All Episodes
Previous Next
June 14, 2018 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
44:42
Episode 80 - North Korea, ZTE and What’s Next
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
How's my sound?
I did something different with my microphone today.
So if you can't hear me, why don't you tell me?
But how would you not tell me?
You can't hear me. Oh good, sound is good.
Well, I think I've stalled long enough so that you can grab your beverage to get ready for the best part of your day.
The part that kicks it all off.
The part that makes this an amazing day.
And it goes like this.
It's called the simultaneous sip when you're having coffee with Scott Adams.
Oh, that's one of the best simultaneous sips?
Is it my imagination or does it get better?
Every single time.
So, You hear a lot about this analogy.
I'm not sure if it's an analogy, but the dog that didn't bark.
I talk about this a lot.
It's the news that is the big story, but because it's a thing that didn't happen, you don't hear about it.
So if the biggest story is something that did not happen, nobody writes about it.
Let me give you an example.
This is an open question to you.
How long has it been since the media has taken the president out of context with some horrible comment?
Now, we can't count the animal comment because the media actually did a mea culpa and said, okay, that wasn't a real one.
So not counting the time they incorrectly said he was calling immigrants animals, how long before that was the last time he said something outrageous?
Go. It's been a while, right?
It seems to me that the Paralympics was a fake one.
So the Paralympics was another fake one.
So there's two fake ones that are the most recent ones.
Keep going back. How long has it been?
Yeah. All the way to shitholes.
Now, of course, shitholes was a fake one as well because he was talking about the countries, not the people.
But that's been a while now, right?
It's been months. How long ago was it And then Charlottesville was fake, of course.
Charlottesville was a hoax because he was talking about people on both sides of the statue question.
And then the media tried to turn that into, well, successfully turned that into, no, no, he's talking about the white supremacists being fine people.
He didn't say that.
All right. It's been a while.
So here's my point.
What happens if President Trump goes, say, six months without being the person that everybody thought he was?
Because it requires the media to keep inventing these new outrages that didn't happen.
So think of the ones that you just saw.
There was the calling immigrants animals, which didn't happen.
It was reported that it happened, but it didn't happen.
He was talking about MS-13.
There was the examples you just gave of the Paralympics, where he said it was hard to watch.
And people said, my God, he's saying it's hard to watch people with disabilities.
But of course he didn't say that.
He was just saying it's hard to watch because he's president and he has other things to do.
Anybody with the least bit of awareness would know that's what he was saying.
Then there was the shithole comment that was about the countries, not the individuals.
Now, by the way, the trick that was used with the shithole comment, you'll see this when used by the media quite a bit.
And here's how they do it. There are things that you can say to a friend or to a small group in a room that doesn't sound as bad as if you were standing in front of the public.
So what your enemies will do is take something you said that might have been edgy or provocative, but not really that bad for a private conversation, because privately we all say outrageous things, right?
You put me in a small group, you put me in, you know, give me three people in my room right now and turn off the camera, I'm going to say something that I wouldn't want the entire public to hear.
And it doesn't mean it's necessarily some horrible thing.
It's just that the way you talk privately is quite different than the way you measure your words if you know everybody's watching.
So the shithole comment was almost entirely that.
Something that if you said it in person or with a few people that you knew well around a table, They know exactly what you're talking about.
You're talking about the country, the socioeconomic situation there that's not producing as many scholars, for example, people who could add to the economy as some other country.
As soon as you take that and say, well, imagine if this were cited in public.
But it wasn't.
It wasn't cited in public.
So, my point here is it's been a while since he did something outrageous.
I'm getting to a more interesting point.
If you could capture the single biggest complaint of the anti-Trumpers right now, what would it be?
Now, we've seen a whole history of complaints before he got into office.
Hey, he's a crazy racist.
You know, he's going to be incompetent.
There'll be chaos. But it's been a while now, and he's actually accomplished things that even his detractors would say, okay, that's pretty good.
You know, pardoning Joe Jackson, yeah, that's pretty good.
You know, the economy, well, that's pretty good.
ISIS, yeah, that's pretty good.
North Korea, looks like we're making progress.
Pretty good. So what is the biggest Biggest complaint about the president now.
Lies. That might be the biggest, but I'm going to generalize that a little bit.
Wouldn't you say that the biggest problem is that he's insulting?
That the way he talks...
He coarsens the debate and is a giant problem because when you talk like that, it causes other people to be like that.
