DarkHorse Podcast
The DarkHorse Podcast is hosted by Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying. Bret and Heather both have PhDs in biology, and they seek truth and explore a wide variety of topics with their evolutionary toolkit as society loses its footing. Tune in to infamous spreaders of "Covid Disinformation" Bret and Heather for a podcast—maybe you'll like what you see!
DarkHorse Podcast
Children on the Front Lines? The 337th Evolutionary Lens with Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
On this, our 337th Evolutionary Lens livestream, we discuss how Western society is treating its children. First, the good news: the Department of Justice, working with AGs in Texas and Ohio, have effectively shuttered two major “gender care” clinics, and extracted promises to create clinics to support people in detransitioning. It’s about time. But: why is there a Trump banner on the DoJ? This is not typically how Americans do things, for good reason. Add the Trump branded passport, and $1 coin, and there’s a definite Dear Leader vibe going on. Politics has taken over analytical thought—today, all you have to do is know who stands for a thing, and you know whether you do or do not agree. (See the protein panic currently taking blue-media outlets by storm.) Then: a Yale law professor says the insane part out loud. Finally, a guy caught taking out Flock cameras suddenly has a lot of friends, at least on-line.
*****
Our sponsors:
Timeline: Accelerate the clearing of damaged mitochondria to improve strength and endurance: Go to http://www.timeline.com/darkhorse and use code darkhorse for 20% off your first order.
ARMRA Colostrum is an ancient bioactive whole food that can strengthen your immune system. Go to http://www.tryarmra.com/DARKHORSE to get 30% off your first subscription order.
Caraway: Non-toxic, highly functional & beautiful cookware and bakeware. Save up to $230 on their 12 piece cookware set, and visit http://Carawayhome.com/DarkHorse for an additional 10% off your next purchase. Add their minis duo, and save up to $350.
*****
Join us on Locals! Get access to our Discord server, exclusive live streams, live chats for all streams, and early access to many podcasts: https://darkhorse.locals.com
Heather’s newsletter, Natural Selections (subscribe to get free weekly essays in your inbox): https://naturalselections.substack.com
Our book, A Hunter-Gatherer’s Guide to the 21st Century, is available everywhere books are sold, including from Amazon: https://amzn.to/3AGANGg (commission earned)
Check out our store! Epic tabby, digital book burning, saddle up the dire wolves, and more: https://darkhorsestore.org
Music: "Marble Machine" by Wintergatan
This track can be downloaded for free at www.wintergatan.net
Free License to use this track in your video can be downloaded at www.wintergatan.net
*****
Mentioned in this episode:
Press release from Texas AG: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/attorney-general-paxton-makes-history-securing-landmark-healthcare-fraud-settlement-creates-nations
The Epoch Times on detransitioning: https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/clinics-to-begin-offering-restorative-care-for-detransitioners-6065754
Trump $1 coin: https://www.usmint.gov/campaigns/donald-trump-coin
Trump passport: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116818397307589675
The Malones on the protein panic: https://www.malone.news/p/the-protein-panic-how-a-review-paper
Jillian Michaels on children’s programming: https://x.com/jillianmichaels/status/2084783188715676079
Yale law professor Samuel Moyn: https://x.com/aaronkheriatymd/status/2084832267713851654?s=46
Wesley Jackson and the Flock cameras: https://x.com/mattvanswol/status/2085002106046492858
(Music) Hey folks, welcome to the DarkHorse Podcast live stream number 337. Nailed it. Prime. I was thinking it has to be just based on the vibe. Yeah, it's got prime vibe. It's got prime vibe, but then I've been upended with that rubric before. Yeah, prime vibe can lead you astray. It so easily. Very much so. Yep, yeah, and it's not a discipline. I looked into it. Prime vibe? Yep, exactly. Well, I'm Dr. Bret Weinstein. You, as always, Dr. Heather Heying. We, luckily, so far at least, not on fire, only our lungs. Only our lungs, yep. Only our lungs. Here we are in far western Washington and the smoke has reached us. Has reached us, but I mean, I'm not happy that anybody else is getting inundated with this, but you know, we have had a certain amount of prevailing wind blowing the fires that are in our state east, blowing the smoke from them. Yeah, it has been sucking up Spokane fires a lot. It has. And you know, at some point we will have a discussion about how normal or not normal this is, but I remember a number, DarkHorse listeners will remember a number of incidents where we've been absolutely inundated for weeks where it's just, you know, smoke hanging in the air everywhere here. It's a little hazy at the moment, definitely feeling it in the lungs, but at least, at least it's not that. Although we were talking to our friend, Matt, in Chicago, they've been suffering exactly that. Oh, because of the Ontario fires. Yeah. And you know, the question is always, the west catches fire late in the summer. It's just a thing. Is this normal or is this not normal? Right? Yeah, is this normal or is this not normal? Also, it's not technically late in the summer yet. We haven't even hit the midpoint and that's going to feel like a pedantry to some, but at least in LA when we were growing up, fire season was way later. We have not heard about fires in SoCal yet this year, but the stuff going on in Europe, in Canada, now of course in the sort of mountain and west of the mountain west, at least at the higher latitudes is extraordinary and it feels early. And some of the signatures of some of these fires seem unusual. Yeah, the signature seem unusual. And of course, you know, the battle on every front, as we will talk more about today, the battle on every front is, you know, how many people are average IQ? Almost none. Right? The point is average IQ is the tendency of the population, but everybody's anomalous. Every fire is anomalous. Every shooting is anomalous. But at some point you have to look at those anomalies and say the number of anomalies is anomalous and ask the question of what is actually going on. And the question is, do the fires rise to that standard? You know, it's hard to tell because we see filtered stuff online, but the number of things that do not seem to add up superficially with respect to all the physics and chemistry and things that we took in school seems large and it could be somebody's whipping us into a frenzy over natural events or it could be that something else is afoot. Yeah. I mean, there's a number of issues to explore. And again, this is not, we do not intend to have this be a main topic today, but you know, there's the question of whether or not there was some source force involved in many of these fires that we have not yet named and that is not in any way natural. That is the big looming hypothesis, the big elephant in the room. Right? For years, for decades, the fires have been attributed to things like climate change and also in the West, PG&E and other West Coast electricity providers have been named appropriately as you identified back in the 1970s for having basically droopy electrical lines that in high winds that tend to correlate with fire conditions, the lines when they hit each other can spark and cause fires. We know that this has been something that has happened in many fires. For instance, the Paradise Fire, that doesn't mean that it's causal in all of the cases where it has been identified, nor does it mean that that is the only thing that is going on. And so with the word climate change, same thing. We have been told over and over and over again that the reason that we are experiencing conditions that we do not remember from our own childhoods is because of carbon emissions basically. And everyone who at least revisits the same place that they've been in their childhoods can tell the conditions change. Right? Conditions change. They certainly do. But this is one of these bait and switch pseudological arguments that was used a lot in COVID where like you can observe A, A is because of B. If you don't believe B, then you aren't seeing A. Like hold up. You have posited a cause, climate change say, and you have not demonstrated that the cause is the explanation for the observation A. Whether or not we have a known cause, whether or not we agree on the cause, maybe there is legitimate reason to disagree. None of that obviates the observation A. The observation A is, man are there a lot of