you found out everything you needed to know yes the Israelis now a lot of people don't know this and I didn't know this until recently did you know that the the Israel's wall is actually mostly a fence how many of you knew that how many of you know the Israel's wall is mostly a fence because the only things you ever see a picture of are the wall right you see pictures of the sections that are walls most of its offense so why would we do something different from what Israel did yeah they have sensors they have blah blah yeah I also heard on I guess was Tucker Carlton's show that where Israel does have a solid wall I believe is on the border with Egypt and I believe that they have taken down the

[31:59]

I believe that they have taken down the illegal crossings to basically zero so at least in the case of the Egypt Israeli wall the wall worked 100% and where they have the longer stretch there they have a lot of fence and that seems to be working too so I don't think we have to have wonder if walls and fences work now that the other news which is very damning of course for the president politically damning is that the government approved what ten point six billion dollars for Central America and Mexico to build up their economies I guess so that fewer people will want to come here in a caravan and I think they'll not just the caravan but will want to illegally immigrate and I think to myself that is a very inconvenient

[33:00]

to myself that is a very inconvenient number for a president who doesn't have a wall if you had a wall you might be able to justify that because you'd say well we've got our priorities straight we got the wall but we're also working on developing the things so they don't want to come across that would sound strong but without the wall it sounds like we're we're just giving money to the people who are abusing us and they're gonna come over anyway because I don't know how much money it takes to stop immigration but I'm feeling like ten point six billion spread across several countries probably not enough yeah it feels like a drop in the bucket so the optics of it are horrible for Trump's pace I would think which is different from saying it won't work because I'd like to see an argument for it but it just doesn't feel like a lot of money doesn't seem like it's the

[34:03]

of money doesn't seem like it's the clearly is not the whole solution but maybe we're just testing to see if any of it makes a difference sounds like bribes to politicians that might be it might be partly bribes the wall is immediate somebody says that's not true it would take ten years to build the wall at least yeah so let me ask you this let's say you're President Trump and you're looking at endless investigations once the once the new Congress gets in place what would you do if you were President Trump and you had nothing to look forward to but analysts just you know endless being picked to death by the other side I would at least consider resigning yeah I would consider

[35:03]

consider resigning yeah I would consider resigning and I mean that seriously by the way so this is not a this is not a mental game because here's what would happen if he resigned he would be replaced with pence and that would activate sort of a mutually assured destruction meaning that it would look like a bad idea to force out a president because you would get a something you liked less it wouldn't hurt probably wouldn't hurt Republicans that much because they'd still get their judges right so they still get their judges and here's the weird part President Trump may have already solved all the hard parts you know North Korea's going pretty well probably would keep going that way the economy and jobs are looking good the stock market you know is gonna do its thing one way or the other but as

[36:05]

its thing one way or the other but as long as jobs are good we're probably in pretty good shape it might be the best thing for him and for the country is to just resign and suppose he doesn't suppose that they just hound him into ineffectiveness which there's a good chance that that would happen what's going to happen to the next Democrat who becomes president is there any doubt that the next president will be hounded out of office the only thing that stops people from hounding anybody out of office is that they don't want to that's the only thing that stops it because if you have unlimited money to to initiate unlimited investigations about anybody who who makes it to the presidency you can pretty much take out any president you just have to be willing to do it and until now nobody's been willing to do it so we see the Democrats absolutely

[37:06]

so we see the Democrats absolutely willing to take out the president and I would argue that if we don't see some good bipartisan stuff happening in the next few months and by the way the prison bill is good looks like the prison bill may be a positive step but if if all that happens is we're just bombarded with more Cohen Russia stuff I don't know I'd be tempted to quit he would be the most successful president of all time in two years and then he wouldn't have to put up with it but he'd have to he'd have to make some kind of a deal for I know for pens to pardon him for all actual and future crimes or something he will need to do some pardons first yeah maybe so pardon everybody and then leave it would be even funnier if he pardoned I've said this before the best way that that trump could pardon himself or pardon anybody

[38:09]

could pardon himself or pardon anybody on his team is if he thought he had all the pardons that he's ever gonna need is to pardon Hillary Clinton at the same time just pardon her because if he throws her in the mix it's just gonna complicate the whole thing it would be hard to disagree with it somebody reminded me that there's apparently the there's gonna be a ban on bump of stocks and that feels like a fair thing to do bump stocks were not useful for not really useful for self defense bump stocks are not useful for hunting they didn't really have much of a value so might as well get rid of them to do to - that is no legacy yeah yeah I'm keep in mind we should all keep in mind that we're in the crazy holiday season when all of this legal

