0:05

Heying Welcome to

0:07

the Dark Course Podcast Livestream

0:10

number one hundred fifty

0:12

two. Great. Is it one

0:14

fifty three?

0:15

We did a a gift episode

0:17

last week that was unusually placed.

0:20

UNusually, this is one fifty

0:22

two by the official numbering scheme

0:24

I am thinking. Nope. Well,

0:26

we're gonna have to talk to the officials and

0:28

and we are they. It

0:31

is Livestream. Technically,

0:33

it's one fifty two. For

0:35

professionals here? Yes. Nothing

0:37

nothing unprofessional about this. I

0:39

am Dr. Brett Weinstein. This is Dr. Heather

0:41

Heying. These are some of our companion

0:44

animals who have no advanced degrees whatsoever,

0:47

but nonetheless, we're not going to use them as

0:49

trusted sources unless they

0:51

are qualified to speak of things

0:53

like Kibble, for example, or

0:56

their interest in deer and otters? Yes.

0:59

Absolutely.

0:59

Absolutely. Mhmm. Absolutely. Maddy discovered a

1:01

an intense interest

1:02

in otters this week. Yes. Our Labrador.

1:05

Yes. It's easy to to want to

1:07

to relate to. Otters are fascinating

1:09

creatures.

1:10

She seemed to want to place

1:11

Otter in mouth. Oh, well, yes.

1:14

I I do not have that instinct, but I can

1:16

appreciate that a a

1:18

wolf derivative such as this might might

1:20

feel that way.

1:21

Indeed. Alright.

1:24

We are going we follow these

1:26

live students that live q and a, as

1:28

you guys know, you can ask questions at dark horse

1:30

dot com. We're gonna try to keep it tight today.

1:33

So it will

1:35

be relatively short both

1:37

episode and q and a, but will do one,

1:40

so go ahead and ask your questions there.

1:42

If you're watching on YouTube, there's live chat

1:44

on Odyssey. You

1:47

can always find me at natural sections

1:49

dot substack dot com as well.

1:51

And we

1:53

have a new store, dark horse store

1:55

dot org with lots of cool

1:57

products we talked about, some of them in

1:59

our

2:01

holiday gift episode, which we did last

2:03

Sunday, which is not

2:06

we did not put it out into the audio

2:08

podcast world, but it's up everywhere that

2:10

we put video. So

2:11

Spotify, YouTube, honestly.

2:13

It does have audio, but it just not

2:16

separate. We decided not to mine --

2:18

Yes. -- that. I think that was a good choice.

2:20

Indeed. I

2:21

wasn't sure at first, but III

2:24

came around. I have no regrets. Yeah.

2:26

We are supported by you, our audience. Brett

2:30

had one of his conversations

2:31

with his patrons this morning.

2:33

You're gonna be having another one tomorrow as you

2:35

do

2:35

on the first Saturday and Sunday of every month.

2:38

At my Patreon, we do a month,

2:41

a private Q and A. Once a month,

2:43

usually, it's the last Sunday of the month. This

2:45

month so as not to do so on

2:47

Christmas. We're gonna be doing it on the pendulum

2:49

at Sunday. And actually, that reminds me. My

2:51

meant to start by saying is we will not

2:53

be seeing you here next week. or

2:55

you

2:56

won't be seeing us here next week. So

2:58

the next time we're gonna be here is the seventeenth.

3:01

There will presumably be a guest episode

3:02

of DarkHorse being released

3:04

between now and then, maybe even two. I don't know.

3:07

It is technically true that we will not be seeing

3:09

them next week. We

3:11

might see some of them.

3:12

Alright. It

3:14

is likely that we will not be seeing

3:16

any

3:16

of them here next Saturday.

3:18

Yes. I think that's right.

3:20

So if

3:22

you have burning questions, get them in now.

3:25

And if you are interested in

3:28

supporting us on

3:29

our patrons, we, of course, are very grateful.

3:31

For that, especially

3:32

given that YouTube demonetized us,

3:35

gosh, close to a year and a half ago now and have

3:38

not rethought any of their thought on

3:40

this or maybe on Heying. As far as

3:42

I can tell, And at both of our patrons,

3:44

you can access our Discord server. Well,

3:46

where, for instance, they have book clubs, which

3:48

is pretty cool. So consider

3:50

going there. And

3:53

of course, we have sponsors. We

3:55

are we are choosy about

3:57

the the companies

4:00

that we will read

4:02

ads for on this podcast. We do three at

4:05

top of the hour. You could tell that we are

4:07

reading sponsored content when there is a

4:09

chime at the beginning and the end, and there's

4:11

a green perimeter around the screen.

4:13

And without further

4:16

ado, let us do those three minutes now.

4:18

So I said that and then I wasn't actually

4:20

prepared. Our first sponsor this

4:22

week is Ned, a

4:25

CBD company that stands out in highly

4:27

saturated CBD market. Let me start

4:29

by two friends who discovered that their hyper modern

4:32

Livestream leaving them feeling empty, but will they're

4:34

disconnected. Something about this way

4:36

of life

4:36

as they say on their website just wasn't Heying,

4:39

so they started Ned.

4:40

You can buy CBD products in nearly every

4:42

coffee shop or grocery store, but Ned's blends

4:44

stand out. I'm particularly fond of their

4:46

blend. Ned's distress blend is a one

4:49

to one formula of CBD and CBD

4:51

made from the world's purest full spectrum hemp

4:53

and also features a botanical infusion of

4:55

ashwagonda, a place

4:57

that Brett has always wanted to go. He tells

4:59

me,

5:00

Cardamom, it's on my bucket list for

5:02

sure. Sure. Sure. Cardamom

5:04

and cinnamon. CVG is

5:06

known as the mother of all cannabinoids because

5:08

of how effective it is comparing anxiety

5:10

and stress by inhibiting the reuptake of

5:12

gaba, which is the neurotransmitter responsible

5:14

for stress regulation. This combination

5:17

leaves me feeling a bit easier

5:18

with whatever comes my way. Many

5:20

of the CBD companies

5:21

out there source their help from industrial farms in

5:23

China,

5:23

just like with low quality alcohol

5:25

Heather, low quality CBD can have undesired

5:28

effects. NED is USDA certified

5:30

organic. Olive Nood's full spectrum hemp oil

5:32

is extracted from USDA certified organic

5:34

hemp plants grown by independent farmer

5:36

named Jonathan Impeolia, Colorado.

5:39

Hey, Jonathan.

5:40

Also, Ned shares third party lab

5:42

reports and information about who farms their products

5:44

and their extraction process on their site.

5:46

These products are science backed, nature based solutions

5:48

that offer an alternative to prescription and over the

5:50

counter

5:50

drugs. They're a chock

5:52

full of premium CBD and a full spectrum

5:54

of active cannabinoids, Trupeans,

5:56

phalvanoids, and trichomes. Ned's full spectrum

5:58

hemp oil nourishes the body's endocannabinoid

6:01

system offer functional support for stress, sleep,

6:03

inflammation, and balance and we just

6:05

received in the mail yesterday and I haven't tried it

6:07

yet. What looks like an amazing chai

6:11

blend. It's sort of a sleep sleepy time

6:14

blend that they've got, that as

6:16

well, Ashwagonda, I believe. Reishi,

6:21

various spices and and

6:23

o magnesium. So it looks it looks

6:25

yummy and I have not tried it

6:27

Bret, but I I suspect that that will be amazing

6:30

too. So just another new Ned product.

6:32

If food, you'd like to give Ned a try, listeners

6:35

get fifteen percent off Ned products with code

6:37

dark horse. Visit hello net

6:39

dot com slash DarkHorse to get access.

6:42

That's HELL0 That's how

6:44

you spell hello. That's HELL0NED

6:47

dot com slash to get fifteen percent

6:49

off. Thank you, Ted, for sponsoring the show

6:51

and offering our listeners a natural remedy for

6:53

some of life. most common health

6:55

issues.

6:56

You bet that raises question. Sure does.

6:58

What is the stepmother of

7:00

all cannabinoids?

7:02

Why not the stepfather?

7:04

Was gonna get there,

7:06

but I've the stepmother is

7:09

more dangerous as

7:12

lore would have it. Am I right?

7:14

Mhmm. Yeah. I'm not sure that that's true. That'd

7:17

be interesting. No.

7:19

Could be. Good. Alright.

7:21

I I would take that as a hypothesis. Sure.

7:23

Yeah. This is a starting point. Yep.

7:26

Second, amazing sponsor this

7:28

week.

7:28

ours. Just

7:30

gonna

7:31

change up the order if the work is in a sentence.

7:34

You know, that can work. So there are better

7:36

sentences sometimes buried within sentence right

7:38

in front of you. There are sometimes I don't think that

7:40

was it, though.

7:41

Our second amazing response at

7:43

this week is Vivo barefoot. She's

7:45

made for feet. Regular listeners are well

7:47

familiar

7:48

with Veeva by now, but if you're not, you're in

7:50

the grocery. Seriously, try these shoes.

7:51

Most shoes are made for someone's idea of what

7:54

feet should be. Vivo's

7:55

excuse me. Excuse

7:58

me. Vivo's, however, are made by people

7:59

who actually know feet.

8:02

Someone

8:03

put ice in my water. Heying

8:07

great. Practical jokers,

8:09

no doubt. Yes. Also known

8:11

as our son. Here at

8:13

DarkHorse, we love VIVUS. They are beyond

8:15

comfortable. The tactile feedback from the surfaces

8:17

you're walking on is amazing and they cause no pain

8:19

at all. because there are no pressure points forcing your

8:21

feet into odd positions. They're really fantastic. Our

8:24

feet and yours are the products

8:26

of millions of years of evolution. Humans

8:28

evolved to walk, move and run barefoot, but modern

8:30

shoes that overly cushioned and strangely shaped have negatively

8:33

impacted foot function and are contributing

8:35

to health crisis. of which people move less than

8:37

they might in part because their

8:39

shoes make their feet hurt. Vivo

8:42

barefoot shoes are designed wide to provide

8:44

natural stability, thin to enable you

8:46

to feel more and flexible to help you build a

8:48

natural strength from the ground up. Foot strength

8:51

increases by sixty percent in matter of months

8:53

just by walking around in them. The number

8:55

of people wearing Veeva barefoot is growing. Once people

8:57

start wearing these shoes, they don't seem to stop.

8:59

Veeva barefoot has a great range of footwear kids and

9:01

adults and for every activity from hiking to training

9:04

and everyday wear. There are certified B Corp.

9:06

pioneering regenerative business principles and

9:08

their footwear is produced using sustainably sourced

9:10

natural and recycled materials with the aim to protect

9:13

the natural world, so you can run wild

9:15

on it.

9:16

In it?

9:18

No. On it.

9:20

It says on it. I feel like Internet is

9:22

better. No. No. It's definitely on. You

9:24

run wild in a place. I know. But

9:26

with these shoes, you're

9:28

on it. Oh, okay.

9:31

Go to vivo barefoot dot com

9:33

slash dark horse to get an exclusive offer of twenty

9:35

percent off. Additionally, all new customers

9:37

get a hundred day free trial, so you can see if you

9:39

love these shoes as much as we do. That's

9:41

VIV0BAREF00T

9:44

dot com slash Dark

9:46

Earth. Yeah. We're gonna

9:48

run run

9:48

wild units. That would be middle earth shoes.

9:51

Totally

9:51

different thing. They're a little havity. It's

9:54

a

9:54

fair point. Yeah. Alright. Our final

9:57

sponsor today is public goods. Public

9:59

goods is a one

9:59

stop shop for everyday essentials. their

10:02

ingredients are carefully sourced, high quality,

10:04

and affordable. You can simplify

10:06

your life by getting your necessities at public

10:08

goods. Public goods has coffee and tea,

10:10

grains and oils like olive and avocado. They

10:13

have spices and extracts, vinegars, and

10:15

hot sauces, dishware and glassware, They

10:17

have everything you need to make a meal, including the

10:19

materials to serve it on, and that's not all.