fires right now. Totally. The other thing which I would call a tell is that when the right thing to do obviously is to have a discussion in which the evidence is brought to bear, the proper analytical tools are brought to bear, we discuss the underlying philosophy that would tell you what threshold you would need to cross to have a reasonable degree of confidence that something new is going on. That's what's supposed to happen. Nothing wrong with that. And you know, my feeling is anybody just says with COVID, anybody who contributes in good faith to that conversation, even if they have the diametrically opposed position is working for the right cause. Getting to the truth. The tell is you are on the other side and therefore morally suspect. It's like the tell is when someone says that, when someone believes that, they level the if you are on the other side, you are morally bad. You're either doing it for the money or the clicks or you're an asset of somebody's or you want bad things. And that just simply, you know, in all of the thinking about and the study of logic that we have done over the years, nowhere is that out written into the logic. The point is the logic is its own thing and somebody wants to get out of it because they don't want to have the logical conversation. They want to have a conversation about you and whether you suck, right? That is just... They want to have one with their foregone conclusion. Right. And it's cheating. It's cheating. Yeah. All right. Well, we will not do any cheating because that's not what we're about. We are going to try to get to the bottom of stuff and the bottom just turns out to be way deeper than you'd expect. So, yeah, maybe we should get right to the ads. How about that? All right. Because we already didn't. Right. We'll get right to the ads because we didn't. Yeah. So, yeah, three ads right at the top here from sponsors who we truly vouch for. Our first sponsor this week is Timeline. Timeline makes Mitopure, which contains a powerful postbiotic that is hard to get from your diet alone. Urolithin A. Urolithin A is found primarily in pomegranates and has been found by many scientific and clinical studies to enhance mitochondrial function. Your mitochondria are the powerhouses of your cells. The older you get, the more likely you are to have damaged mitochondria, which accumulate in joints and other tissues. This is in part because mitophagy, the process by which damaged mitochondria are removed from cells, becomes less efficient the older you get. Age-related decline in mitophagy not only inhibits removal of damaged mitochondria, but also impairs the creation of new mitochondria, which results in an overall decline in cell function. Mitopure from Timeline works by triggering mitophagy. A study from 2022 found that four months of regular use of mitopurin resulted in significant improvements in muscle strength and clinically meaningful improvements on aerobic endurance and physical performance. Earlier 2016 research published in Nature Medicine found that in mice, the beneficial effects of Urolithin A on muscle physiology were independent of diet or age. Take two soft shells of mitopurin a day for two months and you may see significant improvements in your muscle strength and endurance. Mitopurin enhances your cell's ability to clean themselves up and regenerate new healthy mitochondria. In combination with regular physical activity, mitopurin can help you stay strong and healthy into old age. Timeline is now offering 20% of your first order of mitopurin. Go to timeline.com slash darkhorse and use code darkhorse to get 20% off your order. That's T-I-M-E-L-I-N-E.com slash darkhorse. You ever wonder about the other year Alethans? No. No. Will you now? Yeah, probably. Yeah. Yeah. All right. We're going to stick with Urolithin A. We're talking about mitopurin though because that's the only one we know to be in there. The only one. Yeah. Okay, good. But your Alethans C could be a thing. It could be. Yeah. Our smoke this week. Our second sponsor this week is ARMRA Colostrum, an ancient bioactive whole food. In this age of hyper novelty, we are contending with EMFs, artificial light, seed oils, microplastics, endocrine disruptors in our air, water, food, and textiles, and myriad other modern stressors like overcrowding and having too little control over our own choices in life. But there are things that you can control and one of them is this. You can strengthen your immune health with a bioactive whole food that is ARMRA Colostrum. All of that hyper novelty can disrupt the signals that your body relies on, negatively impacting gut, immune, and overall health. ARMRA Colostrum works to bolster your health from within. Colostrum is nature's first whole food, helping to strengthen gut and immune health and fuel performance. ARMRA Colostrum is great added to smoothies and supports a healthy metabolism and strengthens gut integrity. It's a bioactive whole food with over 400 functional nutrients, including but not limited to immunoglobulins, antioxidants, minerals, and prebiotics. ARMRA Colostrum starts with colostrum from grass-fed cows from their co-op of dairy farms in the US and uses an innovative process that purifies and preserves the integrity of hundreds of bioactive nutrients while removing castene and fat to guarantee the highest potency and bioavailability. The quality control is far above industry standards, including being certified to be glyphosate free. People who have used ARMRA Colostrum have reported clearer skin, faster and thicker hair growth, and better mental concentration. In addition, people using ARMRA Colostrum have noticed a decrease in muscle soreness after exercise, better sleep, and fewer sugar cravings. ARMRA Colostrum is the real deal. We've got a special offer for the DarkHorse audience. Receive 30% off your first subscription order. Go to ARMRA.com slash DarkHorse or enter DarkHorse to get 30% off your first subscription order. That's ARMRA.com slash DarkHorse. Now our final sponsor this week is Caraway, but you knew that. Not the seeds. No, no, no. I don't think the seeds sponsor anything. How even would they? Not as seeds they wouldn't. No, not as seeds, right? Until fully grown into Caraway plants. I have now digressed. Our final sponsor this week, Heather, is Caraway, which makes high quality, non-toxic cookware and bakeware. Whether you're looking to make quick and easy summer meals while the weather is hot or planning some big, shareable dishes to take on picnics or potlucks, Caraway has the right solution for you. And having beautiful and functional cookware, bakeware, and other kitchen utensils in your kitchen. Kitchen utensils in your kitchen, which is where they belong, maintain visual calm, which is awesome, no matter the season. It's possible I messed it up. I don't know. I couldn't quite interpret what it is that I actually wrote and what you said. No, I said what you wrote, but it doesn't make sense. No, I think it does make sense, but because I'm stuck in dyslexic hell, I'm always on the word that I'm reading rather than having seen ahead. And if I had known that there was a kitchen, I would have brought them together and it would have seemed crisp instead of mud-like. Caraway has everything from mixing bowl sets to cutting boards to muffin tins and big pots in which to braise a piece of meat or make a long simwards do. See, now you're learning about dyslexic hell from the outside. You think now I'm learning? Continuing. Yeah. Learning. It's lifelong learning, Heather. Yeah. Whether you're spending time at the grill, the stove, or the oven, Caraway has the gear for you. Roast chicken in Caraway's cookware, mix a summery cocktail. If that is the result of your summery judgment with their bar set or... I didn't write that. I didn't write that. It's funny, my mistake. Or bake a seasonal berry crisp in their bakeware. Caraway kitchenware is crafted with FSC certified birch wood, premium stainless steel, enameled cast iron, and naturally slick ceramic. They make several lines of cookware and bakeware. Our favorites are their stainless steel line and their enameled cast iron, which is often... No, which is offered in six stylish and beautiful colors. Yep. That says the American spelling. Sunny colors. These pots are strong and highly scratch resistant the last generations. We're cooking with Caraway and this past year, Zach, our elder son, was too in his first college apartment. He says it's amazing, which we know to be true. And we know that he will be cooking with it for a long time to come. Right now, you, yes, you can save up to$230 on the 12 piece cookware set versus buying the products individually. Plus, if you want to include their fan favorite