His personality, essentially.
But have you noticed, if you look at, for example, the way he handled Kim Jong-un with his letter, very complimentary, very respectful, in fact, better than other people were handling this same situation.
What's happened is a complete reversal.
Now, I don't know if this is permanent, so what I'm going to say might not age well.
In fact, what I'm about to say might not age well by this afternoon, the way things go.
But at the moment, it's true.
At the moment, the most polite, respectful person in the conversation The conversation meaning everything about politics, everything about even the people who are talking about politics.
The most respectful person is Trump.
Now let's look at his critics.
Go onto Twitter and see how they talk.
See how they talk about Trump supporters.
What kind of language do they use?
Is it violent, awful, insulting language?
It is.
Trump has caused, and here's the funny part that I was getting to, Trump has turned all of his critics into the thing they're criticizing.
They've all become him.
Or, a better way to say it is, they've all become what they thought he was.
Well, he became president.
It seems like, if we rerun our minds back a year and a half, two years, whatever, didn't it feel like candidate Trump and then newly elected Trump was just kind of coarse personality saying bad things and making the debate worse in every way?
But the public, well, the public were good people.
So there were good people saying, my God, can't we have more civil debate?
Can't we pay attention more to the facts?
Can't we concentrate on the facts, please?
And now, fast forward.
Who is the most respectful person in the game?
Right now. Could it be the person who spent 90 minutes shaking every hand of the graduates at the, which military academy was it?
Could it be the person who pardoned Joe Jackson just because it was the right thing to do?
It was the Naval Academy.
Could it be the person who wrote the most polite letter you've ever seen to another leader?
President Trump.
Respectful. Kind.
Talks about love. Just today.
This could all change tomorrow.
I'm just telling you where we are today.
His critics Spiteful Golems.
You all know the Golem reference from Lord of the Rings?
They've become, from what they imagined they used to be, which is protectors of the culture, the good people, the nice people.
So there were the nice people, and then this monster, this President Trump monster person, he must be stopped.
And he turned into...
A good guy at the moment.
Well, they turned into something horrible.
And we're watching, you know, one domino at a time fall over.
Boop. Boop.
Boop. Hey, Kanye says, maybe, maybe I can like that president.
Boop. Today we saw, yeah, let's talk about Farrakhan.
So Louis Farrakhan, there's a new video, audio clip, video clip, about him saying something to the effect of that President Trump has become the biggest enemy of, I guess the way he put it, was black folks In general.
So that they now have the same enemies.
And the way Farrakhan put it, and let me say what everybody says before they talk about Farrakhan.
Not everybody, but lots of people.
I'm not agreeing with anything that Farrakhan has said.
So I'm not supporting Farrakhan or anything like that before you get mad at me.
I'm just reporting what happened.
And Farrakhan said that President Trump is the enemy of the media, which is also historically the enemy of black people with the fake news.
Farrakhan even talked about fake news because apparently Farrakhan has been the victim of fake news.
And by the way, do you know what happened when I saw Farrakhan agreeing that Trump is right to criticize the fake news?
Do you know what happened to my mind when that happened?
It just went.
And I said to myself, wait a minute, I've read some terrible things about Louis Farrakhan in the news.
I mean, where else would I read it?
I've read terrible, terrible things about Louis Farrakhan.
And then I thought to myself, is it true?
Or is it all out of context?
I mean, look at, you know, the things that President Trump has been accused of, all completely false.
You know, shitholes was taken out of context.
Charlottesville was completely out of context.
Animals out of context.
Paralympics out of context.
I could go on. I think I have about 12 more of them.
But I've read these things which I believe to be true, you know, true statements of hateful things, anti-Semitic things in particular, that Farrakhan has said.
And after watching that clip, I had to sit back and say to myself, holy cow, I don't know if any of that's real.
I really don't.
I believed it, you know, because I believed what I read in the media.
I don't think I ever saw any media report that said the opposite.
So it makes me wonder, and again, I'm not, not, not supporting Farrakhan.
I'm not endorsing anything he's ever said, because I don't know the full body of things he's ever said.
But, I gotta say, he successfully flipped a bit in my head because when the people in the room in this video clip of Farrakhan were agreeing that he had been the victim of fake news, everybody in the room said, oh God, yes, totally victim of fake news.
And I said to myself, we've seen this before.
And I have to wonder how much of the criticism is real.
I'm not defending him, I'm just wondering.
