Episode 1974 Scott Adams: Let's Say Goodbye To A Crappy Year And Talk About All The Fake News
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Mental illness and social media
President Trump's tax returns
Andrew Tate detained for 30 days?
Ray Epps J6 testimony transcripts
Debating Elon Musk on Twitter
The WEF and Klaus Schwab
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Is there anybody who wants to do 2022 all over again?
No, no, nobody.
But 2023? I am optimistic.
Oh yeah, we'll have a little inflation, a few problems, but it's going to look good.
Now, do you think we can launch 2023 with a simultaneous sip in such a way that it's even better than you expect?
I think we can.
And all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
Especially 2023.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
It's the last one for this crappy year.
Go! Now that's the way to go to the new year.
That's the way to do it. Alright, I saw a tweet today about a study that suggests that mental illness can be spread by social media.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that mental illness...
Now, I'm not talking about just...
Let me clarify.
I'm not talking about the experience of using social media.
That has, you know, depression and mental health issues.
I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about somebody has a specific mental illness, and then they make a bunch of TikTok videos, because TikTok is what they looked at, and then other people who watch the person who has the mental illness come to believe they have it, too. And then they adopt it as their identity.
They don't just have a medical problem, but they are that person.
They're the person with, and apparently Tourette's is one of them.
The people are watching influencers with Tourette's and their parents have to take them to the doctor because they act like they have Tourette's.
Do you believe it?
Does that sound like a real thing to you?
Do the really test on it.
Really? Really?
It passes the really test.
Yeah. I was tricking you, because usually when I do the really test, I'm going to debunk it.
No, this totally passes the really test.
Really? Somebody sees social media and they copy it?
Yes. Yes, very easy to believe.
Have you seen the videos of dogs imitating the illnesses of their masters?
Did you even know that was a thing?
Apparently it is. There are a number of videos, you can see them on social media, where if the owner gets a limp, you know, they hurt their foot and they're limping, the dog will adopt the limp as long as the person has it.
That's the real thing. So you don't think that that happens to people, too?
Now, maybe those videos are pranks or hoaxes or something, but the general concept is that people do adopt Other people's mannerisms.
It's pretty automatic.
Let's talk about Trump's tax returns.
Well, the walls are closing in.
The walls are closing in.
Finally, finally the Democrats get what they've long hoped for.
If we could only get his tax returns, it'll be like the Rosetta Stone.
He'll unlock the financial crimes throughout his empire.
Finally, we'll find out all the bad things he's been doing all along.
And now we know. Allow me to mention some of the bad, bad things we found on his taxes.
Number one, he made large charitable donations.
I know. I know.
I know. You used to like him.
A lot of you, you were like pro-Trump.
You're like, I used to like him.
Are you serious?
He made large charitable donations?
Well, the story is that they were so large that there's some question about whether they're substantiated.
But am I wrong that they used to mock him for not making enough of a charitable contribution?
Aren't they mocking him both ways?
Once when he didn't have much, and now he has a lot, and they're mocking him both ways.
Pick one. Pick one.
How about this?
Oh my god, this is terrible.
The Trump Organization has lots of overseas businesses, and one of them has a, I can barely even say it, a bank account in China.
There's a bank account in China.
Of course, it was fully disclosed when Trump ran for president, so it's not a new bank account.
It's one he fully disclosed when he ran for president.
It's just associated with some business over there.
There's no suggestion that there's anything wrong with it.
But it still made it a headline in CNN. So CNN treated it as a headline before basically saying there's nothing to the story.
How about this?
Oh, no.
Oh, no. Trump made small loans to his children, and they paid back interest, and the interest was in round dollar amounts.
Wow. So, that's pretty damning.
Round dollar amounts.
Very suspicious.
So they're concerned that he may have been trying to dodge gift taxes.
Okay.
That's like the smallest financial crime of all time.
Trying to dodge gift taxes.
Now there's no indication that what he did is illegal.
That's a different story.
Because everybody tries to dodge taxes, but you dodge them in all the ways that are legal and available.
So there's no indication it's illegal, just it raises a question.
It raises a question.
Then there's his helicopter revenue and expenses exactly matched.
Why does he have helicopter revenue?
Was he renting his helicopter out?
And the fact that they exactly matched, which is statistically pretty close to impossible, Do you think maybe they just said...
To me it sounds like somebody said, operate the helicopter at zero profit.
And so somebody just, you know, played around with the numbers until it was exactly the same.
It doesn't mean any of the deductions were illegal.
That's not suggested by anything.
It's just that the numbers were the same.
Now, it's suspicious, but also it's not a crime.
All right. There's...
Oh, this is bad.
There's no sign that he donated his presidential salary to any charity like he said he would.
I think one year maybe it showed, and the other year's not.
So, I mean, that's grounds for impeachment.
He said he'd donate his charity.
But in the context of losing millions of dollars, at least on paper, he did not.
So... Do with that what you will.
All right, here's your financial tip for the day.
You're going to see lots of articles discussing Trump's taxes and the losses that he's had from 2015 through 2020.