minis duo, you can save up to $350. Visit carawayhome.com slash DHPOD, like DarkHorse Pod, to take an additional 10% off using the code darkhorse on your next purchase. I'm going to try reading that again. The code is DHPOD. Yeah. The code, even though. Yeah. Alright. Scratch what I said a second ago. I was reading too well. Visit carawayhome.com slash DHPOD to take an additional 10% off using code DHPOD on your next purchase. This deal is exclusive for our listeners. So visit carawayhome.com slash DHPOD and use the code DHPOD at checkout. Alright. I'm giving you a B-minus on that read. You know, I will put it in my closet full of B-minuses, which is overflowing. But I'm also giving myself a B-minus on things in the script because I missed one of the changes in the code. I've known you a long time. I don't think you ever got a B-minus in anything. This is probably your first. Yeah. But I'm allowed to give myself a B-minus. You can give yourself, if you want any more, I have a closet full of them that is in need of calling. So yeah. Yeah. Okay. So we are going to talk about a number of issues, I think, around children and childhood and the mania that has taken over, about which we've spoken a lot before called transitioning. The idea that transing children is something that is in their interests, which both of us feel strongly opposed to. But I actually wanted to start first with a ray of hope in the story before we go into some of the other stuff, which is that there seems to be movement towards support for detransitioners. And there have been several, several important moments in this fight for the last many years. GenSpec has been working hard at it. I mean, there's just been, I don't have the list in front of me, but there have been a number of important landmark cases and moments, especially in the UK and the US. But now we have in both Ohio and Texas moves to actually create clinics for detransitioners. That is to say, people who got gender confirming care in the form of anything that that can involve, be it puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, surgeries, facial reconstruction, vocal training. There's a lot of things that people end up getting in order to try to pass as the sex that they are not. And now, for the first time in the US, there are going to be a couple of clinics that have been historically involved in transing kids who have been effectively forced to open up clinics to work to help young people detransition. So let me go, unless you want to add something right here. Yeah, I have two things I want to add. First of all, I think we need to think of these things in an unvarnished way. These are clinics that are effectively treating those maimed by doctors, schools, and the culture at large maimed physically and psychologically. So that's an amazing fact. And the fact that this is happening at all is a... Nothing is open yet, but it's a move in that direction. Second thing is, as we pointed out many times when we've talked about trans before, among the many incoherent features of the trans portrayal of the universe is that everybody needs to be perfectly free to and encouraged to transition except people who have already done it. You would think that your right to move to a different gender, if that was a thing, would apply to everybody. And so there would be an embrace in the trans community of people who decided it wasn't for them having done it. And in fact, you get the exact opposite, which is another one of these tells. It tells you that this isn't about what they're saying. It's not about liberating your true self. This is some sort of a cryptic attack. Yes, indeed. Okay, so here we have from the attorney general of Texas, Ken Paxton, a press release from a couple months ago, May 15th, 2026 titled attorney general Paxton makes history by securing a landmark healthcare fraud settlement that creates the nation's first ever detransition clinic and secures $10 million from Texas Children's Hospital for transitioning kids. I'm just going to share a few pieces from this press release again from a couple months ago in May. Texas Children's will establish the first ever multidisciplinary clinic designed to provide medical care to patients who were subjected to gender transition procedures. For the first five years, all services provided through the detransition clinic will be funded by Texas Children's and be free of charge to patients. As part of the settlement, Texas Children's has also agreed to fire permanently and irrevocably terminate all existing privileges and never again hire or credential five woke doctors who performed harmful medical interventions on Texans. Just as an aside, I wouldn't have included the word woke there. Woke there, I don't think it helps anything. I think it dates the document. I think it, you know, it's like a little poke that actually will end up doing more harm to the fight for reality and the health of children in the long run than good, even though I know what you mean. I'm sure they're woke, but I don't think it belongs here. I agree with you 100%. And if you think about what it would read like, if it didn't say that, it would simply level the accusation correctly at doctors and the proper normal question in any era would be, what are you telling me? Doctors participated in this? Yeah. Right. So that, you know, the entire medical establishment is, has committed crimes here, even if their crime was silence over the maiming of children, you know, in their clinics. Yeah. So anyway, I agree with you. Yeah. Let's just more. Although in this case, they're talking about specifically five doctors, five doctors who were actively involved in transing kids. And so, you know, this is a statement that is limited to then all the doctors who sat by silently who were therefore guilty. But this, this is about as part of the settlement, Texas children's has also agreed to fire permanently and irrevocably terminate all existing privileges and never again hire or credential five woke doctors who performed harmful medical interventions, not Texans. As part of the settlement, Texas children's agrees not to provide gender transition services. Attorney General Paxton secured this historic settlement in coordination with President Trump's department of justice. Good. Finally, today, and this is a quote from Paxton, the attorney general in Texas. Today is a monumental day in the fight to stop the radical transgender movement. This historic settlement reflects an institutional and fundamental cultural shift away from radical gender ideology. In addition to helping establish the first ever detransition clinic and securing millions, the settlement will ensure that the deranged child mutilators who hurt our kids are fired and held accountable, said attorney general Paxton. I applaud Texas Children's Hospital for changing course and committing to being a part of the solution by agreeing to form a first of its kind detransition clinic that will help provide free care to those who have been victimized by twisted, morally bankrupt transgender ideology. Under my watch, I will investigate and bring the full force of the law against any Texas hospital that abuses children with harmful medical interventions to transition kids. So that's all to the good. Give me my screen back for just a second so I can see where I'm going. Next. This here. Okay. So I ran across the story, you know, a couple months after, and you can, you can show my screen here. I ran across the story a couple months after the press release in Texas on the Epoch Times, which is a fantastic site. It's got a lot of good journalism on it. And they're just reporting on this now. And they go through, I'm in the middle of this because I'm saving something I want to show you up top in this article. They talk about just Texas children's for a long time in the article, but I just read the press released directly. And they also talk about the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, which that is, that is big news. The Cleveland Clinic was one of the few big name clinics during COVID that actually sometimes had reliable medical advice. Like they, they, they did not go as far off the deep end as pretty much everyone else did. So I did not know that they had been actively involved in trans and kids, but apparently they had. So here we have again from the Epoch Times on June 5th, the DOJ announced the Cleveland Clinic, a renowned medical institution in Ohio, had reached a similar settlement with the federal government and the state similar to what was reached in Texas with Texas Children's Hospital. The agreement requires the clinic to provide restorative care to minors and prohibits the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and