So that was new to me. But Farrakhan said that the enemies of black people, this is Farrakhan's view, were the press, the Department of Justice, which of course Trump is criticizing, the FBI, and I forget who else he said, but Congress, I think, making laws that were not good for them.
It fell very short of endorsing Trump.
So Farrakhan, he's not pro-Trump by any means.
But it was fascinating to hear him talk at least a little bit, I don't know, open-mindedly or maybe higher awareness.
I don't know exactly how to characterize it.
But when I heard him talk, I thought to myself, Pretty good.
Somebody saying that he's intentionally lying because that's allowed in his religion.
I doubt that's what was happening.
It looked like he was saying his truth anyway.
But again, I'm not defending him in any way.
He'll have to defend himself.
So that gets us to Oh, I was scheduled to have Hawk on right now, but we haven't connected this morning, so I'll have to reschedule that.
So let's take some guesses about what's going to happen with North Korea.
It seems to me That in the past, the place where everybody's gone wrong in the past that President Trump did not go wrong is the question about meeting Kim Jong-un in person.
And the old thinking, which was the wrong thinking, in my opinion, was that we would not give him any legitimacy or deal with him or even certainly not have a president meet with him until he had done some or most of the things that we wanted him to do, de-nuclearize or whatever.
And by contrast, the moment that Kim Jong-un said that he would be willing to meet with Trump, Without any preconditions, Trump said, yep, I'll meet with him.
Sure. And you remember the criticism he got for that?
It's like, my God, you don't meet with him before you've gotten some concessions.
And I remember thinking to myself at the time, no, Trump is the only one playing this right.
All of the other people were wrong.
They were all wrong.
The only smart way to do this...
It was to increase Kim Jong-un's esteem, let's say, to show respect for him and to raise him up to something like a peer level.
Nobody's really the peer with the United States or China.
Nobody's quite a peer with the giant countries.
At least treat him like a peer you would treat as an ally.
Because from a communication perspective, from a trust perspective, from a deal-making perspective, from a perspective of persuasion, from a perspective of everything that matters, that was the right first step.
There is no step after that that could work if you don't get that one right.
So if you look at this journey from being enemies to maybe someday reaching some situation where we're all happy, the first step was always that.
Treat them like a peer for conversation purposes at least.
Only one person ever got that right.
Why? Why is it That President Trump got that right, and nobody else got that right before.
Well, I of course have been calling President Trump a master persuader, someone who simply is smarter about this kind of stuff.
So it could be just that.
He's just smarter about this kind of stuff.
Going down a level, I think this also gets to that ego as a tool point that I've made before.
If you can treat your ego as not who you are, but rather something you can ramp up and ramp down when you need to, it becomes a tool as opposed to a liability.
Imagine a prior president saying, I'm going to meet with Kim Jong-un.
That's not good for his ego.
It's not good for the U.S. president's ego, because now he's treating as a peer somebody that he would imagine everybody should see as lower than him on some level.
That's an ego kind of a problem extended also to the United States, protecting the brand, and making ego a liability.
That was part of the reason that we couldn't meet with them.
We didn't want our reputations to be anywhere near each other.
What does President Trump do?
As I've said many times, he treats ego as a tool that he can ramp up and ramp down.
In this case, What did he do?
Did President Trump ramp up his ego for the whole North Korea saga, not just the letter that happened lately?
Look at the whole episode.
You saw him ramp up his ego when we first started talking.
It's like, hey, you're going to call me, you know, fat dotard.
No, if you're going to call me a dotard dotard, I'm going to call you, you know, short and fat or something.
So the first thing he did is sort of matched him.
But the next thing he did is he stayed matched.
So he allowed, President Trump allowed his ego to, at least for the purposes now, to be matched to somebody that the world considers a brutal dictator.
That was an absolute necessary first step for anything else to work.
No conversation can work.
Nothing else can work. Until you do the hard part, which is use your ego as a tool.
Ramp it up when you need to.
Ramp it down when you need to.
You're watching this in real time.
And by the way, I've always been predicting that the North Korea conversation will end up well, but that there would be some walkaways, at least one, which we saw.
There might be more. You could see two or three more walkaways before it's done.
But I believe that history is going to look at this situation and start analyzing everything that Trump did from before we were even seriously talking to North Korea through the end.
And it's going to be a master class on how everything should work.
I think that's going to be the case.
I believe that this will be the greatest A living example of how to do it right.
How to turn an enemy into at least not an enemy.
