he inflation will affect the politics, true. But you just left out the biggest factor: the inflationary effect on the actual economy. Like it didn't matter.

So if you ever thought that Goldman Sachs was an honest player, that should talk you out of it.

So congratulations to Joe Manchin for calling the Democrats' bluff and actually being consistent with science. And by the way, did it matter that Joe Manchin got an education from Michael Shellenberger in person about the economics of climate change? Yeah, it mattered. I don't know if that changed the decision, but yeah, that matters. When you have, I'm arguing, the strongest persuader in the country right now. That would be Shellenberger. The strongest persuader in the country talked to this person and he stopped the whole deal by himself. Stopped the whole deal. I mean not by himself. He needed all the Republicans to be against it too.

The first case of Omicron variant in the United States. That can't be true. Somebody's saying that in the comments. We must have known it was here.

All right, I'm going to give a little kudos to Joe Biden now. Those of you who are not longtime listeners, I remind you of my technique. If you want to criticize someone, you should also protect yourself from confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance by saying as many good things as you can about the subject of your criticism. Because if you can't say anything good about them, well, I'm not going to take you seriously.

So here I'm going to say something good, genuinely, about Joe Biden. He did something that was really clever. And I called it out when he did it. In other words, I said, oh, this is going to work out. This is clever. And it worked. Here's what it was. There was a big call for packing the Supreme Court. Joe Biden, to his credit, did not favor that. But a lot of his party did. So what are you going to do? You don't favor it and you have a pretty strong opinion about it, but your party does and you've got to make them happy. What do you do? You put together a big old commission and you have them study it. Because that's how you kill something.

Because he knew, of course he knew, that the commission would come back and not recommend packing the court. Don't you think he knew that? Of course he did that. Because nobody's going to recommend it if they're a serious academic. And so that's exactly what happened. Now they didn't recommend for or against. They simply laid out the argument. But he got the same result. He basically sent it to a committee to kill it. I told you that on day one. That's how you kill something. You send it to the committee to take all the energy out of it. Because a lot of these things are about the people, right? It's about Trump. It's about Biden. It's about the personalities and Kavanaugh and stuff. But as soon as you take the personalities out of it and give it to a committee, all the energy just drains out of it. And then once all the energy is gone, it's just a bunch of academics saying, you know, this would be a bad precedent because every single person who gets elected would just repack the court. And therefore we wouldn't have a system anymore. It would literally eliminate the system because you wouldn't have the checks and balances.

So good move. This is a plus management. I don't know if I've seen a cleaner kill than what Biden did with this court packing idea. That was a clean kill. And you could see him set it up from day one. It was obviously a plan. Obviously. I mean I'm not a mind reader, but you don't have to go too far into people's thinking to know this was an intentional play. It's such a standard play. Corporations do it all the time. So A-plus. Good job.

How many of you have listened to the No Agenda episode? A very popular podcast with Adam Curry and John Dvorak. On episode 1409, I guess it's a new one, they take me on. How many of you have heard that? Their criticisms of my opinions. Now the take on this is that they destroyed me if you look at the comments.

So let me give you some context and then I'll tell you why this is fascinating. Now it's not just fascinating because it's about me. It makes it a little more interesting for me I guess. But here's what you need to know. Number one, I like these guys, Curry and Dvorak. I've known Dvorak for I don't know, a thousand years or something. And I like them a lot. Generally we're very close to the same opinion on all kinds of stuff. Not everything, but generally. So I would say that they would be closer to my view of life than a lot of people. And that's a compliment of course. Anybody who agrees with you, you think is smart, right?

So this is important for the context. Remember these are not automatic binary people who are just against whatever I say. These are people who are inclined to agree with me because they've agreed with me enough in the past that they would not be biased against me.

Now they took on my opinions on ivermectin, vaccinations, and about the mass formation psychosis. But I want you to listen to it. I'll play just one little part of it and I want you to listen to it so you can learn to spot cognitive dissonance.

Now the first question is, is it me? Because that's part of their claim, is that the cognitive dissonance or the hypnosis is affecting me and that's why my opinions don't make sense to them. So how would you know who is in cognitive dissonance and who is not? I'm going to teach you this over and over again because you have to see examples of it before you're good at it.