10:22

They've got stationary and laundry detergent

10:24

castile soap trash bags, they even

10:26

sell plants. Public goods

10:28

searches globe to find clean healthy eco

10:31

friendly innovative products.

10:33

Public goods cares about health and sustainability.

10:35

Their products are free of harmful ingredients and

10:37

additives, and the ingredients are ethically

10:39

sourced. Rather than buying from

10:41

a bunch of single product brands, public

10:44

goods members can buy all of their premium essentials

10:46

in one place with one beautiful simple streamlined

10:49

aesthetic. and their subscription service

10:51

is efficient and simple and easy to use. Public

10:53

goods members can buy all their premium essentials

10:55

in one place. It really is in everything

10:57

store. For dark horse listeners,

10:59

we have the following offer. Received fifteen

11:01

dollars off your first public goods order,

11:03

no minimum purchase. They

11:06

are so confident that you will absolutely love their

11:08

products and come back again and again that they are giving

11:10

you fifteen dollars to spend on your first purchase.

11:13

go to public goods dot com slash

11:15

DarkHorse or use the code dark horse

11:17

at checkout. That is PUBLICG00DS

11:22

dot com forward slash

11:24

dark horse to receive fifteen dollars

11:26

off your first order.

11:31

Alright.

11:31

Some things happen this week.

11:34

Wow. So many things. Yep.

11:36

I've I've got oh, god.

11:38

This is gonna

11:39

keep happening to me. I've got a few things to

11:41

add in, but you've got two

11:43

main topics that you want to spend

11:45

our time this week talking about.

11:47

And

11:48

Why don't you become? Yeah. And in some sense,

11:51

I'm not sure it's two topics. There is an

11:53

overarching topic that is very much

11:55

in motion, in large measure.

11:58

I think demonstrating the principle

12:01

that we have advanced here that

12:03

zero is a special number, which is to say

12:05

interesting things are a foot with respect

12:07

to I

12:09

I don't know whether I should say free speech

12:12

because free speech is narrowly

12:15

first amendment ish you, and I believe the issue

12:17

that is actually in play is free expression of

12:19

ideas, which is protected by

12:22

our free speech rights here in the US, our first

12:24

amendment. But nonetheless, whichever way

12:26

you put it, free expression is

12:28

something that is now in motion.

12:31

That is to say we are in in motion from

12:33

an environment that existed a month ago

12:35

to some new environment, hopefully, that

12:37

will be very different. As a result of the fact

12:40

that Elon Musk has

12:42

purchased Twitter, which has put it under his

12:44

control, and is

12:47

changing its

12:49

policy. And the reason that that matters so

12:51

much. Twitter is relatively

12:54

small compared to other social

12:56

media sites

12:57

like Facebook, but it

12:59

is a place where influential people

13:02

have conversations and to the extent that it

13:04

is not open to all perspectives that

13:06

leaves us in a realm where there is nowhere

13:08

to go to have those conversations broadly

13:12

and to the extent that he opens

13:14

it up and stabilizes it in some

13:16

form where it is hospitable to these conversations.

13:19

It then changes the environment for all

13:21

the rest of those platforms because after all, who

13:23

is going to go to Facebook or Instagram

13:26

if you can only have an adult conversation

13:29

about serious stuff on Twitter.

13:31

Right? Those places are gonna look ridiculous.

13:33

And that's a phrase that no one expected

13:36

to happen. Howard Bauchner:

13:36

Right. Yes. No. Not something you

13:39

could have predicted, but that actually demonstrates

13:41

another principal that we talk about. Welcome

13:43

to Complex Systems. You couldn't have predicted

13:45

this. But we do

13:47

find a lot of influential people on

13:49

Twitter

13:51

attempting to have conversations. And

13:53

you and I know as well as anyone

13:55

that those conversations had been

13:58

heavily influenced

13:59

and not for the better by

14:02

a moderation policy

14:05

or a something that

14:07

masquerades as a moderation policy,

14:09

which has been not

14:12

even arbitrary. It just has simply been

14:15

so partisan that

14:17

it has created a kind of Disneyland

14:20

environment inside of Twitter, which

14:22

is not to anyone's benefit. And

14:24

that raises the other thing which happened only yesterday

14:27

on Twitter. I don't know how much you

14:29

followed it, but

14:31

Twitter released through Matt

14:33

Taibi.

14:34

the Weinstein

14:37

an installment of

14:41

what would it be self exposes, revelations

14:45

about what took place

14:47

inside of Twitter that resulted in

14:49

Twitter

14:50

obscuring the Hunter Biden laptop

14:53

story and suspending the New York Post, which

14:55

had published the story.

14:57

Because it said

15:00

that the story was the result

15:02

that effectively the laptop was some

15:04

kind of sophisticated disinformation

15:07

campaign by the Russians. and

15:10

that therefore it

15:13

was not gonna be party to spreading these

15:15

lies in advance of the election. Now,

15:18

of course, the release through Taipei illustrates

15:20

that they very quickly figured out

15:23

inside of Twitter that

15:24

This was not Russian disinformation that,

15:26

in fact, the story as far as anyone knew,

15:29

did not justify Twitter

15:32

by any established policy. preventing

15:35

people from posting it. But they did it

15:37

anyway. They continued to do it. And,

15:39

you know, so anyway, that is an

15:42

interesting revelation potentially

15:45

extremely consequential. Because

15:47

this happened right before an election, it

15:49

involved Joe Biden indirectly,

15:52

but it involved Joe Biden who

15:54

was implicated by some of the things

15:56

that Hunter Biden had said. Right? effectively

15:59

Hunter Biden

15:59

involved in Ukraine

16:02

of all places, involved in energy

16:04

policy in Ukraine, a place where he had no expertise

16:06

making

16:07

a bunch of money seeming to indicate

16:10

that his father's influence was for sale, which,

16:12

of course, is apparent enough to those

16:14

of us who follow politics

16:17

Democratic Party and the Republican Party,

16:19

both pedal influence. And it should

16:21

be extremely frightening to us citizens.

16:24

that we are in the process of potentially electing

16:26

somebody who might be peddling influence that

16:29

could start a war, could start a war with

16:31

Russia of all countries, a nuclear armed

16:33

nation. So

16:36

discovering that the Heather laptop was,

16:38

in fact, legitimate was important, but

16:41

that discovery was

16:43

delayed by largely Twitter's

16:45

actions in suspending this in Elon Musk

16:47

has now revealed that through

16:50

one of the few remaining excellent journalists

16:52

on Earth, Math Ib, which is

16:54

all very interesting.

16:56

Next chapter though,

16:58

if you looked at today's New

17:01

York Times or Washington Post, Now

17:03

mind too, I don't have the electronic

17:06

rendering of the paper versions of

17:09

those things. I think you need to be

17:11

a subscriber at The New York Times in

17:13

order to see their what they put

17:15

out on paper. But if you look to this

17:17

I don't have

17:18

time to do it now, but we can we can always

17:19

do that. We can always do that. I was hoping we

17:21

could. But Zach, do you have the

17:24

screenshot of the New York Times site that I sent

17:26

you from the site? Because we still

17:29

I

17:29

mean, maybe it's because we do this point. That's

17:31

my

17:31

excuse. We are subscribers to both. So

17:33

i'm

17:39

I sent you a a screenshot from the

17:41

New York Times. Yes. And

17:44

what it will show is that

17:47

there is nothing here

17:49

about the major revelations that So

17:51

what this is for those just

17:53

listening, the

17:55

New York Times site in which the search

17:57

is for Twitter, for

17:59

today,

17:59

December third.

18:00

Is that right? So I also, I

18:02

believe, Senzak, the front page, which shows

18:04

no indication. And if I search for Twitter to

18:06

see if they wrote the story, but buried

18:09

it, it does not show up. And this remains

18:12

the case if you switch that

18:15

from a relevance search.

18:17

I think you're now looking at the Washington Post, but

18:20

If you switch it from a

18:23

most recent search to a relevant

18:26

search, it doesn't change. They apparently did not

18:28

write the story. about what

18:30

happened on Twitter yesterday

18:32

were this major news event, the internal

18:34

communications that surrounded Well,

18:36

I mean, it was Friday night. They probably were all

18:38

busy.

18:39

oh

18:40

You know, there was a time

18:42

when newspapers reported news

18:45

and even be at Friday night,

18:48

you would

18:49

have gotten such a story.

18:51

So something funny is up Right.

18:53

You don't say. It has been apparent. You wanna

18:56

show that Washington Post when the same thing is true

18:58

if we go to the Washington Post. They

19:00

didn't write the story either.

19:02

would argue that's completely predictable. Sure.

19:07

So,

19:08

okay, it's absent from these two

19:11

major papers. You want to go to the New York

19:13

Post now?

19:14

The New

19:15

York Post, which as you recently

19:17

New York Post the show

19:19

me the front page. Which as you

19:22

recently said, was

19:24

the outfit

19:26

easily laughed at until recently that

19:29

was the one that broke the

19:32

Hunter

19:32

Biden laptops during the first place and

19:33

got it. kicked off Twitter as a result. But

19:36

the New York Post

19:38

So the New York Post Something to say. the

19:40

headline right here up front. And actually, the

19:42

New York Post is

19:45

so this is an opinion piece. Actually, this is

19:47

not their front page, but this is the No.

19:49

No. That's fine. Don't worry about it.

19:51

So in their opinion piece,

19:55

they write that what was released

19:57

on Twitter yesterday was incomplete

19:59

in that it excluded the

20:03

FBI's influence. The FBI

20:05

having spread the false story that disappeared

20:07

to be Russian disinformation, which was

20:09

ostensibly the basis for the exclusion

20:12

of the story from Twitter. which then

20:14

the emails that were released by Thaibee

20:16

yesterday reveal they

20:18

immediately knew inside didn't fly

20:21

and that they had no reason to exclude this story

20:23

and yet decided to continue to do it, which matches

20:26

a pattern also revealed by

20:28

Matt Iib yesterday, where

20:31

It turned out, this is surprising, that

20:34

influential

20:34

people on both sides of

20:36

the aisle were able to

20:38

make contact inside of Twitter and suggest

20:40

that certain

20:41

tweets be moderated.

20:43

Mhmm. But that this was

20:45

heavily biased in favor of the blue

20:47

teams influenced by virtue of the fact

20:49

that the people inside of Twitter are heavily biased

20:52

in favor of the blue team. So

20:54

anyway, it's a it's a it's Livestream

20:57

important story from the point of view of seeing

20:59

how the machine works.

21:02

And the fact that even today,

21:05

you've got Twitter revealing this thing and

21:07

the New York Times and the Washington ten posts don't feel

21:09

forced to write the story no matter how important

21:11

this may be especially because it's so important.

21:14

Alright. So that's sort of the immediate

21:16

context. Free speech is now revealing

21:19

some Heather property that we've talked

21:21

about here. Certain stories diagnose

21:23

the system. The story of Hunter Biden's

21:25

laptop diagnosis the system. We

21:27

can now see what Twitter did inside.

21:30

We can see what The New York Times and

21:32

the Washington Post still do with it.

21:34

We can see that there is this nebulous

21:36

interface with the federal government where the

21:38

FBI is seeding information on

21:41

which a

21:43

a platform might erroneously

21:46

exert its influence. And

21:48

it's all quite ominous and explains in

21:51

large measure how we ended up in such a terrible

21:55

divided situation in this country.