transgender surgeries for minors for the next 20 years. Like in Texas, the clinic was under investigation for allegedly falsifying billing to cover transgender procedures for minors. The Cleveland Clinic denied any wrongdoing according to the government agreement. And as part of the settlement, the clinic will pay $308,000 in penalties and provide $2 million in restorative care for trans, detransitioners who face financial barriers to such, to such services. All to the good, too little too late, but, but it needs to stop now. And so it looks like, at least in some places in the US, the barbaric practices that we've been, that, that many doctors with the help of therapists and teachers and school administrators across the land and various politicians who have prevented parents from knowing what's happening at the children's schools with regard to their very own children is, is coming to an end, at least locally in some places. Yeah. At least we're seeing a fight on the other side, which, you know, I think would have been unthinkable three or four years ago, that the, the meltdown that would have occurred if anybody took the idea of detransitioning to an institutional level would have been it's hard to imagine that it could have happened. Now I miss something. I may have just been thinking something else for a moment, but what motivated the change at the Cleveland Clinic? Uh, same thing. The federal, the federal DOJ. Federal DOJ. Excuse me. Yeah. So this is Trump's and, you know, that, that is how we speak under any president. Trump's department of justice, you know, you know, for four years, it was Biden's department of justice. It was Obama's department of justice for eight years before that, or before the four years before Trump the first time. But of course, the judicial branch is supposed to be fully, fully separate from the executive branch. And so while we say that the department of justice is sort of the possessive under the current sitting president, it's not Trump's DOJ, except that is how we speak. Well, it's his in the sense of, you know, appointing the chief, which, you know, in theory has the ability to steer it, but it's supposed to be independent because of course, uh, you know, checks and balances have to be able to check the executive. Which is a part of why if you go up to the top of this piece, uh, and, uh, again, Epoch Times in published just a couple of days ago, August 3rd, 2026. So that's why, um, I'm just seeing it now, even though the Texas press release came out a couple of months ago, Epoch Times is reporting on both what's going on in Texas and in Ohio. And they have a picture here, uh, from February, that I had never seen before, and which kind of stopped me cold, uh, which is, this is the Department of justice in Washington on February 21st, 2026. And, uh, what you see, for those of you are listening and not watching is this banner of, uh, of Trump hanging in the middle of the Department of justice, uh, with a slogan that says, make America safe again. And it does, it's branded us Department of justice, but it's got a big picture of Trump. And that's, right there on the DOJ on the Department of justice. Um, it has real strong, our dear leader vibes. Does it? And that's disturbing that, you know, that is suggestive of, um, of a cult of personality, which of course he's been long accused of, of trying to create and of somewhat creating. And of course, in this last election, and I think really in the previous two as well, but in the last election, there were a lot of people who voted for him, who, who were not into the cult of personality at all, uh, but who, who saw in him hope that he would make important changes. And indeed this picture is showing up in a story that indicates that he is, and one of his very first executive orders when he came to office the second time, uh, was speaking about, uh, the transition of kids and how it would be stopped. So, uh, there, there is much good that he has done, but, uh, this feels deeply wrong. And excuse me, God, the smoke is really getting to me. Um, our country was founded, uh, under anti-monarchic rules, really, but certainly the incentive was resisting a monarchy, resisting a single head of state that would be, uh, you know, deified, loved on account of who it was. And, and therefore anything that came down from that one person would be expected to be adored as well. And we can point to many examples throughout history, especially in the 20th century when photographs have been possible and when big likenesses have been more easy to produce. Uh, but there, there have been, of course, many, too many cases of people trumpeting their own image as if it is the same as the country that they are leading. And that, you know, that, that is a, a, a miscalculation, I would say at the very least on the part of Trump, because it reveals some of what his motives may actually be. Yeah. A couple of points. One, that banner is troubling at two levels. There's the, our dear leader picture and make America safe again is a political slogan. Yeah. Um, you know, and as much as you and I, we are not maha, but we are fellow travelers of maha and the medical freedom movement. Absolutely. I don't want to see maha as an official phenomenon. The point is that maybe the orientation of the people who, uh, we got into office, but you don't want to see maha across the NIH. Right. I don't want a finger put in the eye of people on the other side. I want them to understand that actually you have, uh, an HHS secretary who is on the side of your health. And you know, your New York times may be telling you the exact opposite. Yes. But wake up. Actually, you do have somebody who's looking out for you, whether you're, you know, you know, slandering them behind their back or not. So I don't want to see this politicized and I don't want to see Trump on a banner like that. What I want to see is leadership. So good that we adore the leader. Right. But the point is that's for us to be like, this guy is so good that, you know, I just, I'm thrilled that I voted for him, which is not of course where I am in this case, but, right. Um, but I mean, we just, we have, we have a long history in this country of not, um, not putting up images of not, not putting images, for instance, of, of living people on stamps or coins. Uh, and, and, and, and in fact, we'll talk about a little bit here shortly that Trump has broken this around the coins as well, although he's not the first in that case. Um, we do have, of course, uh, an established, I don't know if it's a rule or a guideline that in government offices, post offices and such, you often have a picture of the sitting president and sometimes the sitting vice president as well. Um, and I remember seeing them in, um, like consulates, yeah, consulates and embassies. Uh, and you know, that, that has always made sense to me, maybe because I just, it was always there whenever you go, like whenever you go to get a passport, whenever you go into an official place, you are likely to see a picture of the sitting president. And I remember a child having a reaction being like, Oh, I don't like that guy. Oh, I do like that guy, but he's the president. It doesn't matter what I think because he's the president. And that's where that should be. Not a banner on the outside of the Department of Justice. Right. And in fact, there's something, you know, I've always looked at those and in my mind done the comparison with the dear leader stuff that you might see in North Korea or China or whatever. Um, but there is something maybe even arguably positive in that case where this is an official thing. This is the place where the president and vice president's portrait will hang. And the point is, Oh, well that emphasizes to everybody, including people around the world who might walk into an American embassy somewhere else, that our system of government involves the peaceful handover of power as a result of the will people. Yeah. And so it's a feature, not a bug at that level. And I guess I cautiously embrace it for that reason. This is very different. Now I don't know that we want a statute that makes this illegal, but I think the point is this is, this is a matter of, um, restraint. Freedom of speech allows you to say a lot of stuff you shouldn't say. It's up to you not to say those things. Um, I don't want to see the law that tells you, you can't say them. And maybe some of those things are the time where you'll have to say them. But, but this is not that case. This is a president who is leaning into the cult of personality rather than, uh, reluctantly accepting the adoration of his followers. And it's, it is, you know, I mean, I also know something about this guy