[39:11]

holiday season when all of this legal jeopardy stuff for the president is all we have to talk about because there's not much happening so if the only thing we have to talk about is this legal jeopardy stuff it looks like it's more than it is but it could be that when we hit the new Congress it will be ten times bigger than it is now and if that's if that's the case well maybe it's just time to quit and give you president pence
mm-hmm you need another cup of coffee Scott I probably do you know there's the thing they say about dogs that chase cars you know what if the dog catches the car if the dog catches the car the dog doesn't want to do with it it's all about the chasing if Trump were

[40:12]

it's all about the chasing if Trump were to resign and I'm not recommending this by the way this is not a recommendation but if he were to resign what would the Democrats do they would have effectively ruined the government by forcing a president out of office over right they would have effectively ruined the government of the United States they would have to live with that but they would also have to figure out how to govern and and Trump would be leaving them with the biggest federal debt the biggest federal deficit debt in the history of humanity maybe not as a percentage he would never resign how about this what if the president said if you give me 25 billion for a wall I'll quit he's not going to say that but wouldn't that

[41:15]

not going to say that but wouldn't that be interesting suppose the president said for 25 billion dollars if you believe what you're saying suppose you made this offer any Democrats if you believe what you're saying about me that all these bad things are my fault I'm ruining the world if you believe those things 25 billion dollars is cheap to get rid of me build the wall and I'll quit today what would they say think about it would they take the deal because if they don't take the deal it shows that they don't think use that much of a problem and it's just if they do take the deal he gets his wall he has the most successful presidency of any president in two years in two years he will have done more than any president Pence will keep the momentum going without maybe changing much because everything's kind of going in the right direction right now maybe

[42:16]

in the right direction right now maybe get China wrapped up that sort of thing
they'll rescind after he's gone yeah maybe so him about Trump switches parties no I don't think so Scott you are a leaf somebody says I'm a leaf I don't know what that means all right now I saw somebody who's trying to raise money to show that the government has brainwashed us all with trigger words and now we're getting all excited about words and we pick up emotional robots that's all true except I don't think it's the government planning it I think it's just the effect of the business model of the press

[43:29]

yeah you know the I think the greatest magic trick of the past couple years is that the the anti-trump media has created the problem and then they complain about the problem they created let me let me put it in some context roughly I don't know 15 years ago or so I wrote a book called the Dilbert of future and in that book I said that the news media's business model would cause them to kill people actually murder people to create news so that was my prediction 15 years ago the news media would start killing people to create news because it would be good for business now you could argue that they killed princess died because they chased her into a dangerous situation and she died in a car accident but look at this situation with Trump it seems to me that everything the press is chasing could

[44:31]

everything the press is chasing could have just as easily been minimized or largely ignored likewise the you know obviously the the Democrats are behind it but the Democrats power depends entirely on the media if the Democrats were just complaining about Trump no matter what they complained about and the press ignored them just wouldn't mean anything they need the press to do the heavy lifting and and so the press had because of their business model is effectively assassinating the president in slow motion and we're all watching it and there's no question about it is it because you know I think any objective person who watched CNN if there is such a thing as an objective person an objective person look you see a 10 and MSNBC would say oh it's clear that you're just making news about things

[45:32]

you're just making news about things that your viewers want to watch and they like they like Russia they like Trump legal jeopardy youporn so they're giving it to him the the net effect of that is that Trump would is essentially assassinated by the media because it's good for a business so this is what I predicted 15 years ago that the the press would assassinate famous people for news and how many times have you see in the news drag somebody out and assassinate them in public ruining their career in public by talking about whatever thing they said the the outrage that they did it's our etc it's the press yeah the press is literally taking American citizens out one at a time and assassinating them in front of the other citizens because it's good for business

[46:44]

stop saying resigning and assassinating somebody says why cuz I'm giving people ideas I don't think there's you know in my view there's no real chance that President Trump will resign you know the odds of that are really really small because as far as I can tell he's not in any serious legal jeopardy it's just what the news is talking about but they are ruining him and they're trying as hard as they can to assassinate him and they're trying to take out his family they're trying to do you know and if if pence becomes president they'll just take him out because they need to assassinate famous people for ratings I'm a little a little surprised they haven't come after me yet are you surprised about that have you noticed that the at least the the top level of the news hasn't really come after me Bloomberg did Bloomberg came after me with a hip piece during was it during

[47:44]

with a hip piece during was it during the election or after the election so I guess Bloomberg has long has these are I think BuzzFeed has Gawker did before they went out of business yeah they're they're been quite quite a few second-tier media companies that have tried to assassinate me with you know fake news of course but the top tier has not
not yeah Jezebel yeah the the lower-level people why hasn't your press assassination idea picked up I don't know
yeah Bloomberg interviewed me before the election and then released after the election I think that's right