21:57

Alright. In that context,

22:00

if we go back slightly farther, what

22:02

we have is an incident earlier

22:04

in the week Kanye

22:06

West on

22:09

Alex Jones program on

22:11

Info Wars. showed

22:13

up after, I guess, we could go back

22:15

even further. He showed up initially

22:18

with Nick Fuentes, a very

22:20

troubling character

22:23

White nationalist, certainly by

22:25

implication, if not by his own admission,

22:28

showed up on

22:29

Tim Pools, podcast. And

22:33

Tim Cool pushed back on some

22:35

of the absurd things

22:37

that that west said about

22:40

Jews and west

22:42

stormed out after something like

22:44

fifteen minutes.

22:46

So after that incident happened, he

22:48

then shows up on info

22:50

wars. Now the important thing here

22:53

is that Alex Jones has been thrown off

22:55

of Twitter and has not been brought back.

22:57

So, Info

22:59

Wars lives on presumably

23:02

its own site.

23:03

They had an interview with Kanye West

23:06

in person Nick Fuentes who's

23:08

traveling with Kanye West is

23:10

there as well. And Alex

23:14

Jones in this context is

23:16

the voice of reason. Now,

23:19

i

23:21

I barely followed this. I was I

23:24

was

23:26

let me just say that one of the things

23:28

that this situation

23:31

reminds me of is that

23:35

we are living in an era

23:37

that celebrates the mentally ill,

23:41

that puts them front and center

23:43

and

23:43

either

23:47

and either admires them and tells

23:49

them how amazing they are and their delusions

23:52

or we'll use them

23:54

open for the mockery that will surely come.

23:57

And it's disrespectful.

23:59

It's mean. It's

24:02

dangerous. It's bad for the individuals

24:04

for sure, but it's dangerous for society.

24:06

and I know that's not the

24:08

main place

24:10

that you're going here, but my overwhelming

24:12

sense and I, you know, I'm

24:14

sort of I'm I'm experiencing sadness

24:17

as

24:17

an emotion this week for for

24:19

other reasons. But I so

24:21

maybe I'm just more prone to be seeing

24:23

to

24:24

be feeling sad about this, but my overwhelming

24:26

sense of this and of some of

24:28

the

24:29

of

24:31

some

24:31

of the the children who

24:33

are Heying their

24:35

trans and being, you know, just

24:37

manipulated and and and

24:40

and destroyed. My overwhelming

24:42

sense at the moment is not

24:45

anger or surprise or

24:47

any of the number of things that a person could

24:49

feel. It's it's just sadness. Like,

24:52

I don't I really

24:53

know almost nothing about Kanye West, but

24:55

isn't

24:55

there any way out there who loves him

24:57

enough to keep him to

24:59

protect from himself,

25:00

honestly. So look,

25:03

this is one of the places

25:05

that we need to go here. Now, I don't

25:07

know if what we're seeing is the result

25:09

of mental illness. That's certainly a

25:12

plausible way to connect these dots.

25:14

them

25:16

I have to say,

25:18

The greater tragedy is what

25:20

is being done to us by the elimination

25:23

of our ability to have a rational conversation

25:25

about any of where -- Yeah. -- should

25:27

you manage to create a rational

25:29

conversation? It is immediately dismissed

25:31

as right wing or something like

25:33

that. Right? So the problem

25:36

is we have to have the conversation

25:38

about how to treat each other well,

25:41

how to be nations how

25:43

to exist as whatever

25:45

the west is, not exactly

25:47

a nation. Right? but it is clearly

25:50

in some sense an emergent culture that has

25:52

to defend itself. We've got to be able to have a conversation

25:54

about how you do that.

25:56

And instead, people have gained

25:58

every system of conversation

25:59

so that none of those things can take place

26:02

so that if you succeed

26:04

then you are dismissed. If you fail,

26:06

then it is considered evidence that it wasn't

26:08

possible to begin with. Right? The whole

26:10

thing the conversation environment

26:13

has been thoroughly rigged. And so

26:15

let me just finish describing

26:17

what took place. Kanye West shows up

26:19

I think without explanation on

26:22

Alex Jones' program Heying,

26:26

it's not even a face mask.

26:28

It is something that covers his entire

26:31

face, including his eyes, presumably he

26:33

can see through the material, but

26:35

it's a very bizarre thing

26:37

for him to do, especially in light of the fact

26:39

that it

26:40

I think clearly was him. Any

26:42

voice analysis should be able tell you if it wasn't.

26:45

Mhmm. And so

26:47

anyway, he shows up somehow disguising

26:49

himself, a hand

26:51

on a bible sitting on the table in

26:53

front of him. And of course, he

26:55

says all kinds of preposterous Heying, which

26:58

Jones attempts to back

27:01

him into some form of reasonability, and

27:03

he's having none of it. So he definitely

27:05

says that, you know, he thinks

27:07

all human beings bring

27:09

redeeming things to the table, you know,

27:11

including Hitler. Okay. Well,

27:14

you know, no doubt one

27:16

could come up with some pedantic defense of

27:18

that statement. Jones pushes back

27:20

and he's like, no, actually like Hitler.

27:22

So, you know, he does say especially Hitler.

27:25

He does say especially Hitler. Mhmm.

27:28

And, anyway, so he just he makes

27:30

it very plain that his perspective,

27:32

at least in his current state of mind, is

27:34

that he has affection

27:36

for Hitler and the Nazis, and it's you

27:38

know, and in in his, I believe,

27:41

in his interview with Tim Poole,

27:43

he said that the Holocaust didn't happen that way

27:45

or something. So it's like all the worst stuff. lines

27:47

holocaust denial. It's affection for

27:49

Hitler.

27:51

And

27:53

the question is, what

27:54

are we to make of this? and I

27:57

have not done a tremendous amount of digging

27:59

on

27:59

people's arguments here, but

28:02

there is one in what I looked at and I

28:04

looked at enough stuff.

28:05

that I don't see anywhere, which I

28:07

think ought to be front and center.

28:09

My feeling is on thinking about this

28:12

tragic bizarre spectacle,

28:15

the kind of train wreck you can't look

28:17

away from. That

28:20

the real answer is that actually, if you

28:22

stand in the right place,

28:24

it makes maybe the strongest

28:26

possible case for free

28:29

speech on our platforms in

28:33

the sense that the founders meant it.

28:35

That even

28:36

this bizarre spectacle, which,

28:39

you know, I'm not a believer in the category

28:41

of hate speech Obviously, much

28:44

speech is motivated by hate, but it's obviously

28:46

not a legal category. It is protected by

28:48

the first amendment like everything else. Even

28:50

this

28:51

obvious case of hate speech,

28:53

the embrace of a genocidal maniac,

28:56

that not only does

28:58

the principle of free speech require

29:01

us

29:02

to defend this, but it actually demonstrates

29:04

why we must. And so

29:05

I wanted to make that case just

29:08

so that it's on the table at the

29:10

very least.

29:11

And the way I see it is this.

29:14

Kanye West is exceedingly

29:17

popular, at

29:19

least he was last week.

29:20

I think it's been a little

29:22

while.

29:25

he is exceedingly popular.

29:27

I don't think that could possibly be an

29:29

exaggeration even if he's lost

29:32

half his audience. He's exceedingly popular.

29:35

In fact, the thing you point to, the

29:37

pathology that has no name where

29:39

somebody becomes so famous

29:42

and so wealthy that no one can

29:44

tell them no.

29:45

Right? The thing that I

29:48

believe killed Prince

29:51

that killed Michael Jackson. Right?

29:53

The idea that these people are so elevated

29:56

that they will be injected with, you know,

29:58

drugs that will kill them

29:59

because basically they can have

30:02

whatever they want. I

30:02

I will just say I was making a broader

30:05

point on that.

30:05

This wasn't about is

30:07

he too famous for anyone who loves

30:09

him to help him. This was, I

30:11

think, a more important and far Bret point

30:13

that as a society, we

30:15

are embracing mental illness. and most

30:17

of the people who are having their mental illness embraced

30:20

have no fame at all. And in fact, many of

30:22

them have narcissist dependencies and are

30:24

seeking fame. Yep. And

30:27

the response is not

30:31

I'm sorry you're going through that. Let's see if we

30:33

can treat that. and return

30:35

you to some

30:36

some semblance of normalcy

30:38

in the best sense of the term, but rather,

30:41

oh, yes. you are in fact

30:43

a lizard and

30:45

we're going to make sure that anyone

30:47

who says that you're not is roundly disciplined.

30:49

No. Look, I think you're making an excellent

30:52

point. I do think that there is something

30:54

that is almost inscribed in

30:56

the new rules

30:58

in which we

31:00

are forced to not

31:04

dismiss

31:05

certain kinds of assertions

31:08

as crazy even though they transparently are.

31:11

And and that's

31:13

clearly going on here. But Anyway,

31:16

even I mean, let's just

31:19

play

31:19

my game here for a second. He

31:21

is exceedingly popular. I don't know

31:23

how many million followers

31:26

he has,

31:27

but it's

31:28

a very large number.

31:31

He has also

31:33

that political aspirations. He's

31:35

run for president wants very

31:37

well, you roll your eyes, but

31:41

when somebody with as much reach

31:44

as this person has

31:47

decides that they want to do something like

31:49

this, The idea that it is preposterous

31:51

is obviously wrong.

31:53

k? And Donald Trump

31:55

proves this.

31:56

Right? Donald Trump managed to get himself

31:58

elected president.

31:59

So

32:01

my point is,

32:03

Kanye West

32:05

is the kind of person

32:07

who brings together certain things

32:10

that could conceivably put him

32:12

in

32:13

the presidency.

32:14

Right? A nuclear armed presidency.

32:19

And so,

32:20

the idea that we might

32:22

take utterances of his that

32:24

are beyond the pale and

32:26

shield them, thereby protecting

32:29

us from the understanding. Even if

32:31

and I I do think one interpretation

32:34

here -- Mhmm. -- is that this person is

32:36

having a a

32:39

bipolar, a manic

32:41

episode that they don't really believe

32:43

these things, that we're hearing things

32:45

from their, you know, darkest fantasies

32:49

and not their actual understanding

32:51

of the world. And that therefore, it

32:53

would be un generous for us to imagine

32:56

that this is what Kanye West thinks. I don't

32:58

know. I don't follow him under normal

33:00

circumstances, so I don't know how out of character.

33:03

this is if he's just finally admitting things

33:05

that he believes or if these are things he doesn't

33:07

really believe in two months from now, he'll

33:09

say, look, that wasn't really me. I don't

33:11

know. But what I do know

33:13

is that anybody who

33:15

would say these things

33:18

is not fit for office.

33:21

And so my point is no

33:23

matter what the meaning of this

33:25

episode, it is vitally

33:28

important that we'd be able to

33:30

see it.

33:31

vitally important, and to

33:34

make that point even a little bit stronger,

33:37

notice where we did see it.

33:39

Right? We saw it

33:41

on Alex Jones program

33:44

who has himself been banished

33:46

to the fringe of civilization. Right?

33:49

So the point is, you know,

33:51

okay, we can now take video from

33:54

this channel, which the,

33:56

you know, elite world would clearly like

33:58

to disappear. Okay. Right? But

34:00

this channel is responsible for us being

34:02

able to see something important that

34:04

actually might be at some

34:07

point relevant to the governance of

34:09

the country and the fate of the world. So,

34:11

you know, it seems to me like it couldn't

34:14

really be a stronger case

34:16

for, you know what? Let us,

34:18

you know, not be snowflakes

34:21

and let us not pretend that the fact that

34:23

somebody has said something terrible means

34:26

that we are all going to be persuaded

34:28

of something or we are gonna be so injured.

34:30

I mean, look, I'm Jewish. I have

34:32

his right as much right to be injured by somebody

34:34

denying the Holocaust or saying Hitler was

34:36

a cool guy as anybody, but you know

34:38

what? it doesn't bug me. I think

34:40

I'm looking at somebody who's either involved in

34:43

performance art or it's a mental

34:45

illness or it's both or I don't know

34:47

what, but the point is, yeah, I think

34:49

it's pretty important that we all heard him say it.