Apparently he had tens of millions of losses each of those years on paper.
If you hear anybody discuss it or writing about it, And they do not mention also, in addition to that, what his cash flow is.
You should never listen to that person again.
Because here's basic financial information.
If you have a real estate-related empire, The laws are crafted so there's lots of stuff you could write off so that on paper you might look like you have losses, but you're still making money in the sense that there's more cash coming in than going out.
Now when Warren Buffett buys a company, does he look at the income statement the way the reporters are to find out if it's a good company?
Nope. Nope, he doesn't look at the income statement.
So Warren Buffett, he looks at both, but he's primarily interested in the cash flow.
So the best investor in the world buys companies because they have good cash flow, even if on paper they've written off enough, you know, artificial stuff like depreciation, etc.
So it looks like zero.
That's like a really good investment.
So just think about this.
Just hold it in your head that all these people are talking about his tax returns.
And so far, so far, not one person has mentioned cash flow.
Just hold that in your head.
It's the only thing that matters.
Well, that's an exaggeration.
It's the main thing that tells you if he was running his business well.
I mean, successfully.
It's the main thing.
It's not even in any of the stories.
Can I get a confirmation from those of you who have economic, financial educations?
Everybody who has the same education is on the same page.
It's not a debatable point that the journalists don't even know what financials are supposed to look like, and they're talking about them.
They don't have any idea That they're not even on the right page, literally not on the right page.
If the page they're looking at is income, and the page they're not looking at is cash flow, they're literally on the wrong page.
There's your news business right there.
All right. Then apparently, I think we already knew this, he wrote off his payments to Stormy Daniels, to which I say, and...
And why wouldn't you?
It was literally a business expense.
It wasn't the amount he paid to have sex with her.
It was the amount he paid to make sure that he could run for office.
So it was either a campaign expense or a business expense.
I mean, I would have tried it.
The worst thing that could happen is they say, you know, you don't get that deduction.
But you don't go to jail for that one.
Here's a good tax tip that you should not take my advice on.
If your accountants do your return and the accountant tells you, yeah, we could try that, you're not going to go to jail for that.
It means there's an argument and an expert said, yeah, it might be a gray area, but let's try it.
You can always try the gray area.
It is totally not illegal to assert your interpretation of things.
You don't go to jail for that.
You might pay extra taxes if they disagree and there might be a penalty, but you don't go to jail for that.
That's not illegal, per se.
Yeah, you do go to jail if you don't pay.
That is true. Alright, well, you all know that Andrew Tate and his brother were picked up by police.
I don't want to say arrested, because I don't think they are.
They're detained. And now the update is they're detained for 30 days.
What is the caution I give you on all Romanian news?
Don't believe any of it.
Just assume everything out of this story is fake.
Until maybe later.
But at the moment, just assume it's all fake.
So what does it mean to say he's detained for 30 days?
I have no idea.
Detained? Do you think he's in a prison cell with the other prisoners?
I'm going to guess not.
It's possible. I'm going to guess not.
I think detained might suggest he's not in the same facility with regular prisoners.
Because I don't think he's arrested.
And I don't know if there's no charges.
What does it mean to be detained?
Yeah, maybe they took his passport, maybe something like that.
So I'm not exactly sure what it means.
And you shouldn't believe anything about it at this point.
And innocent until proven guilty.
We don't know what's going on over there.
But one reason that I think he won't be convicted of anything is that any evidence is already tainted.
It's tainted.
The evidence.
It's got taint all over it.
It's very tainted. All right.
Here's a little fact I didn't know, but apparently, did you know that the police in Romania are really well paid?
How many of you knew that?
It's sort of surprising, right?
Like Romania, you think it's not going to be high.
But apparently, at least 22 members of the Romanian Police Department are driving Bugattis.
So... I'm just waiting for a reaction to that.
If you didn't know, Andrew Taint allegedly owns 22 Bugatti sports cars.
But I have a feeling that the police are driving those Bugattis.
And if they're not, what the hell is the point of being corrupt?
What is the point of being in the most corrupt country, in the most corrupt police force?
Probably. I'm just guessing.
Don't really know that, but just guessing.
If you can't drive a Bugatti now and then from somebody that you've targeted.
So, yeah, he's been detainted.
They're detainted. All right, let's talk about Ray Epps.
So the original 845-page final report from the January 6th Committee made no mention of Ray Epps, even though they interviewed him, and even though he was the subject of the most interest By, I don't know, 30 or 40% of the public.
The single thing we wanted to know the most, a segment of the public, no mention.
But now we're getting some transcripts.
Would it surprise you to know that the transcripts are being interpreted just like it's two movies playing on one screen?
And everybody's seeing what they want.
So there's something in there in the transcript that says he told his nephew that he was in the front and he, quote, orchestrated some part of the event.
So that means he's FBI fed, right?
Now he was asked directly You know, did you talk to the FBI? Are you a federal agent?
Did you work for the CIA and the intelligence agencies, police force?
So they did ask him those questions.
But isn't it interesting that the FBI wouldn't answer the question?