We don't know if friend is possible, but I think you're going to see something that people imagined not even possible.
And it's because he just has a different skill level.
He knows how to manage his ego up.
Hey, I'm the greatest person you could ever have for president.
Ego up. Let's talk to somebody that you're not supposed to treat as your peer, but you need to to get something done.
Ego down. Watch how well he kept his ego in check for the letter that he dictated word for word.
To Kim Jong-un, which probably is a breakthrough letter.
History will look at that letter, assuming things go well, and they might look at that and say, you know, we didn't know what to make of that at the time, but oh my god, that was good.
That was my impression when I read it.
Kim called Pence a dummy.
Well, I don't think Kim called him that.
I think that was one of his vice something.
Trump blindsided his foreign secretary.
It's utter chaos. So you're seeing situations in which Trump is acting without telling everybody, allies and even people in this country, first.
And the explanation given is that he doesn't want things to leak.
And it's funny, I don't know if those are really the reasons, but it's such a good reason to use now because everybody believes leaking is a big problem.
Let's talk about ZTE. So the news is reporting that some people are saying, darn it, President Trump, how could you let ZTE stay in business when they've violated the sanctions with North Korea?
When they maybe are spying on us with their technology, etc.
To which I say, shut up!
Shut up!
Because we don't know what President Xi of China and President Trump have agreed about trade and North Korea and what's happening behind the scenes and all the secret stuff.
We have no idea Where ZTE fits in the bigger picture.
So if you're just looking at ZTE, you know, out of context of all the things that we can't possibly and shouldn't know what those conversations are about, there's only one opinion you should have about ZTE. I don't know.
That's it. There's only one rational opinion you should have right now with what we know, which is very limited, which is, I don't know, Might be a good idea.
It might be. Might not be.
How would we know?
We don't know what conversations are happening that we're not aware of.
Yeah, ZTE is related to North Korea.
Correct. So since everything is connected and we don't know the secret conversations behind anything, it's too early to have any kind of an opinion.
But here's what I would say speculatively.
Speculatively I would say that it's unlikely that we would have saved ZTE unless we got something in return.
Right? So clearly there's some give and take going on and we don't know what's giving and what's taking.
So you can't really make an opinion on that yet.
All right, yeah, CT is one more variable.
Yeah, I've talked about shaking the box and adding variables.
Every time the president shakes the box or adds a variable, he creates another way that things could just fall out his direction.
And if they don't, he shakes it again and he adds another variable.
Sooner or later, things are going to line up his way.
So I have predicted in the past, and I will stick with my prediction.
I believe that North Korea will not give up its nukes as quickly or in the way that we would want to.
They might try to drag things out.
If that happens, I think the US will close down a Chinese bank.
First, we'll go after the bankers.
And if that's not enough, and it probably won't be, I think we'll pick one of the four banks, one of the four Chinese banks, and we'll figure out which one to crash.
And we'll just take out a bank.
Somebody says that's the obvious prediction.
Well, it's the obvious alternative, meaning the alternative is to crash a Chinese bank or not.
So it's binary.
And I'm saying that I think in the past people would have assumed we never would have done something so extreme.
Today? Absolutely.
Not even a question. Remember, this is the difference.
And I keep seeing this in the language of people reporting about North Korea.
People will say something like, well, what we'd really like is for them to get rid of their nukes, or we would prefer they get rid of their nukes, or our best case ending would be they get rid of their nukes.
That's all the wrong language now.
The United States, and I want to say this as clearly as possible, has decided that North Korea will end up with no nukes.
We've decided.
That's never happened before.
It's one thing to want it and try to make it happen.
That's where we were in the past.
Wanting and trying are good things, they're helpful, but they're not in the same class as deciding.
Because when you want something and you're trying to get it, when you hit a roadblock, you go, ah, roadblock.
I wanted it. I tried, but I hit a roadblock.
I asked them to get rid of their nukes.
They said no. Nothing I can do now.
That's when you want something.
You hit the wall, you say, ah, I tried.
If you decide to do something, That's a whole different path.
Because if the way we get there is they just agree to be reasonable and say, hey, we'd rather have a good economy and security guarantees, we'll get rid of our nukes, that'd be great.
If they don't, we'll crash a Chinese bank.
In the past, would we have ever considered that seriously?
No. Today, would we want to do that?
Absolutely not. We do not want to crash a Chinese bank.
Let me tell you, we super, super don't want to do that.