34:52

Absolutely.

34:54

I

34:55

actually think that that that

34:57

segue is neatly into

34:59

talking a little bit about Anna Kreylov's

35:02

newest piece -- Okay. -- if if we can.

35:04

Yep.

35:05

So Anna Karloff, regular

35:07

listeners will remember I read

35:09

from her piece

35:10

called on the perils of politicizing science

35:12

back in livestream eighty four in June of twenty

35:14

twenty one, which was published in the

35:16

Journal of Physical Chemistry Heather, not

35:20

place where you might expect a piece called on

35:22

the perils of politicizing science to show up.

35:25

She is herself a chemist at USC. born

35:28

in the Soviet Union. And

35:30

so nose nose wherever she speaks.

35:33

I've since had the opportunity

35:34

to meet her. She's a wonderful person. this

35:37

wonderful person

35:37

is in Heying. And she

35:40

made a speech at Duke a year ago that

35:42

is now published on Dorian Abbott's.

35:45

SubStack during Abbott himself is geophysicist

35:47

at the University of Chicago who writes

35:50

on SubStack. I haven't written it

35:52

down here. Heather STEM is the name of his

35:54

SubStack. And he himself ran

35:56

into trouble with a with woke culture

35:58

when he co coauthored

36:01

an op ed in Newsweek. summer

36:03

twenty twenty one in which he claimed

36:06

that DEI,

36:06

that his diversity equity inclusion,

36:08

violates the ethical and legal principle

36:10

of legal treatment. quote,

36:13

and entails treating people as members of a group

36:15

rather than as individuals repeating the mistake

36:17

that made possible the atrocities of the twentieth

36:19

century. It requires being

36:21

willing to tell an applicant I will ignore your merits

36:23

and qualifications and deny you admission because

36:25

you belong to their own group and I have to find a more

36:27

important social objective that just wise doing

36:29

so. It treats persons as merely

36:31

means to an end Heying primacy to a sadist

36:33

over the individuality of human being.

36:37

For writing that, he

36:39

his talk at MIT was canceled because

36:42

the mob

36:45

made all the usual claims about being

36:47

hurt and and and injured by

36:49

by this kind of argument.

36:50

So that's that's Dorian Abbott,

36:52

the geophysicist at University of Chicago,

36:54

who has just republished, and I cried

36:56

a laugh speech to do.

36:58

just this week. And so and

37:00

a krilev's piece, which

37:03

is called

37:06

Just a minute. Once I scroll to the top, Zach,

37:08

you can show my screen here if you like. This

37:10

is just a PDF of the PSL link

37:12

to at substuck in the

37:14

show notes from Russia with love. Science

37:17

and ideology then and now.

37:20

And again, she is born

37:22

Soviet Union now

37:24

has been in the United States for a very long time,

37:26

a chemist at USC. And

37:29

I wanted to say that she has

37:32

organized her remarks in this piece, which

37:34

I recommend you read the whole into

37:36

a discussion of the atmosphere of fear and

37:38

self censorship. which is related to what

37:40

you've just been talking about, the omnipresence of

37:43

ideology with examples from science,

37:45

the intolerance of dissenting opinions, Suppression

37:48

ideas and people censorship and news

37:50

speak to use for Well's term, and

37:53

the use of social engineering to solve real

37:55

and imagined problems. And

37:57

it's really easy to go

37:58

to, you know, using

37:59

social engineering to problem

38:02

with using social engineering to solve a match with

38:04

problems. is a wami

38:06

that no does not make it a good It

38:08

makes it even worse. But

38:10

let me read little bit

38:12

hear from her piece.

38:14

Let's begin. Right? Doctor Christophe,

38:16

with the pervasive fear of speaking up.

38:18

First, so definitions. self censorship

38:21

is the refusal to produce, distribute, circulate,

38:23

or express something for fear punishment. Self

38:26

censorship is different from discretion. When

38:28

I choose not to talk about my views on religion

38:30

at the dinner table, in order not to upset my mother-in-law,

38:33

that is discretion. But when

38:35

I choose not to say at faculty meeting that can

38:37

serve only diversity candidates for faculty search

38:39

is discriminatory because I am afraid of being ostracized

38:42

or worse. That is self censorship.

38:45

The flip side of self censorship is compelled

38:47

speech. That is when people express opinions

38:49

that are not their own for fear of punishment. Again,

38:51

there is a difference between telling little white lies

38:53

or to please someone and saying something you do not

38:55

believe in for fear of repercussions.

38:57

Saying, oh, you look exactly like you did

38:59

thirty years ago to your high sweetheart is

39:01

not compelled speech. Compelled

39:04

speech is when your institution issues a pledge

39:06

to fight systemic racism and you are afraid

39:08

to ask Is there any evidence of systemic

39:10

racism

39:10

in our university?

39:12

Instead, you stand up at faculty meeting and

39:14

pledge to apply yourself fully to dismantling systemic

39:17

racism. We've

39:18

met some of those people. Self

39:20

censorship is a reaction to oppressive environments.

39:22

It is a symptom of fear. It is an indicator of

39:24

cancer culture.

39:26

and just

39:28

one more.

39:32

Couple

39:34

more things here. Newspeak

39:36

is invading this again from Orwell's

39:38

nineteen eighty four. Newspeak is invading

39:40

the English language in a truly orwellian fashion.

39:43

A few examples illustrate this. The

39:45

journal Nature published a letter calling for the

39:47

replacement of the accepted technical term quantum

39:49

supremacy by quantum advantage.

39:53

The authors regard the English word supremacy

39:55

as violent and equates usage with

39:57

promoting racism and colonialism. They also

39:59

warns

39:59

damage inflicted by using such terms

40:02

as

40:02

conquest.

40:04

Professional societies, including the Association

40:06

for Computing Machinery, and tech companies,

40:08

including Google, and

40:10

IBM joined the suit.

40:12

Last spring, I attended a meeting on Quantum

40:14

Information Science. It was a sad spectacle

40:16

to watch grown up scientists stumbling Heying to

40:18

avoid the offensive word about ninety

40:21

percent conformed to this idiocy. So

40:23

this is important because

40:27

Science has been tried

40:28

it out so much in the last almost

40:30

three years. Right? As well,

40:33

We know you you know you can't trust

40:35

yourself and you know you don't know enough to really

40:37

understand what's going on, but we're gonna

40:39

bring out some lab coat wearing scientists.

40:42

It's really

40:44

hard to stay serious with a really completely

40:46

charlie epic tabular. You're just

40:49

like that.

40:51

Apologies

40:52

to Sorry about that. Just back

40:54

to my far Oh my goodness. makes

40:56

things okay. That and the fact of

40:58

excellent peaches in August helps make things

41:00

okay.

41:05

We have

41:08

most of the

41:10

public, who are not scientists, have

41:13

been sold the bill of goods, have been assured

41:16

and have believed that.

41:18

The scientists when they speak

41:19

are correct. They

41:21

know what they're doing because science.

41:24

Because you've all heard something

41:26

about self correcting Yada yada

41:28

and hypothesis may be and

41:30

lots of math and therefore must be true.

41:33

And what we see here in

41:35

an anecdote in an

41:38

article filled with stories that are mostly

41:40

not anecdotes, but this happens to be an anecdote

41:43

is about ninety percent of

41:45

the scientists at a

41:47

professional society, the Association for

41:49

Computing Machinery. Oh, no.

41:51

No. The just she's she doesn't specify.

41:54

It's a meeting on quantum information science. about

41:56

ninety percent of the attendees, all

41:58

of whom are identified as scientists,

42:00

tied themselves in knots trying

42:03

to conform to the journal Nature's

42:05

insane conclusion that the term

42:07

quantum supremacy is violent

42:09

and colonial.

42:11

k? So

42:12

If ninety percent of scientists will do that

42:16

for a non issue,

42:19

the

42:19

how can we assume

42:22

that any scientist standing up and

42:25

follow the science isn't

42:27

long since gone. if they ever had

42:30

any ability to think scientifically at

42:32

all?

42:34

You had Well,

42:35

there's a whole bunch on

42:37

that thread that I wanna follow. Go for it.

42:42

The key thing, I think you make an

42:44

x point. You're watching scientists

42:47

bend over backwards over a

42:49

trivial Heying. And

42:51

we actually pointed to the speech in

42:55

catch twenty two. Mhmm. I can't remember

42:57

how long ago, but we pointed there's a point

42:59

at which

43:01

The Bret loyalty oath campaign

43:04

has gotten to a point of absurdity,

43:06

and I think it's colonel Cathcartes

43:09

comes into the mess

43:12

hall and kills it off by

43:14

demanding that he

43:16

give me eats without

43:19

signing a loyalty oath and then

43:21

as he walks away with his food, having intimidated

43:24

them into serving him, everybody

43:26

is

43:27

hoping that he'll break the campaign and he says

43:29

give everybody eats and the great loyalty

43:31

of campaign comes to crashing end.

43:34

But it requires

43:34

a benevolent dictator in the moment

43:36

of It requires power. And

43:38

the point is absent that, the

43:40

willingness of scientists to bend over

43:42

backwards over a total non issue when

43:44

the real answer is, yeah, I'm not gonna do

43:46

that because it's stupid. Right? Yeah.

43:49

The fact that nobody says that tells you

43:51

how powerful this is and how

43:53

unlikely it is that scientists

43:55

will stand up over something difficult.

43:58

Right? Now, it just so

43:59

happens that this links back to what we were talking

44:02

about that led you here, and I don't know whether we should

44:04

pursue that thread? Or you finish

44:06

out

44:06

your I'm gonna

44:10

come back to it, though. come back to it, though.

44:11

Grandeis University has a website dedicated

44:13

to Newspeak.

44:15

They recommend replacing trigger warning

44:18

by content notice. and

44:21

offer DEI approved suggestions for

44:23

replacements for. She doesn't provide brand

44:25

i's recommended replacements, but they

44:27

offer DEI approved suggestions for replacements

44:30

for

44:31

Take a stab at it.

44:32

You are killing it.

44:34

Walk in appointment and

44:36

abusive relationship.

44:38

now Now, I

44:40

don't know what their problem with abusive

44:42

relationship is. I can understand what

44:44

their problem with abusive relationships might be,

44:46

but the idea that the term abusive relationship

44:48

needs to be replaced by a DEI sanctioned term

44:51

such that you can guarantee that no one will know what

44:53

you're talking about. But I'm

44:55

betting that walk in appointment

44:56

is is offensive because

44:59

something people can't walk. That's

45:01

my guess. I don't know. That's

45:04

all that's all I got. So

45:08

I mean, this and this is what we have to do. We

45:10

have to laugh at these

45:11

people. Right. We have

45:12

to laugh at these people. We have to not

45:14

comply and not affirm and

45:16

not say yes, sir, and say

45:18

you're insane, and you're laughable, and

45:21

come on along with me, see how foolish

45:23

you were Heying, and, you know,

45:25

let's talk. Okay?

45:27

So slightly

45:29

longer

45:29

section, one more excerpt Heather

45:33

fourth theme in the piece

45:35

is social engineering to

45:36

solve real and imagined problems. Rates

45:39

Crayloff. In the USSR, everything was managed

45:42

top down. again, this is where she grew up.

45:44

Social engineering was the main tool for building

45:46

a supposedly better world. Let me share just one

45:48

example. Our institutions were obsessed

45:50

with demographics. which were controlled by quotas.

45:53

For example, for Jewish kids, it was nearly

45:55

impossible to get into top physics or mathematics

45:57

programs. Why? Because Jews were overrepresented.

46:00

and having too many Jewish faces among mathematicians

46:03

to not represent the demographic makeup of our

46:05

Bret nation.

46:06

That doesn't add up.