Because he said, no, he doesn't work for the FBI. But when Christopher Wray was asked if he works for the FBI, he wouldn't answer.
Now, is that only because he doesn't want to answer the next time he's asked, because the next one might actually be somebody who does work for the FBI? Is he just laying down the rule that we don't answer that question?
Is that what Ray was doing?
Maybe. I mean, that wouldn't be crazy.
But it sure looked like the FBI had a different opinion of whether he worked for him.
Or maybe Ray didn't know.
And, you know, it's possible he didn't know, one way or the other.
He's an asset, not an employee.
Yeah, we know he was not an employee.
That part we know. So if I say working for them, I meant, you know, not directly.
Well, so I read the transcripts and I did not see evidence that the Ray Epps was a Fed.
What did you see? When you read it, did you see evidence he was a Fed?
Tell me your interpretation. I'm not saying that he is or not.
I'm saying that the transcript didn't really shed light on that.
Why'd you get so quiet?
I thought I was going to get quick answers to this.
Didn't clear it up. It didn't clear it up.
That's true. It didn't clear it up, but it also did not provide any evidence that he was anything but a concerned citizen.
So if I had to bet at this point, I don't know, it's kind of a coin flip for me.
I would say there's no direct evidence, but even though he's innocent until proven guilty, and so far that would make him perfectly innocent, we do have a couple of questions, don't we?
Question number one.
Why was he not arrested when he's the most clearly guilty person at the whole event, you know, well documented?
There was no answer for that, was there?
Now, is that Ray Epps' problem, that he wasn't arrested?
Is that something that Ray Epps needs to answer to?
No. No.
That's the government needs to answer that question, why he wasn't arrested.
Now, what's the second question?
Why couldn't Ray say, no, he's not an asset?
Why couldn't he answer that question?
Don't know. But those are three things.
Because he was left out of the final report until people asked for it.
He wasn't arrested.
And Ray refused to say he wasn't an asset.
So all of our suspicion is on the side of the government.
Is the government innocent until proven guilty?
No. No.
Only REAPS is innocent until proven guilty.
So I declare REAPS, under the Constitution of the United States, totally innocent, just like the Tates are totally innocent, but in a different country, until proven guilty.
But let's talk about that government.
Government is guilty.
Guilty. Because they're not giving us transparency, and they're clearly covering something up.
I don't know what, but you should assume the worst.
As a reasonable citizen, you should say, effectively, effectively the government confirmed it.
Which is different from saying they confirmed it.
Say effectively they did, by failing to be transparent.
A failure to be transparent And a clear unwillingness to be transparent has to be interpreted as a confession.
Doesn't mean it is, but it also, you know, the same way the citizen might actually be guilty.
But your system has to assume the, you have to assume the citizen's innocent, and you have to assume your government is guilty when they act guilty, right?
If they weren't acting guilty, then there's nothing to suspect.
But we should start talking that way.
Instead of saying, I know Epps is an asset.
You don't know that.
That doesn't sound persuasive.
Instead say, the government has effectively confirmed it by not addressing it.
Done. There's nothing else you need to say.
You don't have to show your work.
You don't have to show your evidence.
You don't have to make an argument. Just say, the government has chosen not to give us transparency.
You have to, as a practical matter, treat that as a confession.
Try it. All right.
So I was seeing a year-end review about fentanyl, and it was mentioning all the fentanyl deaths, etc., which we talk about too much, unfortunately.
But at this point, consistent with my theme, Give me one good reason the United States has not flattened the cartels.
One reason. Don't have enough money?
No, that's not a reason.
We have plenty of money for war.
We've never run... No, we've never...
Corruption, there we go.
Corruption is the only explanation.
Let me say that again.
The reason that the United States has not moved militarily against the cartels, we're down to only one reason.
If we had not exhausted all other possible reasons, then I wouldn't say that.
But we've exhausted, we've exhausted, do people, does the government understand it's a huge problem?
Yes, yes.
So there's no question about how big the problem is.
Do they think that these deaths are, you know, relatively accurately counted?
Yes. I mean, maybe not within 10 or 20%, but enough to make decisions, right?
So we have accurate information.
We know the problem is growing.
We know that our government knows its problem, and one of the biggest ones.
They know the voters want it dealt with.
They know how to start wars.
And they know how to flatten the cartels.
And they know where it's coming from.
Give me any reason we're not doing it, except corruption.
It has to be corruption. Now, again, if your government gave you a different explanation, well, then I would weigh that and say, okay, I don't know one way or another, but they've explained it, and that is their obligation.
So I would be tentatively supportive if they had a reason to pass the sniff test.
But they're not giving a reason.
They're not giving a reason.
If they don't give you a reason, You have to assume corruption, because that's the default.
Remember, the government is guilty unless they're transparent.
So if you suspect that corruption is the problem and they don't do anything to, you know, talk you out of it, that has to be your working hypothesis.
As a practical matter, the government has said that they're too corrupt to deal with it.
By their actions. I'm not blaming any specific person, but it's obvious that corruption is the problem.
Because there is no other offered explanation.