The first thing you do is look for the tells. All right, here's one tell: the over laugh, mocking. An honest mocking would be somebody just laughing and you say, oh, this person is really amused. It's pretty funny. But the over laugh is this kind. He says, "X." Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Sort of like a Larry David almost comic laugh. So you'll see that tell in some of it. And again, I'm sure they have genuine laughs, but it doesn't even sound genuine when you hear it. It sounds like trying too hard. Does that make sense? So listen for the trying too hard to laugh thing.

Here's another tell: mocking my credentials. Specifically the credentials as a hypnotist without actually having a specific complaint about it. Oh he's a hypnotist. Ho ho. Well I guess he keeps mentioning that. All right, but what does that have to do with the argument? It's actually useful context because a lot of people are new to any livestream. You have to give the context. So what's wrong with that? So look for oversized criticisms of things which are completely ordinary, which is somebody telling you their credentials before they tell you what they tell you.

All right, then here's the biggest one. Look for them to, you could say straw man, but I don't think that's what's going on. I think they're actually hallucinating my opinions. And I want to play one for you so that you can hear it yourself. If you don't hear it live you might think I'm misinterpreting this. So I don't know how far I am into this. It's 30 minutes into No Agenda podcast number 1409. So if you're looking for it yourself, and it's definitely worth listening to. It's interesting stuff. So it's the No Agenda podcast. You can find it everywhere. Just Google it. And it's show 1409 and it's at about the 30 minute mark. And I'm going to play a little bit.

"Here is the kind of guy you want to spar against." So they're talking about me. Smart. And I'm disappointed. No, you hear what they're doing. So they're starting by saying that they're generally in favor of me, which is exactly what I did with them, which is also why I like them. Because that's exactly what they should be doing to set up the conversation. Because they need you to know they're not biased against me in some general way. It's just this. So that's actually good technique. Really with what he did. But not surprised because I think I can prove that he in fact himself is trapped in the mass formation. He's going to prove that I'm trapped in the mass formation. In other words that I'm hypnotized.

Have you ever heard of projection? I used to think it wasn't a thing and now I've seen so many cases of it that it is undeniable at this point. So that doesn't mean they're wrong. Right? So far you just know that they're accusing me of being hypnotized essentially and I would accuse them of the same, which I'm doing right now. So far it's a tie. You wouldn't be able to tell anything one way or the other from this.

"Sorry it could be. I think I think I can show it." You'll show it. And I also believe that you and I have heard the professor's explanation of mass formation as it pertains to COVID well enough so that we comprehend it and can reiterate it and explain it and measure Scott Adams debunking versus how we believe it works.

Now this all came out of the, I guess he watched Dr. Peter McCullough on the Rogan show. And that's where McCullough brought up the mass formation. Now Scott Adams, as you pointed out, he is a trained hypnotist. In fact we should probably say right off the bat we have proof that he is a very well trained hypnotist. I mean if you've seen his wife you know this guy definitely is a hypnotist.

I'm not saying they don't make good points. They do make good points. Unfortunately he didn't really do the research about the theory or refresh his memory, which is a big incorrect. I read about the theory before I commented. Go mistake. And he starts off with one of my favorite things that we talk about here just in general about Dr. Peter McCullough. I think he's not good at evaluating data. So when he says that some countries have good experience with ivermectin, that's just false.

Okay John, you want to weigh in on that? Do you want to weigh in on that or should we listen?

All right, so you heard my claim, right? So the claim they played was me saying that there's no country we've identified that ivermectin has solved the problem. Right now some of you disagree, but later I'll say if you research it you'll find that there are no countries that fit that.

Now remember the claim. The claim is there are no countries. Right now watch the response to my claim that there are no countries that seem to have a good result.

"No much of a countries. I mean there are. Again I've had this website that I keep referring to which has changed. This basic URL used to be ibmmeta.com but now it's ivm something or other. But there's about 70 studies showing its effectiveness that have been peer reviewed. And then the FDA itself on their one webpage where they say oh you shouldn't use ivermectin because it's unproven."

Did he hear it? So what did I say and then what did he say? He called it a whopper, meaning that what I was saying was clearly wrong or a lie. And then what was his response? It was a different topic. I said there are no countries that have demonstrated it's working. He changed it to there are no studies. That there are studies that are peer reviewed.

Did you hear me say in the clip he played that there are no peer-reviewed ivermectin studies? I've never said that. I've said the opposite. I've said there are lots of ivermectin studies that show it works but they all have certain limitations of size or no control or it was an observational study, stuff like that.

N