46:09

I learned about the existence of Jewish quotas

46:11

on my first state university. Before

46:13

that, I believe the official narrative. that

46:16

everyone has fair access to education and everyone

46:18

could pursue their dreams. My dream

46:20

was to study chemistry, so I applied to the chemistry

46:22

department at Moscow State University. I

46:24

passed the entrance exams and was duly admitted,

46:26

but then it happened that I learned from a high school friend

46:29

that the chemistry department had a special track for theoretical

46:31

theoretically oriented students, and that

46:33

is very hard and very advanced. I had no

46:35

idea what a theoretically oriented curriculum was about,

46:37

but I signed up for it more or less in a dare because my

46:39

friend told me that it is not suitable for girls.

46:41

So

46:42

Anna Heying a girl

46:44

at the time now, woman. So I am there

46:47

on the first day of classes, meeting my classmates the

46:49

first time. There are about thirty kids enrolled.

46:50

The first surprise, there are only six girls.

46:53

Second surprise, most of the kids were Jewish.

46:55

And they were in the program because it was close

46:57

as they could get to what they really wanted to study,

46:59

math and physics. It was a backdoor via

47:02

the last visible chemistry program. I

47:04

remember telling my classmates how excited I

47:06

was about chemistry how I could not wait to get into a

47:08

chemistry lab. In response, another

47:10

girl who later became my best friend told her

47:12

story, I hate chemistry. I wanna

47:14

study mathematics, but look at me, she said.

47:16

I am obviously Jewish, and my family name

47:18

is Jewish, so I have zero chance of getting into

47:20

a physics or math department.

47:23

That

47:24

was the USSR.

47:26

Yeah. In,

47:27

I think, the eighties, near

47:31

near the end of its reign.

47:32

the eighties. Wow. Yeah.

47:34

ah The

47:37

last words in her piece, which again was

47:39

from a speech delivered at Duke about a year ago.

47:42

What can be done? Here are some ideas. First,

47:44

speak up. Do

47:45

not submit to police. Refuse to

47:47

speak, news speak. If you see that the king is

47:49

naked, say the king is naked.

47:51

Second, organize. There is safety

47:53

in numbers. Organizations such as the academic

47:55

freedom alliance foundation for individual rights

47:57

and expression, foundation against intolerance

47:59

and racism,

47:59

and the Heather Academy can provide

48:02

a platform for action protection against repercussions.

48:05

Do

48:05

your share. in defending humanism,

48:07

democracy, and the liberal enlightenment.

48:11

Here here. Yeah. Alright.

48:14

So

48:14

let me return back to a test case

48:16

here. Go right. I

48:19

think it is on the screenshot of The New York Times

48:21

that I

48:22

sent you that you showed there

48:25

on the Twitter search. The

48:27

New York Times and others are promoting

48:30

a story in the aftermath of

48:33

Muscovir and Heying

48:35

of the environment

48:37

in which hate

48:39

speech has

48:41

skyrocketed on

48:43

Twitter in the aftermath. Is that there

48:45

on that screenshot? I don't see it. It was on a different

48:47

one, and that's better. k. So

48:51

anyway, here's my point.

48:54

a, this

48:56

is a nonsense story as far as anybody

48:58

can tell.

48:59

Right? I

49:00

have been on Twitter plenty in

49:02

recent days. I have not seen

49:04

any hate speech. It's not showing up. And

49:06

one obvious interpretation is

49:09

that the if in fact, they are

49:11

reporting anything real at all,

49:13

that they are reporting something like

49:15

the number of tweets, which would be an

49:17

easily gained metric. And they are

49:19

not reporting, but people are actually seeing

49:21

it as to say, impressions of

49:23

these things. Mhmm. And those two things are liable

49:26

to diverge radically given what

49:28

Musk did with certifications

49:30

where a huge number of people found

49:33

themselves

49:34

able to get certification quickly

49:38

and now have access to filter

49:40

that allow them to look at the content

49:42

posted by other certified accounts. So

49:45

were you to have an army of bots posting

49:47

hate speech because they

49:49

can or because the idea is to

49:51

make Twitter look like a hellscape at the moment.

49:54

Then the New York Times and other such

49:56

establishments could report that hate

49:58

speech has taken off in

49:59

the aftermath of this change when in fact from the

50:01

point of view of actual users, the opposite

50:04

has likely happened.

50:05

Well, I mean, there's certainly

50:07

number of people who have those blue checks

50:09

now and they can filter, but the vast majority of people

50:11

still don't. But I would say that

50:14

the bodies are likely to be buried

50:16

with regard to this near term article that you're

50:18

talking about that I am not Heying in

50:20

the definition

50:21

of hate speech. you know,

50:23

what it is that they are classifying as

50:25

as hate speech is likely

50:27

to be something about which reasonable

50:29

people could disagree. Well, that

50:31

is certainly true. It is also

50:33

true that all eyes are on Twitter

50:35

because zero is a special number and therefore

50:38

the amount that is resting on them being able to

50:40

kill off must experiment is much

50:42

greater than we would think from a business

50:45

perspective or size of Twitter

50:47

perspective. But the the real

50:49

point I wanna make is this. One

50:51

of the things that will emerge if we are able

50:53

to have a free and open conversation

50:56

about all topics, including difficult

50:58

ones, is that

51:00

this whole idea, the whole

51:02

woke revolution is founded on the

51:04

idea that if we can police what you can say

51:07

that that will make people better.

51:09

Right? Yep. No way.

51:11

Now, I have advanced a very

51:13

difficult idea, one that people do

51:15

not like. which is that

51:17

there is a predictable reason that

51:20

antisemitism in particular rises

51:22

at certain moments in history and it

51:24

has to do with transfer frontiers, which you and

51:26

I describe in our book.

51:28

And the idea is, look, this is a matter

51:30

of economic contraction causing

51:33

two things. One, people's natural

51:35

tendency to break into lineages and

51:37

fight each and the cynical

51:40

use of that in stink on people's

51:42

part by elites

51:45

who do not wanna be targeted, elites

51:47

who may have concentrated wealth and power

51:49

in their own

51:50

pockets of hands and

51:52

who are redirecting that anchor at

51:54

other people to whom we are evolutionarily biased

51:57

to be suspicious. Yeah. That's

51:59

a challenging

51:59

argument.

52:01

Now, that argument needs to be on the table.

52:03

Right? Of course, lots of people will tell

52:06

you that that argument is somehow justifying

52:09

racism or something like this. They make the naturalistic

52:12

fallacy. So in a world where petty people

52:14

who know very little are empowered to

52:17

police what is allowed to be discussed.

52:19

An idea like that likely will not be discussed.

52:22

Now

52:22

if you look at what's taking place,

52:24

we are watching. Any Jew

52:27

knows that we are watching an immense rise

52:29

in antisemitism in last

52:31

several

52:31

years, but in particular, in the last

52:34

few months. My claim

52:36

is that is a natural consequence of

52:38

something which is being amplified by something

52:40

else and we better pay attention to what's

52:42

causing that. It's not the freedom to talk

52:45

this way that is causing people to

52:47

do that. The freedom to talk that way is

52:49

allowing us to see that they are doing

52:51

that. This is vitally important

52:53

that we know. Mhmm. If we shield

52:56

ourselves from what people are actually

52:58

saying and thinking, then we are liable

53:00

to be caught off guard, which is the worst possible

53:03

thing that can happen in these cases. The

53:05

key to understanding what to do

53:07

and preparing properly for it is knowing

53:09

that it's occurring. And so again,

53:12

the argument here couldn't be stronger. If

53:14

you understand it at a deep level, this

53:17

the fact that you are seeing antisemitism means

53:20

that we have to be alert to it and we have to be

53:22

able to detect it rather than having

53:24

some nanny decide that

53:26

you're gonna, you know, be emotionally harmed

53:28

by hearing this and therefore you won't be allowed

53:31

to even if you want to tune in.

53:33

Right? So And

53:35

the things that are being disappeared, run

53:38

the gamut from

53:41

truly horrible things that people believed.

53:44

at some points to

53:46

things within the range

53:49

of normal for a time

53:51

that is now passed. to

53:54

made up things like getting rid

53:56

of the word supremacy and quantum supremacy

53:58

because apparently that's violent

53:59

in the audio.

54:00

And so it's

54:02

not even. Like, I I could I could

54:05

try to steal man the

54:07

idea of

54:09

of sensuring the past by Heying,

54:11

if you

54:13

see that something has been censored, you

54:15

know that that will have been a

54:17

very bad thing. I

54:19

think it's a stupid argument, but it

54:21

doesn't hold up

54:23

because the variety

54:25

of things that they're censoring is

54:27

so remarkable.

54:29

They're Heying to take out

54:31

every what

54:32

everyone who isn't living

54:35

in a bubble right now, and

54:37

most of language. And, you

54:39

know, it's part of why I find, you

54:42

know,

54:42

krile off standing up as a scientist,

54:45

as an academic scientist and saying, no,

54:47

and no one else should be agreeing with us,

54:49

particularly strong because because

54:52

she saw it. And we talked a lot in the first

54:54

year

54:54

or so of DarkHorse,

54:55

a lot more than we have of late,

54:57

about

54:59

Heying noticed that many people who

55:02

grew up behind the iron curtain or in

55:04

Soviet, you know, in Soviet

55:06

Russia, who have been

55:08

in the US or have been in the West for most of

55:10

their adult lives or all of their adult lives

55:13

seem particularly likely.

55:15

to be able to see the

55:18

stirrings and the intimations and sometimes

55:20

the very obvious stuff that is happening

55:22

with regard to the censorship. and

55:26

worse. And, you know, why should that be?

55:28

Well, why should it be? Because

55:30

these are people who can

55:32

do pattern recognition and they saw this

55:35

once before and they're seeing it now.

55:37

And if you think it can't happen here,

55:39

you got another thing coming. I

55:42

would

55:42

also point out one other thing. On the

55:44

list of tools that we need in order

55:46

to navigate dangerous

55:47

shit like this -- Mhmm.

55:49

top of the list is humor. Yeah.

55:51

Right? And the problem is if you

55:53

think you are going to police bad

55:56

thought out of existence by detecting

55:58

it when it is uttered and

55:59

getting rid of it. Well, what the hell

56:02

do you do

56:03

with the comedy that

56:05

is necessary to ridicule

56:07

bad ideas out of exist? Right.

56:09

Right. That is an essential tool.

56:11

And, you know, this goes back actually

56:13

to

56:15

the hot water that Dave Chappell got into

56:18

a few weeks back. for

56:20

pointing out the special power of

56:22

the phrase, the Jews. Mhmm.

56:25

Now it was actually, I mean, I

56:27

think he was wrong. I thought it was funny, but

56:29

-- I don't know anything about that. -- he did he did this on

56:31

on Saturday Night Live, and he was basically

56:33

saying that you you that there

56:35

is a rule, an unwritten rule that, in fact,

56:37

these these are two words you can't put Heather, the

56:39

Zud Jews. Right? And the point was that there's

56:41

something to discuss about Zud Jews.

56:44

In way, I did think it was funny.

56:46

I did think it was wrong. But I also

56:48

thought that Right. You

56:49

did or you did not.

56:50

I thought it was both funny. and wrong.

56:52

I know he has a point. Mhmm. Right? I don't

56:54

think the point is the one that he made. Mhmm.

56:57

But I also thought, I mean, a, as you

56:59

know, I love Dave Schappel. Right?

57:01

And I love David Schappel, especially on

57:03

issues of race.

57:05

Right? He's

57:06

quite excellent. He has a

57:08

way. It's not like he doesn't have a perspective

57:10

he does. Mhmm.

57:12

But he also

57:14

has a way of understanding what's on the other

57:16

side of that, which makes is humor

57:18

just devastating. Yeah. But anyway,

57:20

it was the invitation to a conversation that

57:22

needs to be had, not a very comfortable one.