No other explanation.
Now let's talk about banning TikTok.
Does everyone in the government know it's a problem?
Yes. Do they know how to stop it?
Easily. Executive order.
Tomorrow. Is anybody, even one person, arguing that we should not ban it in the United States a politician?
Nope. Not one.
There's not a single person on the other side of the debate.
And yet, it's not happening.
Is there any explanation other than corruption?
If they have one, I invite them to give it to me and I will weigh it.
So, for example, if they said, yeah, I know what you're saying, but then China would retaliate, I might say, hmm, I don't know, that might be a good reason or not, but at least there's a reason.
At least there's a reason.
So then I could at least say, well, it could be incompetence, could be fear, you know, at least it's possible.
But we don't have any explanation.
No explanation.
It has to be corruption.
And again, I could be wrong, but it has to be your operating hypothesis.
The operating hypothesis is that it's corruption.
Even if it isn't.
What else is going on here?
So here's a story that the local subscribers have already heard.
But if you don't mind, I'll sort of summarize it for the rest of you.
You know that, or maybe you didn't know, that maybe a week ago I tweeted that you should never debate Elon Musk on Twitter.
And then within the week I found myself in what looked like a debate with Elon Musk on Twitter.
About whether the WEF and Bill Gates really wanted to decrease the population of Earth.
I say no, and it's crazy to imagine that they did.
What they want to do is decrease the rate of growth, which is perfectly sensible if the way you're doing it is by making people richer and healthier, which actually does reduce their population growth.
So... So Elon Musk...
Weighed in where I was questioning whether there's really an elite group of people planning these bad things.
And Elon Musk said this, and I said that the people on the right believe that the WF wants to depopulate.
So it's a hoax that the right believes.
And Elon Musk replied, this is neither a right nor a left issue.
And then he said about me, run antivirus software in your brain.
What? And as I told the local subscribers last night, when I saw that Elon Musk had insulted me on Twitter, I thought, well, I mean, how many people are going to see it anyway?
So I checked his user count.
124 million people.
124 million people and every member of the press watched him call me a dipshit.
How was your day? How did 2022 end for you?
Well, that's how it went for me.
And to top it off, not only did he dunk on me and call me a dipshit, in a manner of speaking, But he did it a week after I said you should never debate Elon Musk on Twitter.
Now, there's an ending to the story that's more favorable to me, but as I told the locals people, I encourage you to accept the fake news version of the story, because it's really fucking funny.
Sorry, I'm trying not to swear as much.
2023, no more swearing.
I think it's hilarious, that version of the story, that I said you should never do it and then I did it and then he slapped me down.
That would just be so perfect.
So, by all means, accept that version of the story.
If you'd like to know technically what actually happened, he had misinterpreted my comment to be about left and right when it was closer to the opposite.
Meaning that, as I explained to him, my entire point was that the left has a number of hoaxes, like the drinking bleach hoax, but hoaxes are not limited to one side, and that the right has their own hoaxes, and the belief that Bill Gates wants to depopulate the Earth is at the top of the list of an obvious, well, I call it obvious hoax.
We'll talk about that.
So that was my point. Anyway, once I clarified it on Twitter, then Musk confirmed, in his opinion, that the WEF was not an Illuminati trying to do any of these bad things.
In other words, completely agreed with me.
And that what you see is just the bubbling up of lots of individuals doing individual things.
Now, and they said the reason he didn't go to Davos is they thought it'd be boring.
That's the only reason he turned down the invitation.
So, the real story is that Elon Musk completely agreed with me that there's nobody who has power who's trying to depopulate the Earth.
Now, but he did say that it's a widespread opinion.
That there are lots of people, you know, environmentalists and stuff, who do want fewer people on the planet.
That was not my point, although I think I was a little unclear, so that's on me.
But my point was that nobody in power has that opinion, which I thought I said directly, but then I reread it, and I left a little wiggle room in the way I wrote it, so that's on me.
Right. So...
Do you think...
How many of you believe there's a video of Bill Gates at a TED Talk in which he said he wants to reduce the population of Earth by 10 to 20% because of climate change?
How many of you believe that actually exists?
Because somebody sent it to me today and said, here it is.
And then I watched the video.
And what do you think I saw when I watched the video?
Did it say that? No.
This entire thing is because people can't tell the difference between reducing the rate of growth, a good thing, versus reducing the number of people, a very, very bad thing.
So it's only reading comprehension, or in this case, listening comprehension.
And here's how you should have known that nobody meant to decrease the number of people on the planet.
Here's the test for that.
Nobody would say that.
Nobody would say that, like, directly.
And even the people you think are saying it, because Alex Epstein sent me a list of people who are influential thought leaders who, he says, do in fact think there are too many people.
And so I read their quotes, and it's true.
There are all these influential environmentalist names you've even heard, so they're influential enough that you've actually heard their names, who are saying directly, Earth can't sustain this many people.
So that means they want to decrease the number of people, right?
They didn't really say that.
Now, I'm not saying they don't believe it, but the examples given were, for example, Michael Mann Had a quote sometime that he thought we were already beyond the carrying capacity of the earth.