Like, that's one of the things we most don't want to do.
But we will. Why will we?
Because we've decided. We've decided North Korea is going to end up without nukes.
We would never, ever, ever want to have a war with North Korea.
But would we if we had to?
Yes. Why?
Not because we want or don't want, but because we've decided.
We've decided how this ends.
North Korea just has to decide how much pain they want to take to get there.
There's an easy path, and I think that's what we're doing also well, which is we're saying, look, we'll not only guarantee your security, so you can start putting the money you were putting into the military, you can put it into economic recovery.
We'll help you invest, and we'll make this really good for you.
And that's that contrast principle where you make the widest possible contrast between...
I'm watching a comment here that's very insightful and I'm not going to mention it because you know who you are and let's just say you're very right.
You know who you are.
All right. Somebody said, who has the leverage?
Somebody who owns the debt, meaning China, or somebody who...
Yeah, so is it better to be the debtor or the...
What's the opposite of that?
The loaner or the...
God, how come I can't think of the opposites?
You know what I mean. So China holds a lot of debt.
Does that give them the leverage or us the leverage?
And here's my answer to that.
The leverage is always the one who decided.
Do you get that? So somebody's saying, is it the borrower or the lender who has the leverage?
You know, if it's trillions of dollars, who's got the power?
And my answer is, it's the one who decided.
We've decided that North Korea isn't going to have nukes.
All that other stuff doesn't matter anymore.
Because if we crash our own economy to get a denuclearized North Korea, we're going to do it.
We think we'll recover.
But we would crash our own economy somewhat, you know, to get rid of the nukes in North Korea.
Would China crash their economy to preserve nukes that they probably don't really want that much in North Korea?
Not a chance.
Not a chance.
Now, things can happen that you end up in these bad situations that you didn't want.
But here's a fight...
Let me tell you why I think I've never been in a serious fight.
If you're male and you live in this country, or probably any other country, and you get to my age, and you've never been in a sort of a serious fight where you're both punching each other and it's going to take a while, and you're really trying to hurt each other.
And I think here's the reason.
I would never get in a fight Until I had decided to win.
If I hadn't decided to win, and I simply wanted to win, I would run away.
Wanting to win a fight is a terrible reason to be in a fight.
If you simply want to win a fight, run away.
You don't have the right mindset.
You don't have a winning mindset.
I would never get in a fight until I had decided to win.
What does decided to win look like?
You get in the fight.
I'm not a big guy.
I get the shit beat out of me.
And then I come back with a weapon.
And maybe I get arrested and I get 10 years in jail.
I get out of jail.
I get a better weapon.
And I come back and I kill that guy.
That's a decision. So that's a decision to win a fight.
I would never be in a fight until I decided that it doesn't matter how long this fight goes.
If you don't kill me, I'm coming back.
That's a decision. That's different from wanting to win a fight.
I've been told I transmit that intention fairly effectively.
So I've certainly been in a pre-fight where I've been in somebody's face and vice versa, and I have told them as clearly as I just told you that I've decided to win.
I don't use those terms.
But when you tell somebody you've decided to win, they don't like to mess with you because they just want to win.
So that's the fight we're in.
We've decided. The other side just wants.
North Korea has not even decided whether they want to keep their nukes or not.
I'm sure they have a strong preference, but they probably don't know which way it's going to go.
On the other hand, we do know which way it's going to go because we decided and we do have the power.
Militarily, economically, it doesn't matter.
The ending is now determined.
All we're working on is how much pain China wants to take, how much pain North Korea wants to take.
We've already come to grips with our own pain.
The United States has decided that if we have to take a hit, it doesn't matter how big it is.
It doesn't matter.
That's no longer part of our calculation.
10% off our economy?
Sure. 30% off our economy?
Okay. Risking a nuclear attack on the West Coast?
Yes. We've already decided.
Will we reduce troop levels?
I don't fully understand the troop level variables.
If the only thing in play was North Korea and us in South Korea, then I'd say, well, of course we would reduce our troop levels when we don't need them anymore.
But my understanding is that The one best place to keep a lot of troops is South Korea because it's actually inexpensive for us.
I think they help host.
But it gives us a large military presence in a part of the world where you never know.
It might be useful to have a large military presence just in case.
So there are bigger variables, militarily, strategically, and I don't know them all, so I'm not sure that I would have a solid opinion about troop levels in South Korea.