57:25

But one that I wish we would have rather

57:27

than -- Right. -- try to, you know, bar

57:30

such things at the door which

57:32

is only going to result in

57:34

them, you know, festering and

57:37

then erupting in some much more

57:39

troubling way. Yeah. I mean,

57:42

you know, in fact, I will point out that the Jews

57:44

who got caught off guard

57:46

in

57:47

in Europe

57:49

were Jews who were telling

57:51

themselves, you know what? It sucks. It's

57:53

terrible, but it will blow over. Right?

57:56

They underestimated the danger. how

57:58

much greater is the chance

57:59

of underestimating a danger if

58:02

somebody has protected you from hearing it

58:04

being discussed?

58:05

Right. That's a very bad idea. Mhmm.

58:07

So

58:08

Yes. And in fact, I

58:11

remember I remember exactly

58:13

this sentiment at

58:16

the fire conference, the foundation for

58:18

individual rights in education.

58:21

I think is what fire stands for.

58:22

We went you were invited to speak

58:24

at, and we went to the fire conference in twenty

58:27

seventeen.

58:28

in in Dallas.

58:30

And one of the higher

58:32

ups at fire, I don't remember

58:34

exactly who, I'm I'm afraid, said

58:37

precisely this, and I don't remember who

58:39

the sort of

58:41

Yahoo white nationalist du jour

58:43

was then. So I'm not gonna come

58:45

up with a name. but there was someone

58:47

making the news, and there was all sorts of

58:49

Brewhouse about, like, you cannot let this men speak.

58:52

And this this

58:54

guy, so say, with fires, says, Please let

58:56

him speak. Like, the

58:58

Bret thing in the world for all of us

59:01

who abhor ideas and

59:03

tenets of white nationalism is to let them talk.

59:05

and let them, you know, dig their own graves.

59:07

Well, let's

59:09

do this right. I agree with this sentiment. I've

59:11

said a similar thing that I I wanna

59:13

hear these people. I want I want it knowing

59:16

what they are saying. It does not

59:18

mean that

59:19

what they are saying does not

59:21

catch on because people hear it.

59:23

The problem is

59:25

there's this deeper layer. Why does

59:27

it catch on? If you're not dealing

59:29

with the thing that supports racism

59:32

antisemitism in particular, and I

59:35

say in particular because the

59:37

diaspora of Jews lends itself to

59:39

being attacked when you have an economic

59:41

contraction. Mhmm. But

59:44

the point is,

59:46

there is a downside. It's

59:48

not that no anti

59:50

semite or other racist is

59:52

gonna persuade anybody by Heying. They

59:54

will. But

59:54

the point is why are they vulnerable to being persuaded?

59:57

That has to do with the stuff we

59:59

really should be

59:59

addressing.

1:00:00

Right? These things go away. They

1:00:03

go away when times look a certain way.

1:00:05

And then they come back when those conditions

1:00:07

reverse. And understanding that

1:00:09

pattern

1:00:10

is the key to addressing this. You

1:00:12

cannot you cannot address it

1:00:14

by policing speech. Right? So

1:00:16

even trying is absurd. And One

1:00:20

other thing wanted to add, the list

1:00:22

of terms that we are supposed to swap out

1:00:24

for other terms.

1:00:27

The tell in that one is trigger

1:00:29

warning.

1:00:30

Because trigger warning isn't

1:00:33

actually

1:00:34

bad. It's one of the things that you could

1:00:36

borrow from the woke revolution.

1:00:38

So, actually, you know what? That has a place. Right?

1:00:41

Because what it does is it

1:00:44

reduces the downside of

1:00:47

speech. Right? If I say, look,

1:00:50

I mean, in fact, I was in this situation. I

1:00:52

gave trigger warnings, not very regularly. I

1:00:54

didn't feel required to give them.

1:00:56

Okay. But I felt morally

1:00:58

required sometimes. For example, evolutionary

1:01:02

biology, there are cases In

1:01:04

the animal kingdom, there are cases

1:01:06

in human populations,

1:01:09

there are cases in discussing human history, where

1:01:11

we have to talk about rape. where

1:01:13

it is an important force.

1:01:15

Right? Doesn't mean justifying it, but we

1:01:17

got to talk about it. If you're

1:01:19

going to talk about it and you're going to talk

1:01:21

about it

1:01:21

to a room of women,

1:01:23

some of whom will have had this experience.

1:01:26

Giving

1:01:26

them a trigger warning is a compassionate thing

1:01:29

to do. Right? And so

1:01:31

the point is trigger Heying.

1:01:33

of all of the things that the woke revolution

1:01:36

has asserted and promoted.

1:01:38

Right? That's one of the ones I would say actually, you know

1:01:40

what? I don't like what you've done with it. don't like

1:01:42

your absurd assertion about,

1:01:45

you know, the fact that somebody's guilty of something

1:01:47

because they didn't utter one. but I do believe

1:01:49

that it has a place, and that place is

1:01:51

part of protecting speech rights.

1:01:54

Right? And so the whole idea will, maybe that's

1:01:56

the problem with your governing, is that Too

1:01:58

many people thought actually. Yeah. Okay.

1:02:00

Too many people who would be on the other

1:02:03

side of that have actually said, yeah. Actually, I'm gonna give you

1:02:05

trigger warning. because it's a reasonable

1:02:07

thing to do. That's interesting. Yeah.

1:02:09

I I never did, but

1:02:14

But

1:02:15

in a, you know, in a day that was gonna include

1:02:17

three hours of sort of interactive lecture, the

1:02:22

the kinds of topics that we would be talking about

1:02:24

would be known in advance. So

1:02:28

I I

1:02:28

So it was kind of already built. Positive

1:02:30

that I never uttered the words

1:02:31

trigger Heying.

1:02:34

here's a trigger warning. Our

1:02:35

epic tabby has just broken into

1:02:37

the liquor cabinet. Oh my goodness. Off screen.

1:02:39

Alright. So our producer is going to go

1:02:43

rescue

1:02:44

the cat and close that up.

1:02:46

So

1:02:48

so

1:02:50

I do I

1:02:52

I hadn't heard that explanation

1:02:54

from you for why trigger warning

1:02:56

might be,

1:02:57

right, might be valuable. And I think maybe maybe

1:02:59

what it amounts to is because

1:03:03

because

1:03:03

you didn't leave a trace.

1:03:05

You you didn't have syllabus wherein

1:03:07

they could say, Oh, this is the Heying. These

1:03:10

are the

1:03:10

things that we're going to be talking about today. You

1:03:12

had to do that in order to give them some

1:03:15

indication. and I effectively

1:03:16

-- You'll get

1:03:19

it. -- and I

1:03:20

I think until you said it that way,

1:03:23

I felt like I think many people

1:03:25

who object to the

1:03:27

the overreach and in constant

1:03:29

inconsistent fascencies and diabolical

1:03:32

nature of most of the diversity equity

1:03:34

and inclusion movement

1:03:37

thought that it was babying people. Right?

1:03:39

Like, you know, no. Grow

1:03:41

up. This is, like, you're not gonna get trigger warnings

1:03:44

in life, so I'm not gonna give you trigger warning

1:03:46

either. that said,

1:03:48

okay, yes, we're talking about we're

1:03:50

talking about sexual selection, evolution of sex,

1:03:52

evolution of sex roles, we're talking about all these Heying.

1:03:55

And so, you know, you can and

1:03:57

should expect that difficult topics

1:03:59

will come up around that. And if

1:04:01

you don't, given what you know all of the

1:04:03

things that we're talking about are well done, that

1:04:05

is on you.

1:04:06

Yeah, although I would say, I mean, and

1:04:09

I don't think a trigger warning necessarily

1:04:11

has to be called a trigger warning. And it sounds like

1:04:13

there was one and it was sort of global. Right.

1:04:16

There are difficult topics in here. They will

1:04:18

come up Right? So, you know,

1:04:21

in any case, it's clearly a valid

1:04:23

form.

1:04:23

Right? It's clearly, as long as

1:04:26

it is treated properly, it was clearly a valid

1:04:28

form and it is being

1:04:30

abused. As so many things are, I mean, the term

1:04:32

woke itself

1:04:33

Heying an example of -- Yep.

1:04:36

-- a valid concept that has been

1:04:38

abused to the point of

1:04:39

foolishness. Yep.

1:04:40

So we have you

1:04:42

can see the time. Yeah. We have about twenty

1:04:44

minutes left. And I know there's at least one

1:04:46

more big

1:04:47

thing that you wanna talk about and I have some things to

1:04:49

add to it. Okay. Great. Unless you

1:04:51

had more on that topic. No. I think I think

1:04:53

we we've covered at the next topic is

1:04:55

related as people will see.

1:04:57

So something came across

1:04:59

my radar a couple days ago. And the funny

1:05:01

thing is I don't need the source was odd,

1:05:03

but I chased it down and it's for real.

1:05:07

The source was a publication that I

1:05:09

don't think I run across called the National

1:05:11

Desk. Do you wanna

1:05:13

put that screenshot up, Zach?

1:05:16

They're

1:05:16

gonna choose screenshots. Now

1:05:18

let's try one.

1:05:21

Now this is the well,

1:05:25

this will do. This will do. We

1:05:28

we

1:05:29

You know what? Take that off. Let me

1:05:31

show first because I've got an October

1:05:33

article -- Okay. -- that introduces this -- Okay.

1:05:35

-- that will be better, I think.

1:05:36

So, actually,

1:05:39

Zach, you can show my screen. So this

1:05:41

is on a site that I'd never heard of hacks

1:05:43

hackers dot com, which is

1:05:45

one of the organizations that is just one

1:05:47

This is them announcing that they've, along

1:05:49

with two of their organizations, won a five million

1:05:51

dollars grant from NSF from the National Science

1:05:53

Foundation. And what they claim

1:05:55

to be doing, I'm gonna start lower and then read

1:05:58

oh, actually no. Yeah. I'm gonna

1:06:00

start lower. It says, hacks hacker. hacks slash

1:06:02

Heather. which is the name of organization on his

1:06:04

website. This is written with this

1:06:06

strange blinking cursor. I've never seen that in

1:06:08

headline before, but there you go. Hacksackers,

1:06:12

the Palaji Ellen School of Computer Science and

1:06:14

Engineering, and partner organizations, maybe

1:06:17

it's more than three. have received a new

1:06:19

five million dollars award from the National Science Foundation's

1:06:21

Convergence Accelerator. The award

1:06:23

will support Phase two development of the analysis

1:06:25

and response toolkit for Trust. art,

1:06:28

a suite of expert informed resources that

1:06:30

are intended to provide guidance and encouragement to

1:06:32

individuals and communities as they address

1:06:35

contentious or difficult topics online.

1:06:37

So before you leave the screen,

1:06:40

I have one more

1:06:40

thing to read from this.

1:06:43

Okay. You can you

1:06:45

can go off it for moment.

1:06:48

Actually,

1:06:48

let me just read it because I've now lost what I

1:06:50

was gonna say. The Art

1:06:52

Guide exactly put it

1:06:54

back out, please. The Art Guide software tool

1:06:56

presents for the first time a unique framework of

1:06:58

possible responses for everyday conversations around

1:07:01

tricky topics. all informed by

1:07:03

online information analysis to help motivated

1:07:05

citizens answer the question, what

1:07:07

do I say and how do I say it?

1:07:10

That's it.

1:07:12

NSF, the

1:07:14

National Science Foundation,

1:07:15

the

1:07:17

biggest

1:07:19

source of

1:07:21

science funding that

1:07:23

isn't explicitly medical or

1:07:25

otherwise applied. and a

1:07:27

lot of the research that NSF funds is applied.

1:07:30

That American scientists have access to

1:07:33

has

1:07:33

given five million dollars

1:07:36

To help motivated citizens answer

1:07:38

the question, what do I say? And

1:07:41

how do I say it?