But he didn't say, therefore, reduce the number of people.
That's an assumption.
Because I could say the same thing.
I think we're beyond the carrying capacity of the earth.
But that's different from reducing the number of people who are here.
I don't want to do that.
I don't want to give people vaccinations so they die, so there are fewer of them.
That would be crazy. So the first thing you need to know is that anybody who says there are too many people, that's not the same as saying I want to reduce the number of them.
It says there's a huge problem.
Two ways to deal with it.
One is the way we've always dealt with it, which is innovate a way out of it.
And the other way is, I suppose, murdering a billion people.
Do you think anybody was suggesting murdering a billion people?
Because a number of people actually think that they were.
Yeah, I'm seeing it, yes.
People say, yes, I think they were actually.
I think they were actually in public, publicly, saying they want to murder, you know, maybe with bad vaccinations or something.
Murder a billion people.
Really? Really?
You think Bill Gates stood in public and said he wants to, like, murder a billion people and it wasn't a headline or anything?
All right. So, and then I got into this weird conversation with this user RogerThat on Twitter, where he sends me the video of Bill Gates very clearly talking about reducing the growth of population.
And then he says, there it is.
He wants to reduce the actual population by 10 to 15 percent.
And I said, but your video says the opposite.
Very clearly that he's not talking about total population.
Now how do I know that he's not talking about total population?
Because nobody would.
Nobody would. Nobody would say that at a TED talk.
And if they did, it's all we'd be talking about.
It didn't happen. He talked about the growth rate.
And it was very clear.
All right.
Yeah, let's see.
um Thank you.
So here are some of the environmentalists, the thought leaders who are pushing the idea that there are too many people, which is close to wanting to reduce the population, but it is different.
Still, they're worth mentioning.
So here are some of the names. See if you've heard of them.
McKibben, environmentalist.
McKibben. How about Michael Mann?
Probably heard of him. Ehrlich.
A leading ecologist.
So far I've heard of all these people.
A leading energy thinker named Lovins.
I don't know Lovins, but I'll take it.
Now, the counterpoint here is that these are influential thought leaders, and they will have impact on regular leaders, so there is actually, like, a legitimate movement to depopulate.
Have they had any influence on an actual leader?
Is there any leader who also wants to depopulate the earth?
No. No, there's not.
I mean, nobody says it.
No, Greta doesn't say it.
So there's no elected official.
No elected official buys into the population decline idea.
Do you know why there's no elected official who buys it, even though there are all these semi-experts who are saying it?
Why can the politician not buy it?
It would be impossible to be an elected leader who says there needs to be fewer of you guys, the people that elected me.
You can't get elected that way.
It would be impossible to be a serious leader and say, instead of trying to feed you all, I'm going to try to reduce the number of you.
No leader can do that.
The one child policy was about reducing growth.
Again, every time you're confused, it's the same confusion.
You always confuse growth with reducing the absolute number.
There's nobody who's ever tried to reduce the absolute number.
That's pretty...
Now, the point that people make is, Scott, Scott, Scott, you're not seeing the forest for the trees.
Because look at all these policies.
You got your vaccination policy.
Some will say that that was meant to kill people.
You got your abortion.
To reduce the population.
You got your legalized euthanasia to reduce the population.
Et cetera. Fentanyl to reduce the population.
But doesn't that leave out some examples?
Do you think in the recent years our government has done nothing to feed us and keep us alive?
That is their main job.
Mostly the government is feeding us and keeping us alive and educating us.
I mean, maybe poorly, but, you know, 99% of everything the government does is to keep you alive.
If 1% of those things are about managing growth rate, that's really far away from saying there's a pattern of reducing the number of people.
That's not even in the same zip code.
Didn't you say no economist is for reducing growth of population No. Every economist Wants to manage growth rates.
Zero economists want the current number of people to shrink from its current level.
Do you see how hard this is?
Because right there was a perfect example.
There's somebody once again confused growth rate with absolute growth.
It's always the same. Everybody who thinks they're disagreeing with me is just confusing growth rate with number.
There's nothing else happening.
You think there's some kind of an argument about interpretation.
You think I haven't done my research.
Nothing like that's happening.
It's only that.
You've confused growth rate with the number of people.
You get that right, and everything you read will make sense again.
All the things you think look like a conspiracy, they just will dissolve as soon as you say, oh, they're talking about growth rate.
I get it now. That's it.
And it fixes it. Why is God investing so much time to debunk the WF conspiracy theories?
Excellent question. I have an excellent answer.
Why do I do things that my followers won't like, whereas it would be easy to agree to them?
I could make much more money by agreeing with you.
You all know that, right? If I wanted to make money, all I'd have to do is listen to what Ben Shapiro says, And then listen to any other smart Republican.
And wherever they both agree, I would just say those things.
Because, you know, if Ben Shapiro agrees with it, and, you know, at least one other Republican, I'm just randomly picking people who are smart, right?
And I just do that.
And I'll just say what they both agree with.