Now, almost certainly, we could repurpose those troops so they're not a direct threat to North Korea, assuming we come to some kind of a good accommodation.
Sorry. I'd like you to meet Boo the cat, who has decided that whenever I do periscope, she likes to bother me.
Cool dog. Alright, did you have any other questions before I go off and do something else today?
Um... Intellectual dark web as a name.
Well, you know, so I've been watching all the stories about the so-called intellectual dark web.
And the fact that dark was attached to the name, you know that I've talked about how when Candidate Clinton was saying that everything Trump did was dark.
It's dark this, dark that.
It's one of those pre-suasion type words that really makes you think there's something bad going on.
Now, even though the intellectual dark web, you know, if you look at it on the surface, it doesn't look like it's an insult to the people who are in it.
It's like, oh, it's a dark web.
I don't know what that means. But just the fact that it says dark, is an insult to the people who are in it because there's something wrong with them.
It's dark. And I guess I'm glad that I was not included in any of those lists, because I would read the list and I would think, ooh, this is the same bunch of folks that I usually get lumped with, and I don't know why I did not reach the level of attention or something that would put me on the list.
So since I'm not on the list, I'm a little less...
You know, invested in it.
But it would make sense to change that name.
And here's the name that I prefer.
Freethinkers. Eric Weinstein came up with the name Intellectual Dark Web.
I don't believe that.
I would think Eric would know not to use dark in that label.
But I don't doubt it.
It just doesn't sound...
The facts don't seem like they fit too well.
Somebody's saying that yes. He did.
I would suggest to Eric that it's too late to take it back.
But I'm going to call myself a free thinker.
You can call the people of that group anything you want.
I'm not in it.
Can I explain the...
Somebody asked me to explain the WenHub interface app.
Yeah, so my startup WenHub has an app called Interface in which anybody can sign up to be an expert on anything.
An expert in this context just means that you know something more than other people.
You don't have to be like a world's expert.
But you just go on the app and you can either be an expert or find an expert.
You can set your own price and...
The payment initially is in the WEN tokens, a cryptocurrency that we created for the app.
Once we are listed on an exchange, the tokens that you earn within the app can be exchanged into other cryptocurrencies and cash.
But we are not yet on an exchange.
And as is typical for people who are going through our process, the risk you take In investing in the ICO or the tokens that we create, because separately you can invest in the ICO, your risk is that you're buying them cheap now with the hope that we can get listed on an exchange.
How you calculate whether or not we're likely, yeah, they're ERC20 tokens.
The way you calculate whether they get on an exchange or not is how much traction you're getting on the app.
And let me show you how we're doing.
So we've got 34,000 experts enrolled.
So that's just people who signed up to just be experts.
So that's pretty good traction.
So if you were going to invest in an ICO, some of the questions you'd ask, have they already built the product?
And we have, which is actually unusual.
Most of the investments in ICOs are just for an idea, a white paper and a team.
We've actually built the product and you can use it right now.
So it's called Interface by Wenhub.
If you search for it in the app stores, it's already there.
And I'm starting to use it to have people call in on these Periscopes.
So that's what that's all about.
Somebody says, most ICOs are scams.
I think that's probably true.
Now one of the ways you can tell what's the difference between a scam and a legitimate ICO is do they have an actual product?
Some of the ones that don't have an actual product are still legitimate.
In fact, many of them are. But very few scans, maybe none, would have an actual built product that's in an app store.
I don't know if that's ever happened.
Maybe it has. I don't know how to judge that risk.
But I would think that the number of scams that build an actual working product that people like and tens of thousands of people have signed up for, it's probably pretty rare.
Who are your guests next week?
I'll give you more information next week.
One expert on Korea.
Might have more of them.
All right. I think I've said enough for today.
A lot of you were asking me to comment on Tommy Robinson.
Issue going over happening...
Apparently...
I didn't realize this, but...
The United Kingdom doesn't have free speech.
Did you know that?
Did you know that they don't have freedom of speech?
So there's an issue that you can't even talk about, and I'm not going to because I think there's some legal implications there.
But Yeah, this periscope goes all over the world, so I don't know what kind of legal risk there is for me to even talk about it.
But in the United States, we have something a little bit closer to freedom of speech.
And I was actually shocked That in the United Kingdom, they actually don't have freedom of speech.
I was like, well, is that true?
They have sort of a version of free speech that allows you to talk about some things, but not other things.
Anyway, so that's for them to sort out, not me.
▲
Export Selection