1:07:42

When confronted with a secretary for time.

1:07:44

That's extraordinary. Well, it's extraordinary

1:07:46

at a couple different levels. One,

1:07:49

it's NSF. Right? This is the

1:07:51

federal government.

1:07:52

k? So a free

1:07:55

speech is central here, not

1:07:57

only in its general meaning,

1:07:59

but in

1:07:59

its first amendment meaning. Yes.

1:08:02

Second thing is five

1:08:05

million dollars.

1:08:08

This is very much like

1:08:12

the award given to

1:08:14

the Heather trial

1:08:16

after they had found that

1:08:19

Ivermectin

1:08:20

didn't work according to them, which of course

1:08:23

is nonsense because their method

1:08:25

wouldn't allow wasn't the proper pass?

1:08:27

Well, this is a grant to do

1:08:29

research supposedly, as opposed to an award.

1:08:31

It's a magnitude I'm talking about.

1:08:34

five million dollars

1:08:36

for what sounds like a group

1:08:38

of, you know, bright eyed

1:08:41

young people to sit around conference

1:08:43

table and spitball about

1:08:46

what might be said in contentious conversation.

1:08:49

Five million bucks, how would you even and

1:08:52

five million bucks on this project. Well, now I think

1:08:54

the screenshot that Zack showed earlier. Let's see what

1:08:56

they found out. So this is a progress report. They're showing

1:08:58

us that they've already made some progress here. So

1:09:00

this was

1:09:01

in October of twenty fourth. Like, they they

1:09:03

have just gotten this money, like,

1:09:04

five, six weeks ago. And now and now

1:09:07

they've thing has gotten off

1:09:09

the ground. It says in addition to the toolkit

1:09:11

hacks and hackers is also developing a rating

1:09:13

scale for reliable Wikipedia

1:09:16

sources according to a job posting online.

1:09:19

That project has already

1:09:21

gotten off the ground. Wow. That's good

1:09:23

news. That five million bucks is not being wasted.

1:09:26

Citing left leaning sources like

1:09:28

Vox, the New Yorker, the Guardian,

1:09:31

and the Boston Globe as reliable while

1:09:33

citing conservative sources like

1:09:35

Ben Shapiro, The Daily Wire,

1:09:37

and biologists Bret Weinstein as

1:09:40

unreliable. Now

1:09:41

a, this is sexist.

1:09:44

How the hell have they attacked me and not

1:09:47

you? Right. That is

1:09:49

despicable. But Let's just like zoo reality

1:09:51

reality. I guess that must be it. Mhmm. But

1:09:53

you and I agree on a lot of stuff. So I might

1:09:55

just be like reflecting

1:09:57

reliable stuff, but it's still reliable.

1:10:00

In any case,

1:10:02

this is insane. It's

1:10:04

it's in seen.

1:10:05

So I I guess, I mean, like,

1:10:07

everything is wrong with this. Right. But

1:10:09

just to take the last

1:10:11

phrases on on the page here,

1:10:14

conservative sources like Ben Shapiro,

1:10:17

the Daily Wire. Is it aren't Ben Shapiro on the

1:10:19

Daily Wire? Like, isn't Ben isn't Daily

1:10:21

Wire, Ben

1:10:21

Shapiro? Yes. Daily Wire is bench

1:10:24

Period dressed for work. I see. Okay. And then

1:10:26

in bench oh, it's bench So casual

1:10:28

clothes. Bench Imperial is conservative for sure.

1:10:30

Yes. And but that's

1:10:32

kind of

1:10:33

one thing. Right? And then let's

1:10:35

say biologist Bret, Weinstein it Steiner

1:10:37

Stein? No. It's Stein. Oh, it's Stein. Okay. So biologist

1:10:39

Brett Weinstein is not a conservative

1:10:42

source. And let me see. It's

1:10:44

not

1:10:45

unreliable. It's

1:10:47

pretty good. I would argue

1:10:49

that if you would compare my record to

1:10:51

any of the sources they cite as reliable

1:10:53

as I will beat the pants off all of them.

1:10:57

worst of all. But -- Yeah. -- but anyway, so

1:10:59

Okay. This is maddening. The

1:11:01

federal government is

1:11:03

paying these

1:11:07

Heather. Sackers. Sackers. Sackers. Sackers.

1:11:10

To generate guidance for what

1:11:12

people should say in difficult conversations

1:11:15

and among The things that they've concluded early

1:11:17

because, you know, the more secure stuff at the foundation

1:11:20

is that conservatives like me and Ben Shapiro

1:11:22

and Ben Shapiro are in fact

1:11:24

unreliable. Right? Yeah. Well,

1:11:26

I'm apparently doubly. So right.

1:11:29

That's amazing. But but the thing is,

1:11:31

this is also hide into Wikipedia.

1:11:34

Right? If you click through what you find,

1:11:36

Zach, you wanna put up that

1:11:39

So the point is this list of reliable

1:11:42

sources is actually a wicked media

1:11:44

list, which it

1:11:46

declares people good and bad behind

1:11:48

the scenes so that this will cascade

1:11:51

through the building

1:11:53

of the Wikipedia site on all of the topics

1:11:55

that are relevant. So scroll down or

1:11:58

hit COVID-nineteen

1:11:59

and you'll get hit at COVID-nineteen.

1:12:03

If you scroll down here, you will find

1:12:05

Yeah. Go go to where you start seeing all of

1:12:07

the Heying. There'd be dragon symbols.

1:12:10

Mhmm. Yeah.

1:12:10

There's bench superior, there's Weinstein. There's

1:12:14

Yeah.

1:12:14

Yeah. Daily mail. Right. So, anyway,

1:12:16

with Fire, epic times. I

1:12:18

did an episode of DarkHorse. in

1:12:21

which we discussed with

1:12:23

Norman Fenton, the appalling

1:12:26

breakdown of Wikipedia into

1:12:29

a Hardisson. Yeah.

1:12:31

It's actually it's worse than Hardisson. If it

1:12:33

was simply partisan like the New York Times, you

1:12:35

could roll your eyes at it. But the problem is, It's

1:12:38

still the best encyclopedia going

1:12:40

if you wanna know the volume of your favorite

1:12:42

lake or you wanna know what kind you

1:12:44

know, what sex determination in

1:12:47

Angler Fish looks like. I don't know at this

1:12:49

point that I would trust him on sex determination and

1:12:51

anything. Honestly, I take that one back. like

1:12:54

The geographic distribution of angler

1:12:56

Fish surely they're still reliable on.

1:12:58

Yes. But the point is,

1:13:01

okay, the greatest encyclopedic encyclopedia

1:13:04

of all time moonlight as

1:13:06

a mechanism for slandering sources

1:13:08

who say things inconvenient to

1:13:10

the Elite cabal dressed

1:13:12

in blue. and that

1:13:14

is extremely dangerous. Mhmm. Right?

1:13:17

But so, okay. The federal

1:13:19

government is influencing this

1:13:22

organization. It is drowning

1:13:25

them in money so that they can have,

1:13:27

I'm sure, a really nice conference table to

1:13:29

speak. Heather

1:13:31

they're doing, these people are

1:13:33

now influencing Wikipedia, which

1:13:35

we know to be extremely partisan and

1:13:37

involved in slander, and the point is

1:13:40

how many unwitting people are Heying

1:13:42

to be influenced by the NSF, which has

1:13:44

laundered its

1:13:46

plan through this organization

1:13:48

and through Wikipedia. Okay. But

1:13:51

here's here's the bright side. Yep. Oh,

1:13:53

good.

1:13:53

So we got hacks hackers,

1:13:55

whoever they are, joining with

1:13:58

a school it was a school of, like, computer

1:13:59

something something at some university, presumably.

1:14:02

So there's got to be some

1:14:04

people who really know what science is

1:14:06

doing the science.

1:14:07

We presume because they're making

1:14:09

all the decisions about

1:14:10

reliability of sources talking about

1:14:12

vaccines. Was there science?

1:14:13

Right. They're they're scienceing. They're scienceing

1:14:15

it up. And, Zach, if you would

1:14:17

show my screen, Pfizer at least has our

1:14:19

backs. k?

1:14:20

Okay. So Pfizer has tweeted

1:14:23

recently, wouldn't it be great if a few Internet

1:14:25

searches could land you a Ph. D. Heying, goodness

1:14:27

for real scientists. So

1:14:29

they add like a nod to the

1:14:31

onion or Bebron be incredible. Arioman

1:14:34

now full fledged scientist, thanks to one Internet

1:14:37

search, which I don't know,

1:14:39

kind of sounds like the hack hacker's be to

1:14:41

me, I'm Heying. So hold on. Come

1:14:43

back to my screen here for a second, Zach. Because

1:14:46

the very next screenshot I want to show you, which

1:14:48

just does a tiny bit back in Pfizer's

1:14:50

feed No, actually, it's the top of

1:14:52

their feet as of this Heying, is we are

1:14:54

proud. This is Pfizer is proud to announce Pfizer's

1:14:57

manufacturing division has won the most viable

1:14:59

collaboration award at the twenty twenty two USA

1:15:02

Reuters Pharma Awards.

1:15:03

The Reuters Pharma Awards, of course.

1:15:06

This is testament to all our hard Heying colleagues

1:15:08

who continue to innovate and grow. Through

1:15:10

USA Reuters,

1:15:12

pharma awards. Yeah. Well,

1:15:15

gee, I didn't know. Is that

1:15:17

a fact? But a news

1:15:18

agency, one of the largest, at

1:15:20

least in the US, if not the world, was

1:15:23

in the business of giving out awards to

1:15:26

pharma

1:15:26

companies, but I

1:15:28

guess you live, you learn. And I

1:15:31

did look a little bit

1:15:34

at

1:15:35

their site here. Let's show

1:15:38

the site here, Zach. This is the Reuters'

1:15:40

events apparently does a number

1:15:42

of things. This isn't the only one, but here

1:15:45

they're announcing the pharma awards for twenty

1:15:47

twenty three. where

1:15:49

pharma's true value gets true recognition,

1:15:52

and they're going to show

1:15:54

us the categories for

1:15:56

their awards are going to include the Heying Health Equity

1:15:58

Award. Okay.

1:16:00

Driving Health equity.

1:16:03

Okay? Yeah. Yeah. And the delivering

1:16:05

inclusive trials

1:16:06

award. Whoa. So

1:16:07

there's nothing in any of these

1:16:09

about the actual veracity

1:16:12

of what the claims of the pharmaceutical

1:16:15

companies are making. They I

1:16:17

see nothing in any of these lists.

1:16:20

Heying. And just one more thing to

1:16:22

leave my screen yet here. If you go

1:16:24

to the facts, the frequently asked questions,

1:16:26

it's not that interesting. The entry process, the judges,

1:16:29

it's all garbage. But at the very

1:16:31

bottom of every single page, can't wait

1:16:33

to experience this Heather?

1:16:35

No question mark.

1:16:37

can't wait to experience this together.

1:16:39

I can. Says Reuters Pharma Awards.

1:16:42

Can't

1:16:42

wait to experience this together. I can't

1:16:44

do. Alright. I can't do. So I think

1:16:46

there are two things that you

1:16:49

have highlighted here

1:16:51

that belong in discussion. Excellent.

1:16:54

I looked at that tweet about area

1:16:58

man on the basis of single search.

1:17:00

This one. Hold on.

1:17:03

This one. Can

1:17:05

you put it upside?

1:17:10

Maybe. Yes. This one, I looked

1:17:13

at this one. And of course,

1:17:15

I felt my eyes

1:17:17

bulging in

1:17:19

my temperature and blood pressure

1:17:21

both going

1:17:21

up simultaneously. But

1:17:23

why? You've got a pH? Well,

1:17:26

that's just of things. You and I have two PhDs

1:17:29

Heather, and we have been

1:17:31

a slandered and libeled clearly

1:17:34

by things that are closely

1:17:36

affiliated with this particular

1:17:39

entity. And so the point is it dismissing

1:17:41

people who have done searches that result

1:17:44

in them finding information that matches,

1:17:46

but you and I have spent hundreds

1:17:48

of hours discussing and explaining why

1:17:50

We reached the conclusions we did in altering them when

1:17:52

some new piece of information came up or when we learned

1:17:55

that we had been wrong. Right?