I would never be wrong, according to my audience.
And I would have a massive audience.
Very easy. Simple to do.
Why don't I do it?
Because it's not a public good.
It would be entertaining, but it wouldn't be a public good.
I'm kind of at that place where if there's not a public good associated with my work, I'm just not interested.
It has to have some bigger meaning to it.
So the bigger meaning is this.
I'm trying to create a small army of critical thinkers who are a level above The public.
Because if I can create enough of you, then you will also teach other people and maybe we're better at sorting out what's real and what's not.
So that's why I do it.
And the WEF thing is the most important one, probably, on the right, because the right needs to understand that they're also suffering from hoaxes of their own.
They're not just being hoaxed by the other side.
They're hoaxing themselves, and they're hoaxing themselves pretty hard.
Both sides do that, of course.
So there's a level of awareness thing.
If your level of awareness Is my team is right, and here are all my reasons, and the other team is wrong.
You're not at a high enough level of awareness.
I need to get you up to a level where you realize both sides get easily hoaxed.
Including me. You've seen me hoaxed in real time.
Have you not? Covington Kids, perfect example.
I got hoaxed.
So there's nothing about your IQ or your knowledge or anything.
And even the reading comprehension thing is motivated reading.
It's probably not actual comprehension.
It's a motivated way to read something so you just sort of see what you want to see.
So as long as you realize that this is happening to you, then you're a little bit better protected.
So the answer is, if I can't convince you you've been duped on the WEF thing, You're going to be exposed and vulnerable.
And it makes you look like you don't understand basic things and then nobody's going to take you seriously when you're talking about something you do understand.
So, the same thing with the tax returns.
If I see somebody talking about Trump's tax returns without mentioning cash flow, I will never take that person seriously again.
Never. And I'm trying to avoid that for you.
Because honestly, when I hear somebody talking about the WEF trying to reduce the population, I discount the next thing you say before I even hear it.
I don't want that for you.
I want you to be strong arguers.
Now, a strong argument is that there are a number of policies that collectively are reducing reproduction, which is bad.
Now, that's a smart argument.
You can say, whoa, whoa, whoa, like all these things were individually decided, I get it, but if you put them all together, it's going to destroy our country.
Good argument. And I'm totally on board with that, by the way.
The collective policies are a very damning situation.
And it would need to be corrected.
I think we will correct them.
But it's a complete waste of time to say that because Klaus Schwab talks like a Nazi.
Let me just say it, right?
I have no reason to think Klaus Schwab is a bad guy.
I think he's just an engineer.
And an economist. That's his background.
And he has a Germanic kind of accent.
He's Austrian, maybe. And our brains just translate that into every World War II movie we've ever seen.
So he must be bad because he sounds like, oh, he's Swiss.
That's interesting. But he has that accent that to our ears sounds like something's up.
He sounds exactly like a Bond villain.
Thank you. He sounds exactly like a Bond villain.
Now, I think it's unfair to hold that against him.
Wouldn't you agree? It's pretty unfair to hold that against them, if that's what's happening, and I'm sure it is.
Like, I don't think anybody's consciously doing it.
But subconsciously?
Of course. 99% of all of our political talk is about Hitler.
So if a guy actually acts just like Hitler, I mean, that's hyperbole, but if he talks in a way that totally reminds you of Hitler, there's no way that you talk about Hitler all year long, and then once the one guy who actually does act like Hitler, the way he talks, that's the guy you're going to trust.
That'll be the only time you don't bring Hitler thinking into your...
No. It's obvious that this is a Hitler bias.
How many would agree?
How many would agree that you don't even have to do a study?
It's obvious that the Klaus Schwab thing, it's a Hitler problem.
And it's not his fault.
Totally not his fault.
Yeah. A lot of people are agreeing with that.
Because we're humans.
And it affects me as much as you, right?
I'm not, like, superior creature.
We're all influenced by things that sound like.
In fact, this is one of the most...
This is almost the key hypnosis lesson.
Some people ask me, where can I learn hypnosis?
Here's 25% of everything you need to know about hypnosis.
If you pair two ideas together, they start bleeding into each other.
There you go. That's 25% of everything you learn in hypnosis.
Because most of hypnosis is introducing thoughts They have a predictable impact on your other thoughts.
So it's about marrying concepts.
So when I look at this situation and say, okay, there's no way you can't think about Hiller when he talks.
It's just too much in their heads all the time.
So there isn't any chance you're not affected by that.
Same with me. There's no chance.
Let me tell you my opinion.
I think the WEF is totally sketchy.
And I'm not in favor of it.
Do you know what my good reasons are?
Anybody? What do you think are my good reasons for not trusting the WF? Actually, I think they are transparent.
They're fairly transparent. They published their work.
It's because he sounds like Hitler.
Yeah. I'm completely aware of it.
You could be aware of your bias and it doesn't help you at all.
That's one of the weird things about hypnosis.
You can tell somebody what you're going to do to them and it still works.
Because the brain is just a machine.
You push the right button, you get the right result.
It doesn't matter if you knew it or you didn't want it to happen.