having watched him for so long. He loves amping up his detractors. He loves whipping them into a frenzy, probably so that they'll make mistakes and that he can laugh at them. But the point is you're now doing this in a way that isn't you saying some comment that is attributed to you. This is now an important federal building, which belongs to all of us, which is now making fun of the opposition by pretending, you know, to lean into the dear leader stuff or leaning into it. And that ain't right. I don't want you just as I don't want you renaming the, the, the Gulf of Mexico, uh, in a belligerent way. I don't want you using federal buildings to mock, you know, other Americans. Exactly not what you're supposed to be doing. Yeah. The president, um, should be helping to unify Americans, even the ones who detest him. And there, I mean, no matter who the president is, there will always be some Americans who detest that president. So let's just, there are a couple more examples of, of what Trump has done this year that feel inappropriate. Uh, one of them is the 2026 semi quinn centennial. You can show my screen here. President Donald J. Trump, $1 coin. It's not out yet coming this fall. Uh, bill will be released in circulation and available for purchase in bags and rolls exclusively from the United States mint. So this is the usment.gov. This is the official site. Uh, you know, they've got, uh, they've got the images, coin specifications, and the background. Uh, the mint is also going to release newest medic coins and metals in 2026 featuring unique designs and enhancements for core products and annual releases. Uh, they've got, I don't actually, I can't quite tell from this if they're claiming that this is, these are new because I don't think most of these are new. Uh, the revolutionary work order, the Mayflower quarter, the enduring Liberty half dollar, the emerging Liberty dime. Uh, none of these have any real person on them with the exception of someone from the revolutionary war. And I bet that I haven't looked into who that is, but long dead. And that's the point that, um, the, the tradition has been, uh, for a while, um, had to have been dead for at least 10 years. If you were going to be on a coin or a stamp, uh, and then that got three, uh, and you know, none of the rest of these look like, um, the president, Donald J. Trump dollar, dollar coin. Also it's a different color. Um, so, you know, in, in keeping with his general sort of color, color coding, it's, it's goldish, uh, which, you know, whatever I don't, I don't particularly care about that, but it does make it further stand out. Um, but then there's also the passport. So can you show Jen the truth social post, uh, that came, uh, I think it was a Trump, uh, truth social post, uh, the USA's is the USA's new passport, which says welcome, but be good. President DJT. So this, what's the date on this June 26, 2026. This is a little over a month ago. Uh, this is being this passport, this like Trump branded passport is available. Uh, if you go to passport in person at, uh, the DC passport office, uh, there's been some disagreement about whether I, I've seen different reports on whether or not, if you go there to get a passport in person, you're defaulted into this passport, or if it's entirely an opt-in program, I've also seen different, different things from both from official sources, uh, about you being able to, I want you to keep that up there. Cause I want to say something more about this. Um, I've also seen different sources about, uh, whether or not you can actually get it. If you're somewhere else, if you can get it online, uh, but regardless, it exists. And we probably want to say a few things about this, but while we still have this up here, this, I literally never been on truth social before. I just clicked through to, to see what this post was. The text with the image of the passport says the USA's new passport, which says welcome, but be good. And that's a sort of, it's a colloquial. It doesn't actually say welcome, but be good. But it feels like he, whoever posted this, and presumably it wasn't Trump himself, is fundamentally misunderstood what American passport is. Like the passport isn't for visitors. The passport is for citizens. This is, this is your citizen paperwork that you show upon leaving or coming back into your own country. Yeah. It's not a green card. It's not a green card. So what are we doing here? Like that's, that's a crazy misunderstanding of what a passport is. Like I don't even understand how that got. Yeah, I agree. It's, uh, completely incoherent and the only way, you know, at best it's incoherent. Yeah. I would say the thing that gets me as somebody who's been watching the, what looks like systematic, demotion of our constitutional rights into privileges, most of which we still retain, but not perfectly. And the fact is there's all the difference in the world between a right and a privilege. And here, you know, Trump is metaphorically eclipsing the constitution, which I'm sure was not the intent there, but one could read it that way. But the idea of you're a citizen, you have a right to, you have a right to an American passport. Here the president is effectively tweeting, you know, wagging his finger at you. And while I agree with the sentiment and I've said it a hundred times, we should not be allowing people into the country who do not like us and do not intend to abide by our rules. But that's a different conversation from House. Right. It's like literally, it couldn't be farther away. Well, the inadvertent accidental, hopefully message here is that he's saying to citizens who are entitled to a passport, welcome, but be good. But citizens are already here. I'm, I'm, I'm agreeing with you. It doesn't make any sense. My point is it only makes sense if the idea is, Hey, I'm putting everybody on notice, which I don't like one bit because I do feel like we're all being put on notice about behaviors that we are perfectly entitled to engage in that are no longer treated as acceptable by the powers that be. And I have to wonder what all of that is about. And I have to wonder, you know, is this just simply a tasteless abuse of the office making, you know, a commemorative passport with the dear leader on it? I mean, I don't like that, but if that's all it is, it disappears into history soon enough and it becomes an embarrassing little thing that happened. Yep. But I think the general demeanor of whatever it is that governs us is you, the citizens don't have a mechanism to reject the trajectory. We're going to do what we want and we're going to rationalize it as in your interest, but your interests aren't represented. Your desires certainly aren't represented. We're going to do all kinds of things that you all hate and you will have no mechanism to deal with it. And we're going to dismiss your objections one by one rather than looking at the general pattern. But the general pattern is we don't respect your rights. We don't feel an obligation to you. We're going to play games with all of the effectively sacred stuff that makes us different. I mean, I've now forgotten who it was who said that we will be a nation of laws, not of men. I don't remember. The whole point is it was specifically not supposed to be about powerful dudes that everybody rallied behind and George Washington himself. The natural thing for George Washington to be after winning the Revolutionary War was the king. He could have been king and he decided not to multiple times because that's not the kind of place that was being built. I believe there's even history around fights against him being called or any elected leader of the country being called things like your Highness, your Excellency, that president was understood to be the appropriate title, the appropriate honorific because it is both true. But it bears with it the weight of the office as opposed to your Excellency, your Highness suggests a hierarchy, a kind of scholanature that puts you close to God. And that is explicitly not what the United States was founded on. Yeah, actually the emphasis on the office is very much in keeping with the portrait that changes at the post office on the day of the inauguration. It's like, no, now this person is that thing. Peaceful transition of power. And we have standards and this is a natural feature of culture. Different cultures have different standards for how they deal with the dead, how they deal with their leaders, how they deal with the interaction between honorifics and being alive. I mean, Jews don't name people after the living. Right. Right. Christians often do. The Nobel Prize is not given to the deceased. The Nobel Prize is not given to deceased. And just so to make your point