1:17:57

All of that counts for nothing they're gonna mock.

1:17:59

The guy who comes

1:17:59

to a conclusion that makes sense because,

1:18:02

of course, he doesn't have a PhD, which is credentialism

1:18:04

in the stupidest sense. Bus.

1:18:07

Two things. Yes. One,

1:18:09

I recalled and

1:18:11

in fact, you can find it on unheard

1:18:14

site. They discussed the research

1:18:16

that showed

1:18:17

that the acceptance of the vaccines

1:18:20

had a u shaped distribution, that

1:18:23

there were two groups of people who

1:18:25

were particularly hesitant to back back to vaccines.

1:18:28

The rejection has a u shaped. The

1:18:30

acceptance has a inversely

1:18:32

shaped.

1:18:34

k. Yeah. Depends

1:18:35

whether the horseshoe is empty and luck over your

1:18:37

door or If you say you shaped, you just got it.

1:18:39

Alright. Yeah. The rejection has

1:18:41

a u shaped distribution where people who

1:18:44

have very little education have rejected

1:18:46

the COVID vaccines and people

1:18:48

who have PhDs also have

1:18:52

rejected them in disproportionate numbers.

1:18:54

Those are the two educational demographics in

1:18:56

which people have rejected them at higher levels

1:18:59

than among the high

1:19:01

school and college educated? Correct.

1:19:03

And so the idea that they are going to use

1:19:05

the fact that area demand not have a PHD

1:19:08

and has searched the Internet and found something

1:19:11

as an indication. But

1:19:13

of course, they did not get a

1:19:15

thousand responses that said that to their

1:19:18

goddamn tweet. Well,

1:19:19

they did they did get a lot of

1:19:20

quote tweets. I didn't I didn't go through on quote.

1:19:22

tweets, but they turned off replies.

1:19:24

Right.

1:19:24

Exactly. They prevented people

1:19:27

from actually replying directly, but they got, I'm sure,

1:19:29

they got a lot of mockery. And I

1:19:31

mean, this is part of Right. But we're not

1:19:33

going to talk about this week why the

1:19:35

thing that I alluded to earlier

1:19:36

about what has sort of been throwing

1:19:39

me. But I am probably

1:19:41

the next time we come, we'll talk about it

1:19:43

a little bit, which is going to be in two weeks.

1:19:45

And I may post something about it in

1:19:47

my in natural selections this week, but

1:19:49

I will say that one of the things that

1:19:51

I've really been thinking

1:19:54

about anew, Heying given this thought

1:19:56

for decades. is

1:19:59

how

1:19:59

much everyone needs

1:20:01

to be encouraged to do

1:20:03

what most people do

1:20:05

innately. and have

1:20:07

educated out of them, which is

1:20:09

think scientifically,

1:20:11

make observations, see patterns,

1:20:13

Figure out what those patterns

1:20:15

might mean. That's your hypothesis.

1:20:17

Figure out if that hypothesis that you've

1:20:19

made is true, what else would necessarily be

1:20:21

true? That's your prediction. Figure out

1:20:23

what would what how you could assess

1:20:26

whether or not that prediction that you've

1:20:28

made that follows necessarily from that hypothesis

1:20:31

is or is not true. That would be your test.

1:20:33

Now people don't need to then, you know,

1:20:36

run the tests. Right? But in their

1:20:38

daily lives, everyone

1:20:40

inherently should be doing or should be

1:20:42

assessing the information that comes in as opposed

1:20:45

to having hacks Tell them

1:20:47

what to what to say? I mean, like, literally

1:20:49

they put that in their press release. What

1:20:52

do I say and how do I say it?

1:20:54

A motivated citizen needs

1:20:56

to needs hack

1:20:58

hack hackers who are the biggest hack

1:21:00

jobs I've seen this week,

1:21:02

who put you as a conservative

1:21:05

providing missing information about vaccines

1:21:07

on their list.

1:21:10

They are the people who

1:21:12

want to tell

1:21:13

you and us.

1:21:15

what to say and how to say it. Well,

1:21:17

no. We are all supposed to decide. All of

1:21:19

us individually what to say and how to say it. And

1:21:21

we're supposed to figure out what to say and

1:21:23

how to say it by figuring out what is

1:21:25

true and we figure out

1:21:28

what is true by observation.

1:21:30

and by figuring out where people are

1:21:32

making sense and listening to them and engaging

1:21:35

with them and engaging with other people who seem to be

1:21:37

making sense and testing them and prodding them, and

1:21:39

Heying, no, I don't agree with you. Why do you think that

1:21:41

when you don't agree with someone? And

1:21:43

and you want to and you have access to them and you

1:21:45

could say, why do you think that? and

1:21:48

not acquiescing and being one

1:21:50

of the ninety percent of scientists

1:21:52

who said, yeah, yeah, no quantum supremacy

1:21:55

for me. Like,

1:21:56

No. We're all supposed to be doing this as

1:21:59

individuals because

1:21:59

we all have agency autonomy and

1:22:02

we're just losing it.

1:22:04

We're

1:22:04

just losing the plot

1:22:07

collectively.

1:22:08

Yep. And, you know, you

1:22:10

can

1:22:11

just as it is true, that

1:22:14

if

1:22:16

okay, Donnie. If

1:22:18

Iromectan didn't work, the idea

1:22:20

that you would need some giant

1:22:22

fraud that was built to fail to

1:22:24

prove it. Of course, you wouldn't. If I

1:22:26

remember that didn't work, you could

1:22:28

just run a large scale randomized controlled

1:22:30

trial, you could give it to people early, You

1:22:32

could give it to them in sufficient doses. You could not

1:22:34

hide the cap of the doses. It would just demonstrate

1:22:36

itself not to be very useful. Right? Yeah.

1:22:39

The fact that you find fraud tells you something.

1:22:41

And the fact that you and I are

1:22:43

being people are being told they

1:22:45

should not pay attention to us. Who

1:22:47

are they being told they should not pay attention to?

1:22:50

Well, to biologists who

1:22:52

say that predictive power is the way that you

1:22:54

will know whether somebody knows what they're talking about.

1:22:56

Right? Right. Like, how could we game

1:22:58

our own system? Either we have predictive power

1:23:00

or we don't. Right? And if we don't have predictive

1:23:03

power, then people may to us then they will discover we

1:23:05

don't know what we're talking about because he failed to predict

1:23:07

stuff.

1:23:07

Maybe, I mean, maybe to go full circle, it's

1:23:09

postmodernism again. It is. It's like You

1:23:11

know what? You people may have predictive

1:23:13

power, but you must be manipulating reality.

1:23:15

Like,

1:23:16

you know, that that's the only consistent thing

1:23:18

that they could be believing. Wherein,

1:23:21

two people who, yes, have

1:23:23

the credentials that give

1:23:25

us their respectability to be talking about the things

1:23:27

that we do because we both have BHDs in biology.

1:23:30

but also are just employing the scientific

1:23:32

method day in, day out in front of you guys,

1:23:34

not in front of you guys all the time. So

1:23:36

try to figure out what is true and sometimes

1:23:38

what is true is surprising and sometimes

1:23:41

it's not, sometimes ugly sometimes it's beautiful,

1:23:43

and none of your emotional reaction

1:23:45

to it changes whether or not it's true or not.

1:23:47

Well, you

1:23:49

know, I

1:23:51

think what's actually happening is

1:23:53

that the elites

1:23:55

who are exerting power

1:23:56

to do this, the rent seekers

1:23:59

because

1:23:59

of the time

1:24:01

traveling money printer idea

1:24:05

have

1:24:06

they think wisely

1:24:08

decided to blind the rest of us. And it's

1:24:10

like, yes, it's a dark age. But

1:24:12

the point is, oh, we're gonna put blindfolds

1:24:15

on you all. Right? Mhmm. We're gonna make sure

1:24:17

you can't see things. And what they think they've done

1:24:20

is they have privatized the information

1:24:22

that allows them to

1:24:24

live well and make money. But

1:24:26

they don't realize that actually, no,

1:24:28

the scientific system is not going

1:24:30

to work privately.

1:24:32

Right? They are in fact blinding themselves

1:24:34

too and they just don't realize it and they are putting

1:24:36

themselves in grave danger and

1:24:39

Yeah.

1:24:40

There's that happening over there. But

1:24:42

-- Yep. --

1:24:44

but in any case, I do feel like they have cultivated

1:24:46

a dark age thinking that they were clever for

1:24:48

doing it and they

1:24:50

have no idea, you know, it's it's

1:24:52

Sorcerer's Apprentice. And it is --

1:24:55

Yeah. -- know, they Sorcerer's

1:24:57

Apprentice and it is We had all the

1:24:59

broom drones coming now. They do.

1:25:01

Yeah. They do. And they just they don't even know how to

1:25:03

turn They don't even know that they need to turn it off

1:25:05

because they feel, you know, short term, it's giving

1:25:07

them positive signal. Alright.

1:25:11

Well, maybe he's telling us something.

1:25:14

Maybe he's I don't even

1:25:16

know what language you're speaking. No. But

1:25:19

but, no, this is actually working pretty

1:25:21

great. Okay. That's perfect. Pretty cheap.

1:25:23

Yeah. Exactly. So apologies

1:25:25

for those just listening. You should definitely

1:25:28

come

1:25:28

and just take a view of the

1:25:30

last bit of our show in a day

1:25:32

wherein the cat gets blanket in his

1:25:34

mouth and Okay. Are

1:25:38

we there? We are there. Okay. Alright.

1:25:43

Yeah. The animals do make life

1:25:45

tolerable. in moments when

1:25:47

it seems like the conversation,

1:25:50

the official conversation that has

1:25:52

the imprintiture of all

1:25:54

of the things, the science, the media,

1:25:56

that everything is getting stupider

1:25:59

and stupider and

1:25:59

stupider. But here we go. These guys aren't.

1:26:02

Can I get stupid or can I get him covered in

1:26:04

blanket fur, but that's different. Alright.

1:26:07

So we will be back in two weeks,

1:26:09

not next week. but we

1:26:11

will also be back in fifteen minutes. So

1:26:14

that's sooner. Yes. Quite

1:26:16

a bit, actually. Quite a bit sooner.

1:26:17

Yeah. I did the math

1:26:18

on that. Yeah. and

1:26:21

we're gonna come back with it. You did the math

1:26:24

because you're not Jewish. That's not a problem.

1:26:25

Even though fifteen is bigger

1:26:28

than two. Oh

1:26:30

my god.

1:26:32

Okay. on

1:26:34

Yeah. was allowed to do really bad

1:26:36

math

1:26:36

because I'm not AAA

1:26:39

few in Soviet or Russia.

1:26:41

Okay. Ask questions at emissions

1:26:43

dot com

1:26:44

for the q and a that's coming shortly. You

1:26:46

can always email logistical questions that you may have

1:26:48

that don't have to do with questions that you want at air to

1:26:50

dark horse moderator at gmail dot com.

1:26:53

Consider joining our patrons

1:26:56

Fruito altogether is going to

1:26:58

the very first century, where we

1:27:01

did keep in a small section

1:27:03

on pets and and

1:27:05

I believe I think it's still in there. I'm pretty I'm

1:27:07

pretty sure it's still in there. There was so much we had to cut,

1:27:09

but where you might learn something about

1:27:11

what the heck is going

1:27:12

on in Cambridge. to you, whatever remained

1:27:14

in our book. There is nothing about