It's going to happen anyway. It's just a machine.
So, anyway...
But even though I think the organization is sketchy, I'm aware that I don't have evidence to prove it.
However, I do generally disagree with any entity that's getting between any existing entities.
Like on a very meta level, you want the fewest number of people to interfere with your country and your business.
On the other hand, is it crazy that the most influential people should get to know each other?
You know, you could imagine that would turn bad, you know, they would collude or something.
But I feel like there's going to be more benefit than cost.
So, conceptually, there's an argument for it, but I'm generally opposed to anybody getting between me and my government.
So, that's good enough reason to object to them.
But I wouldn't object to everything they say.
They might come up with something.
Alright, here's the scariest thing that I was completely unaware of.
You know that factcheck.org exists to fact check stuff.
What is your experience with factcheck.org?
Has it been a good objective fact checker?
Has that been your experience? Yeah, no experience, most of you?
Well, everybody has an opinion on the fact-checkers, but I found out today that they have a subgroup or a product within that entity called News Feed Defenders, and they say it's our new media literacy game teaches players, and they mean students, how to detect and disregard information and misinformation in today's chaotic environment.
Now, they've actually turned it into a class lesson, and they have a teacher's guide.
Do you think that the tips that I give you for spawning fake news, which, if I may pat myself on the back, I'll ask you for your opinion, but I think I've done a really good job of giving you, you know, the checklist of things to look for, for fake news.
Do you think the things on my checklist of fake news, which you've seen work over and over again?
How many times have you seen my checklist hit a home run?
Over and over again.
It spots fake news really well.
Do you think that those are on the lesson plan?
No. Let me tell you what the lesson plan focuses on.
Are you ready for this?
I'm going to ask you to do something here before I talk.
I need you to go like this.
Because if there's anybody near you, they're going to be caught up in the spray.
Because your head is going to explode.
Right? Ready?
Everybody, hold your head.
They're focusing on recommending that you check the credibility of the source.
Ah! Ah!
Check the credibility of the source.
This thing needs to die.
Is there anything I need to say about that?
But really, do I need to add anything to this?
Check the credibility of the source.
Is how brainwashing happens.
They're pretending to be a news literacy organization, and it's literally a brainwashing organization.
Do you think that they would tell you if you check CNN, and it was on CNN, do you think this lesson for children would say, oh, that's not a credible source?
Or would they say, oh, that's a credible news organization?
Which do you think it would be?
Just guess. Yeah.
This could not be more opposite of what you need for a healthy society.
And then I read through some of the other tips, and some of them were just so generic.
Like, don't trust an anonymous source.
Not bad. Don't trust an anonymous source because that actually is completely useful and that would work.
That's true for left and right.
It's not political at all.
And I've said it the same.
That's a good one. But it's pretty much just that and check the source.
Now, have you seen my, how many of you have read my book, Loser Think?
So Loser Think is a book that's written, you know, a high schooler could easily handle it.
It's written at like a sixth grade level of sentence style.
But Loser Think is a book which teaches you in far more detail how to identify bullshit.
Now let me give you one example.
One of my ways to identify it is, if CNN and Fox News both exist, which they do, and one of them says the thing is true and it happened, and the other one says it never happened, it didn't happen.
If both of them say it happened, but maybe they have a different spin on the importance of it or the interpretation, then it happened.
If they both say it happened, it probably happened.
They could be wrong. But at least it's not because of bias reporting.
It's because, you know, it's hard to know.
But if they both say it happened, there's not bias happening on that part.
Do you think news feed defenders would tell their students that if CNN says it's true, but Fox News and Breitbart say it's not, it's probably not true?
Do you think they teach the students that?
Because that would be a good lesson.
And it would also be true in reverse.
That if Fox News says it's true, and CNN says that never happened, I would doubt it.
I would doubt it.
Your tribe is your vibe.
Cringely embarrassed.
Your water just broke.
Really? Is that true?
Bam Bam says her water just broke.
If it's a boy, name is Scott.
Does everybody agree? I feel if your water breaks while you're watching Coffee with Scott Adams, that that boy should be Scott.
And if it's a girl, Scottina.
Scottina. That's my recommendation.
All right.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, let us close the year 2022 with some positive thoughts.
Rob Reiner made good movies.
Let's see.
What else can we say positive?
Is there anybody else you want me to say something positive about?
Do you want to challenge me to say something positive about whoever the worst people are?
Give me somebody terrible.
Kamala Harris. She's in the game.
That's the best I can do.
Keith Olbermann.
My greatest challenge.
Keith Olbermann is good at getting attention.
Justin Trudeau.
Makes Castro look good.
All right, Schiff.
Reminds you not to stick the Q-tip too far into your ear.
All right, who else? Sam Bankman-Fried.
Reminds us to be careful with our money.
Go. I can't do Hiller.
No. Good try.
Good try. Barbara Walters.
Yeah, she passed away. We like her.
Zelensky. Zelensky has excellent fashion when it comes to t-shirts.
I think he's a little too green, but I get why he doesn't.