about in Jewish families, you were never given the name of someone who's still in your family. And so you don't have juniors and thirds in Jewish families. That's a non-Jewish family. Yeah. And we often do give names of the deceased as a remembrance. And you get to be Mr. President if you're elected to that office. And we keep calling you that after you leave the office. And everybody understands that we're not saying you're the current president, that this is just the simple way that we have agreed to handle this thing. You don't lose your title because you're out of office. It becomes strictly an honorary title at that point. That's right. So anyway, we have these standards. You can decide that any one of them was poorly designed, but the basic idea that, hey, we've got standards. We stick by them. That means everybody knows what it means when you call Joe Biden Mr. President. It doesn't mean you voted for him. It doesn't mean you like him. It means he inhabited the office and he continues to hold that title until he dies. And so violating those standards is kind of a profound thing. You're really going after the substrate, the stuff that we do all agree on. And there's so little left. Yeah. At the moment, it's become a situation where some large fraction of the citizenry sees that somebody on the other side favors something. And then I'm against it. Like, okay, that is not a way we can be governed. We have to agree on something. And here what you're seeing is like the very most basic level being transgressed for presumably political purposes or reasons of ego, neither of which is any good. Neither of which is any good. Yeah. The ability to predict what some large swath of the public will believe based on what side is apparently vouching for it is clear evidence that we have failed to be a scientifically thinking nation. Like we are, and in fact, we're not going to spend a bunch of time on it because it's a big messy paper. But have you been seeing this week suddenly all of these like scientific American and all the newspapers are like, turns out eating a lot will shorten your life. Oh, boy. Right. So Robert and Jill Malone published a really good analysis of the paper. Which is the foundational paper on which all of these claims about protein being bad for you, high protein diets being bad for you is based. Their review is great, will link to it. And the paper which I skimmed, the paper in question is not great. Let's just that. And like, the very first things they do in the paper is they're like, well, mice don't do so well on high protein diets. And they don't say what kind of protein but also, hey, non broken mice models for some kinds of human systems might be perfect. But when you're talking about diet, diet, are mice like humans with regard and forget the fact that they're broken mice for the moment, right? Like just just like, is this an appropriate comparison when we're talking about diet? I don't think so. Right? Like mice and humans are just too different with regard to our gut anatomy, our physiology, our typical diet, you know, from call it 100,000 years ago. So like, what this paper actually does is very weak, what the claims and the media say are incredibly strong and unnuanced. And what does this in response to? Basically, HHS and who the left now loves to hate coming out with new guidelines that say high protein is better for you. And I remember a couple like, I don't know, a year, a year and a half ago, when he was like, there's been a fight against protein for too long. And the response then was, what are you talking about? Everyone loves protein. So like, no matter what the man says, no matter what anyone in maha says at this point, if you're if you think you're on team blue, you disagree, even if you would have agreed with it 10 years ago, which says you're not thinking. And you're you are the subject of the next charlatan who will come along. Now, it's funny, I looked at the same report about protein and reducing protein, possibly extending lifespan. And I had the immediate red flag go off, you know, oh, really? mice and rats, huh? Yeah. And so I started doing a little digging actually on a slightly separate thread. And, you know, the last time I dug into this, there wasn't meaningful AI. Now we have fairly sophisticated tools that can synthesize a great deal of literature in a matter of a minute or two. And so I just asked the AI, I said, does so that this question about protein gets tangled up with the question about caloric restriction, which has been reported to be a profound increase or of longevity, which I've never quite believed, I think there are there are nuances here. But much of this evidence comes from these mice that are broken in this particular way. I will remind those who haven't heard it this week, that they have ultra long telomeres as a result of an evolutionary accident in their breeding colonies, which means that they're highly prone to cancer, all mice and most rats die of cancer if you give them the chance. And so doing things that reduce the rate of cancer can have positive impact on these artificially short lived animals. But if you compare it to wild animals, it evaporates. So I just asked Claude, fancy Claude, the question, if you eliminate studies that are done in captively bred rodents, does the extension of lifespan as a result of caloric restriction hold up? And the answer came back, no, it collapses, essentially. And it gave many different examples. It says there is an anti cancer benefit, but these animals are cancer prone. So anyway, the idea that we're playing these games over in science land, it's exactly what you say. So you've got, we have cultural standards, how are we going to settle our disagreement so that we, you know, can decide how to govern ourselves? Well, many people will claim the mantle of science, here's what we're going to do. We were going to defer to the science because that's not political, except what have they done? They've politicized the science, all of it, all of it. They've compromised it. So even where it's not political, it's so corrupt that you don't know what to think just because a field has reached some sort of seeming consensus. And the programs in which scientists are trained are becoming training grants for complacency and, and following, as opposed to innovative thinking and leadership. Yeah, it's preposterous. I don't mean to digress here, but I saw a very remarkable clip of Kara Swisher talking to Scott Galloway. And anyway, I don't know what the overarching theme of the conversation was. But Scott Galloway makes the amazing claim that, you know, in science, if a younger researcher proves that what an older researcher was saying is not true, the older researcher celebrates it. And it's like, what planet are you living on? Once upon a time, that was true. That's how it's supposed to be. That's how it's supposed to work. But the idea that that's just simply how it does work. And therefore, we can infer by the fact that the you know, the elders are not being challenged that they must be right. It's like, what kind of brain rot is that? And what planet are you living on? Well, I mean, it's, in part, it's the same kind of bait and switch with regard to words that we've talked about with regard to racism, with regard to woman, and with regard to science, right? And this, and I've said many, many times, like I, you know, I've, I'm just about ready to give up the word feminist. Like, I'm just about like, I've, I've sort of seeded a bunch of words, like, I once cared, and I was once ready to defend it. I just, whatever. I'm not giving up woman, because that's just simple and fundamental and basic. But I'm also not giving up science like that. That is the one word that describes complexity and necessity in human engagement with the universe that I'm just not willing to seed. And it feels like that's, that's the attack that's been coming for at least 10 years. And you know, publicly, and I think actually cryptically for many, many decades. It's the foundation. And it's the foundation because these are not actually arbitrary things, right? Woman is not arbitrary, as you have been making the point eloquently for I don't know how many years, but it's totally non arbitrary. So, you know, how would you even give it up? Because it's, right, it is an essential and science isn't quite that it's not a biological fact. But the point is it's actually a method that we can point to it, we can point to an understanding, a philosophical understanding of what its requirements are, and why it works, why it is self correcting, unlike, essentially, every system. And so we have to simultaneously recognize that the product of science is now thoroughly