[48:48]

who made that photo of a uniformed Scot yeah oh that's that's true yeah well do you count Google as the press they sort of are aren't they I think you could can Google as the press all right good point so Google's image search shows Photoshop two pictures of me in a Nazi uniform so that would be an example of the media because Google really is the media that would be an example of the media trying to assassinate me and in that case actually literally death so I would say that Google is actually trying to kill me at least that's the indication right now it could be accidental it could be but since it's been called to their attention and the picture is still up there the pictures did disappear from the the first search page but they're still in the top ten on the images page but that may be a fake out because since I called attention to it people are clicking on those images so

[49:50]

people are clicking on those images so it's probably keeping them up there artificially so I've said let's let's wait a little while and stop clicking on those pictures which I guess I have to wait a few more weeks now because I mentioned it again Google can't delete it they certainly can they can do anything they want
there's a health insurance plan in India send me that link if you have one yeah then the Nazi picture is thief well let me look I'll look right now while you're here I'll do Google myself all right top page doesn't have that image but if I click images it is the top image oops

[51:01]

yeah so it's the it's the fourth one and it's right on the top so let me ask you this and it's right after it says Scott Adams dissecting Donald Trump so they make sure that it's clear that I'm associated with Trump and then the neck the picture next to it is me in a Nazi uniform that's been photoshopped on now
now don't you think that's trying to literally kill me is you know that would that be an interesting lawsuit I wish I liked lawsuits I avoid them at all costs but isn't it obviously true that Google is putting me in danger of death by branding me a Nazi intentionally intentionally in the sense that they could stop it but don't obviously they know about it by now and now I suppose

[52:03]

know about it by now and now I suppose they could argue free speech but this is hate speech let me ask you this how is this not hate speech in what world is branding a white guy as a Nazi not hate speech this is absolutely hate speech it's hate speech that gets people killed in this case it may be me and by the way if I ever get killed which I which I think is a pretty high likelihood I'd put the odds of maybe 30% I'd say the odds of me being killed by a citizen for something that was in the fake news before I would die naturally are roughly thirty percent I would say and it's stuff like this so how does Google get away with hate speech you know I've decided I've decided to go harder at this I was kind of letting this whole Google trying to kill me situation I was

[53:06]

Google trying to kill me situation I was trying to not let it get to me you know just let it run a little bit see if it Peters out but the more I think about it and the more I look at let's say sargon of akkad being kicked off a patreon for hate speech which I think we agree probably was not what he had in his mind he wasn't actually hating on anybody in fact he was the opposite but but this Google example is unambiguous you don't have to wonder if it's hate speech drawing somebody in a Nazi outfit is clearly hate speech and Google is running this on their platform now how does Google get away with racism because that's what it is right I mean have you ever seen one of those the last time you saw like a a woman or you know a black guy photoshopped into a Nazi elephant you don't see that it's white adult

[54:09]

you don't see that it's white adult males it's racism there's no other name for it so let's just call it out I'm going to start a new hashtag what's the good hashtag racist Google
how about racist google let's see if that one's on there yet well I think I'll tweet this out while you're watching I'll take the picture of it here you can be part of history well we'll make your hashtag right now I get a tweet out hashtag racist Google won't take down the photoshopped image of me in a Nazi uniform why why not why not

[55:18]

in a Nazi uniform why why not why not what's the name of their CEO pitch pitch pitch pitch a how do you pronounce that and yeah sundar there it is I'll put him in there all right hashtag racist Google won't take down the photoshopped image of me in Nazi uniform why not now I'm pretty sure people have complained about it so it's not a question of whether they know about it or not so let me include that so people can see the picture there we go
yeah so I'm including sundar pshhh pshhh eh eh is that how you pronounce it I don't know how to pronounce it racist Google won't take down the photoshopped image of me and not say uniform why not this marks me for death

[56:29]

tweet all right so why don't you do me a favor and retweet racist Google let's see where is that tweet I want to make sure I got posted and by the way you know I like to be fair when I when I reported this to Twitter it was down in less than a day so Twitter actually understands what hey speech looks like you know in this context and they did their job so I have no complaint with Twitter on this topic but Google it's still there still there so we've got 11 retweets let's see how big we can make this now I I do think the odds of me being assassinated because of stuff like this about 30 percent between now and

[57:31]

this about 30 percent between now and the time I would have naturally died all right that's all I have for now I'm going to go do something else and let's see if racist Google fixes this hate speech and I'll talk to you later