I think he should go more the blues, the grays, but well-dressed.
Well-dressed. Sticks and Hammer.
Very successful show.
Does excellent content.
Greta. Greta is a witty tweeter.
Klaus Schwab. Klaus Schwab.
He's an economist and an engineer.
Good for him.
Hillary. Oh, you're challenging me now.
Hillary. Good thing that Hillary, she's not running for president again.
Ye. Ye makes great music.
Epstein. Okay, that was a tough one.
Epstein. He was nice enough to kill himself.
Or did he?
All right. Chairman Xi.
All right, pass.
All right, uh...
So I'd like to reiterate my appreciation for all of you, quite genuinely.
And I hope you all have a great New Year's celebration.
And I hope you'll see me in the morning, but if I don't see you in the morning, I'll understand.
I'll understand.
And has anybody made any New Year's resolutions?
And if not, I'd like to make some suggestions.
Here's a New Year's resolution for you.
Read one self-help book.
It doesn't have to be mine, right?
The best one in the world is mine.
Had a fail at almost everything and still went big.
But it doesn't have to be mine.
So I'm going to say that your New Year's resolution is to read at least one self-help book.
More if you can. And here's why.
When you do something, that's who you are.
Thinking about something doesn't make you that person.
Doing something, that's who you are.
If you read a self-help book, what does that make you?
What does it make you if you read a book on self-help?
It makes you a seeker. You are a seeker of better ways.
You're a seeker of better systems.
You're a seeker of better performance.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the biggest change that you could ever make to benefit your life.
It's not what you think or what you plan.
It's what you do. If you want to be a seeker, because a seeker is who's going to build a talent stack, a seeker is going to work through their own illusions, a seeker is going to find out what really works and what doesn't, a seeker is going to build a, you know, talent stack.
So, don't think about being one.
Be one. It's a very, it's a very low bar, and it's like an entry level toward a full, you know, self-improvement But do the easiest thing first.
One book that you wanted to read anyway.
Maybe you get a trip or something.
It doesn't have to be like every weekend.
Just one book.
Now my book is a perfect toilet book.
I write them that way actually intentionally.
So every chapter is about one bowel movement long.
That's good engineering.
And so you could just leave it in your bathroom and read a chapter a day and you'd be done in a few months and your life would change.
My experience has been that successful people often are reading books on success.
Have you noticed how many successful people, and this is my exact story, when I was young I said to myself, all right, you know, my family doesn't have riches, so I'm not starting with any advantage.
And I thought, okay, how do people succeed if they have nothing to start with?
And so I thought, well, there must be people who know how to do this, because people have done it.
So I would read everything I could, like every time I saw a book that was like how to get rich or, you know, be more effective, I would read it.
And usually it doesn't take long, because you can glean the big picture fairly quickly.
You can read it from newspaper articles and stuff.
So as a life experience, The most satisfying and useful thing you could ever do is to not think of yourself as a seeker, but to become one.
One book. Not mine.
It doesn't have to be mine, but that would be a good start.
Just read one self-help book, and if it works for you, like if you say, my goodness, that actually looks like it could make a difference, then read a second one.
If the first one doesn't do anything for you, probably books aren't going to be your thing, right?
But if you read a book on self-help and you think, I got like two really good ideas out of that, read another book.
It's going to be two more.
I'm not totally sold on Rich Dad, Poor Dad because the author is Hawking Silver.
Remember what I told you about how You know, topics bleed over into other topics, because I don't think it's ethical to sell gold or silver, to be a promoter of them, because they're not really predictable assets.
I wouldn't mind if he promoted index fund.
You know, index fund is just, you know, good hygiene for your investments.
But commodities, even if it turns out to be right, Even if it turns out to be right, that's a credibility hit.
Because he's accepting money to do the commercials, so that puts you in a different category of credibility.
So I wouldn't put that one on my list.
However, a lot of people have read it and said they got good stuff out of it, so use your own judgment.
Ego is the Enemy by Ryan Holiday.
Have you ever heard me say that?
Ego is the enemy?
You know where that comes from, right?
Yeah. I think that came from me.
But I don't know. Maybe there was somebody who said it before both of us.
But I think...
Did Plato said that?
The Stoics said that? Did they say it exactly that way?
Ego is the enemy? Or Dune said it.
Aristotle said it. Yeah.
Now, I'm sure that lots of people have said, you should manage your ego.
But did they actually say your ego is your enemy?
Because that's what I say. Oh, they do.
They say it exactly. I always wonder if, you know, 30 years ago I heard that somewhere and then I thought I invented it myself.
Because you really can't tell.
Diogenes said it. Jimmy Jones said it too.
I guess a lot of people said it.
All religion says it.
Yeah, not as directly with those words, though.
All right. All right.
It's an old idea, of course.
It was only the phrasing of it I was questioning.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes the best livestream you've ever seen in 2022.
Probably we'll keep up the excellence tomorrow.
You listen to me, what does that make you?
The smartest person in your family, for starters.
All right. I'm going to say goodbye to YouTube and I'm going to talk to local subscribers a little bit more.