compromised. That has nothing to do with the method, which frankly, needs a bit of an upgrade in light of complexity. You know, the scientific method was generated, we didn't know anything about complexity and complexity changes, not the fundamentals, not the philosophical layer, but it does change how you have to deal with human body is very different than the science of reactants and a beaker. Yes. But yeah, I'm not surrendering on that one, either. How would you, you know, how would you? Yeah, what would that even look like? Yeah. All right. So there's some other things that are sort of connected in here. Yes. Let's look at Gillian Michaels tweet of a children's cartoon to see the other side of the battle, the part that we're not winning. So her tweet says, compare what you grew up watching to what's on screen today and tell me this isn't deliberate. We went from raw wild survival tropes to calculated mess, messaging engineered for impressionable minds that almost nobody is calling out. And almost nobody is calling out the start shift. When you look at the hidden motives, driving this modern content pipeline, one terrifying truth becomes impossible to ignore. And then she has a way to link it on her. Can we can we see the video? I don't know that we need to watch the whole thing but the most alarming and I know you guys are screaming at the screen right now. I know you're screaming at me. I know what you're thinking. I'm good. So Gillian Michaels is awesome. And she goes on an excellent rant there. Yes. She goes on. I think you're going to go on your own rant. Yes. There's one part of this that's just almost hard to put into words because these cartoons, like many cartoons, I mean, there were exceptions when you and I were kids, you know, an adult could watch a Warner Brothers cartoon and be entertained at a different level. And the Latin terms that are introduced are not there for children. But basically these cartoons are designed to access children when their parents aren't present. And it's hard to remember what it was like to be a tiny child. But if you think about the fact that somebody introduces the idea that, hey, here's one thing that might be true of you, maybe you like the sex that we keep calling you. Right. I don't know if a six year old who checks in with that question, they don't know what it's supposed to feel like. Of course, life is confusing. It's particularly confusing for a child who is still building the toolkit with which to understand the world. Well, I mean, yeah, we've been here many times, but I just I reject the idea of gender identity. Yep. It's easy to reject it in a six year old. And indeed, I've said before that our son Zach, who's now 22, has said to me, if you would come to me when I was five and ask me if I felt like a boy, I've been like, what I don't what does that feel like? And then it would have introduced the very idea, this fictional, fabulous idea of gender identity when it's not a real thing. But I actually reject the idea of gender identity across the board. Like I think that this is this is for me, this is one of the foundational beliefs that I have that that other than the biology, which I think it's based in the biology, which is the idea that you feel like a man or feel like a woman is a fabrication. Like you just are a man or a woman or if you have not yet gone through puberty, a boy or a girl and all boys who go through puberty become men and all girls who go through puberty become women. And are there moments early in life and during puberty and adulthood where you are at odds with yourself and maybe you look at someone of the other sex and you think, man, like maybe that would be a better way to be like, I guess a lot of people do that. But that doesn't mean that you might be the other thing. And it doesn't mean that you have an identity that is different. That's your own sort of imaginative musings, which is fine. That's totally human. But the idea of gender identity like, oh, yeah, you are one thing, but you identify as this other thing. Like, no, it's just not. I'm sorry. No, that's one of these fictions that I reject. Well, also, it's almost too obvious to say, but it needs to be said because it's not obvious anymore. You childhood is a time in which you are you start out chaotic. I mean, even at the level of being able to operate your limbs properly, you know, you very you're an imprecise creature at every level. And the point is, when you do something that's good, you know, when you take the cup and put it on the counter and it doesn't slosh over and spill the juice, then you get the point is you develop that skill and you get ever better. And then maybe at some point you're a watchmaker with very fine dexterity. You get increasingly tracked into things that make sense. Now, we know we know from evidence that there is a lot of gender dysphoria that clears itself up. So the point is, what is that? Well, that's people imprecisely understanding where they are, getting increasingly and the point is that cartoon is going to reach people who are in this natural process of not exactly knowing where they fit. And it's going to say, hey, that might be because something's going on with you. And if something is going on with you, you're entitled to have the world revolve around it. And we're going to start calling you by special language. Even adults are going to have to modify the way they speak because of this very special thing about you. And that is so insidious and to do it when the parents aren't around. And, you know, you don't know why your child then pipes up at the dinner table and says, I think I might be a so and so. And it's like, oh, that's because the TV said something or the iPad said something to them earlier today about something that you don't believe exists, but somebody insisted it did in a very friendly, cuddly cow speaking to the monitor thing that it couldn't be a more it's every bit as diabolical as if somebody sets out to molest your child. This is a mental molestation coming through a screen made, of course, by adults. Right. That was adults who chose to molest your child. And the fact that we are not even really allowed to have the proper reaction to somebody who sets their sights on your child and attempts to distort the rest of their life. And that's really what it is, even if it was just psychological, which it isn't. Right. Even if it was just psychological, somebody is trying to divert your child onto a new trajectory that has all kinds of stuff associated with it. This is nobody's right. And yet there it is. I guess I would. One thing you said at the very beginning of that excellent rant, I disagree with. OK. Which is, you said, we know from evidence that most cases of gender dysphoria clear up on their own. I think like gender identity, gender dysphoria is a category that shouldn't have been created. Not that there aren't people who in childhood imagine different lives for themselves. And sometimes they think they're turtles and sometimes they think they're dinosaurs. And sometimes they think that the girl next door and none of those are real. And we don't have a special category name for the children who think they're dinosaurs or the children who think they're time travelers and are going to wake up one day and be with the dinosaurs or the children who think their time travelers in a different way. And they're going to be futuristic people and they're going to come back and make a million. Like all of these things exist. Everyone has fantasies. And we don't have names for most of the types of fantasies. Attributing a special name, a special category to this gender dysphoria thing where you think you're the thing that you're not. When, of course, like we certainly aren't allowed to do race dysphoria. That's that's a category that would be horrifying and disgusting. But this one is not just not horrifying and disgusting, but while still completely false, completely completely fictional. And there's no worries about that if it's just what your child is doing in his own imagination. But instead of recognizing that it's ridiculous and that you should just ignore it until it goes away or, you know, and not celebrate it, that's what we do. We not only celebrate it, we pretend it's real. And we in too many places tell the kid that they're actually more interesting. Because that's what they think. And so they track that we can analyze them in to the molestation place where they now think that there's something that they're not and they are more fragile and more weak for their entire lives and they need and they need to be. I agree with you 100 percent. My rant should have begun with something like if gender dysphoria were a thing rather than the