The Trump Riots That are Mostly My Fault
By Scott Adams
March 13th, 2016
I would like to begin this post by disavowing Scott Adams. It seems I am mostly to blame for the recent scuffles at Trump rallies. I apologize for this and for the nuclear annihilation that is likely ahead of us after Trump wins the presidency in a landslide.
The short explanation of my guilt is that although I support none of Trump’s policies (and no one else’s policies), my glowing reports about Trump’s persuasion skills makes me a “cheerleader” for Trump and an “apologist.” That’s what the public is telling me and I have no reason to doubt them. So I take full responsibility and I disavow myself.
It would be tempting to blame the mainstream media for the recent disruptions at Trump rallies. But the media is just reporting the news. They aren’t the disrupters.
[As Adams well knows, the MSM have been inciting the rioters and assassins for months. I suspect he is pulling his punches out of fear that media outlets will cancel his comic strip.]
It would be easy to blame Trump for talking in a way that incites negative emotions in people. But that’s free speech. You can’t blame the person who is following the law when other people break it.
It would be easy to blame Bernie Sanders because his supporters organized the Chicago Trump rally disruption. But Sanders didn’t ask anyone to do that, so we can’t blame him. Same with Clinton.
It would be easy to blame the protesters for taking things too far. But all they are doing is responding to hate speech from the next Hitler. Shouldn’t someone be fighting hard to stop Hitler? We can’t blame people for wanting fewer Hitlers.
So it all comes back to me. Readers tell me I legitimized Trump with my blogging about his genius for persuasion. I accept that blame. Some have suggested that my so-called predictions about Trump are actually a form of persuasion that has caused some of his success. I plead guilty to that as well.
But it gets worse.
Back in 1997 I made a prediction in my book The Dilbert Future that seems to be coming true. It stated:
In the future, the media will kill famous people to generate news
that people will care about. – The Dilbert Future (May 1997)
Three months later, the media chased Princess Di into a tunnel and created a dangerous situation that killed her but was terrific for television news ratings. The media didn’t plot to kill anyone, but they created a situation that made it likely someone important would die because of the way their business model works. That was the basis for my prediction.
Fast-forward to today and we see the media priming the public to try to kill Trump, or at least create some photogenic mayhem at a public event. Again, no one is sitting in a room plotting Trump’s death, but – let’s be honest – at least half of the media believes Trump is the next Hitler, and a Hitler assassination would be morally justified. Also great for ratings. The media would not be charged with any crime for triggering some nut to act. There would be no smoking gun. No guilt. No repercussions. Just better ratings and bonuses all around.
In the 2D world of reason, no one in the media consciously wants a candidate for president to be injured, and no one is consciously acting in a way that would make it happen. [No. I don’t know what “2D” is supposed to mean, but the MSM clearly consciously want Trump to be assassinated.] But in the 3D world of persuasion, society [?] has decided to lance the wart that is Trump. Collectively – the media, the public, and the other candidates – are creating a situation that is deeply dangerous for Trump.
Is it justified?
According to social media, and the mainstream media as well, Trump might be the next Hitler because he does things Hitler would have done. For example:
- Trump is charismatic and appeals to our prejudices.
- Trump approves of violence against people he thinks deserve it.
- Trump blames “others” for the nation’s problems.
- Trump has an authoritarian vibe.
All that is true. But it would be equally easy to build a list of why Trump is definitely NOT like Hitler. For example:
- Trump is anti-war. Hitler, not so much.
- Trump asks us to favor legal citizens over non-citizens. He makes no mention of race. Hitler killed his own citizens and mostly cared about race.
- Trump wants citizens to be heavily armed to protect themselves against bad people, including dictators. Hitler didn’t want to arm his potential enemies.
- Trump wants greater freedom of speech that would include politically incorrect topics. Hitler wasn’t so big on free speech for others.
- Trump assures us his genitalia have “no problem.” Hitler had one testicle.
I could go on, but you see how easy this is. The mainstream media can either portray Trump as Hitler or non-Hitler. So far, they have chosen (subconsciously I assume) the Hitler analogy all the way.
Again, none of this is conscious. It is just the result of individuals pursuing their own emotional truths and doing the best they can. Weirdly, everyone involved is trying to make the world a better place. But at least half of them have the wrong plan. We just don’t know which half.
So now we have a situation in which two-thirds of the country and most of the mainstream media believe Trump is a Hitler-in-the-making that must be stopped. Only the mainstream media can remedy this situation and apparently that is not financially advantageous. So don’t expect anything but escalation in the “disruptions” and violence.
The Secret Service will do a great job of protecting Trump. But even so, his odds of surviving the next year are dropping quickly. I put the odds of an attempted assassination at about 25% before November. And apparently that’s on me for being a Trumpsplainer. I apologize for that.
If you wonder how I could be so wrong about everything and still manage to be overpaid, you can find out by reading my book.
Update: A complementary article on the same topic of Trump’s risk.