categorization of something that's just part of the natural bouncing around of childhood. Right. Right. Then we know that most of it clears up of its own accord by its very nature. Because childhood is the act of exploration and of honing of sort of, you know, of like the like the proliferation of stuff, including neurons, but also ideas. And then like the selective apoptosis, the pruning back of the neural connections and the actual cells and the thoughts into something that is coherent and sane and hopefully still imaginative and creative, but doesn't embrace non reality. Yeah, totally. It also occurs to me in your excellent rant there that. Trading rants today. Well, think about this. Gender dysphoria is something that is being celebrated because of this effective war on children. Right. This is a this is a front in the war on children. But just as you point out that race dysphoria would not be tolerated, neither would gay dysphoria. Right. The idea that you discover that you're gay and you think maybe that isn't the life you want to lead and you'd like to see if there's any way to not be gay. That is obviously considered morally beyond the pale. So they're picking and choosing which dysphoria is to celebrate and which dysphoria is to to shame. And it, you know, it all points in the same direction. They want, you know, as much. Don't read anything morally into this. It's not a normative claim, but they want as much aberrant. And in other words, as much deviation from what would be standard as possible because it is deranging of civilization for some. And, you know, and so, yes, an attack on childhood for sure. And that's more important than the next one, I'm going to say. But it's an attack on beauty. It's an attack on the on on norms, on the things that we have collectively agreed are beautiful. And we never had a meeting about it. We never voted about it. Just people know what is beautiful. And yes, we have our own preferences, but everyone can actually recognize a beautiful flower, a beautiful wild animal, a beautiful man or woman. And so and this is mostly faded to the background, but five and 10 years ago and 15 years ago, when all these ad campaigns informing us that these, you know, patently obese and unattractive people were the beauty and the new beauty standards like, you know what? That's not actually how this works. That's not how any of this works. You can't change language just by saying this is the new way we speak. Oops, we were wrong about that. They apparently can. But you can't actually change what people want. But people would people fundamentally feel in their souls by saying this is beautiful now. Because that's not how we respond to things. We don't respond to things with diktats from above that are in the analytical. We respond through emotional, emotional valence that says, yeah, actually, you know what? There's something in me. And even if you don't do this consciously, something to be telling me that person is unhealthy. They don't take themselves seriously. They don't take care of themselves. And I find this person over here who looks fit and athletic and frankly, amazing. I find him more beautiful and there's nothing wrong with that. And you can't tell me I'm wrong. Well, not only that I want to go one step further. It's really an attack on play the cards you're dealt because of principle I've tried to deploy here every moment of every day of your life. The question is how can I play the cards I've been dealt to the best effect relative to the things I would like to accomplish, whether that's getting myself a better life or advancing the ball of some cause I care about, whatever it is, you've got some cards. They may or may not be good ones, but you should always play them to the best of your ability rather than say, oh, these cards aren't good. I want better ones. I'm going to transfer better ones from somebody else. Right. Personal. Even if there's something that the system could be made more fair. Yeah. You have no ability to deal with that. You do have every ability to affect the quality of your life by playing the cards you've been dealt. So at the level of it's an attack on beauty. Well, it's an attack on beauty in two ways. Yes, you're absolutely right. This is not how beauty works. Certain things are beautiful. Other things are not beautiful. And you can't mandate that. I think that that's beautiful. On the other hand, if you are a person dealt some cards with respect to beauty or handsomeness, you can learn how to play your cards better. Everybody can. Right. The point is you're not just some blob of goo with a bunch of hairsprout and out of their head. The point is how you present yourself has everything to do with how people are going to treat you. And does that mean that if you know you're a three that you can, you know, be like some, you know, gorgeous it girl? No, that's not going to happen. But the point is you can do a lot to cultivate people's response to you by figuring out what it is that people respond to. And the core point, it's not going to happen if somebody hands you a false remedy. Right. If the idea is that in childhood somebody is going to say, yeah, you were dealt the wrong cards and we have a magic way of giving you your correct cards. Then the point is you will not get the feedback from the world that will allow you to play your cards better, which is the thing you should be focused on because the payoff on playing your cards better is astronomical. Yeah. Yeah. Were you interested in showing this video from the Yale law professor? Yes. The Ross do that interview. I thought this was so fascinating. It was where I was headed next. So let's show this clip. It's Aaron Karioti is tweeting it. I've gotten in some hot water for proposing we consider over weighting the votes of younger people or assigning the youngest eligible voters proxy votes for the unrepresented children of our country. So those are edgy. Why not why not assign them to those children's parents? Well, because there's there's a divergence of interest between parents and children. And I think it's likelier that young people, not people who are raising families, will have the best insight into the interests of children. Whereas you if you were awarded five. I think that's I think it's absurd to imagine that a 24 year old recent college graduate has a better assessment of the interests of my own children than I do. And I say this with all due respect to 24 year old recent college graduates of whom I hope to be the parent of in nine years or so. I think parents generally confuse the interests of their family with the interests of their children. And part of our goal, I think, is parents, but also as a society is trying to make sure that children aren't the hostages of their parents as much as we rely on parents to raise them. Aren't in my experience, parents are more likely to be the. OK, let me just say that last line again, this is from Professor Yale Law Professor Samuel Moyn. Part of our goal as a society is trying to make sure that children aren't the hostages of their parents as much as we rely on parents. Sorry, as much as we rely on parents to raise them. OK, I predicted that this man didn't have children. I was wrong. I looked into it. He does have children. Oh, I do not feel good for these children. Like we're not we're not going to go there. But like this is actually not the sort of male equivalent of a very confused person who never had children of their own. Yeah. Well, I do not want to bypass this clip without giving maximal kudos to Dothat for not saying with all due respect to you, because this guy is deserving of none. He says with all due respect to 24 year olds, which yes, 24 year olds are entitled to some respect. Sure. But the idea. Well, he also says to Moyn that's daft. He doesn't say you're daft, but I think he's thinking. Well, and I think what struck many of us about this clip is how breathtaking it is. You know, every so often you get you encounter the concentrated lunacy on the current blue left where you hear that they find the idea of family is racist or something. The idea that they think it's actually the school's job to raise the children in spite of the parents. And you just think this is wrong. A, it's absurd. And this is where I think the right could do well to realize all of the value they are leaving on the table by not embracing a careful evolutionary view of humans. Yes. You don't need to abandon your view in God. It really, the two things do not interact as far as we know. We can have that discussion later. But parents and children have an alignment of interests that A is the result of a three and a half billion year unbroken trajectory of reproduction that has been founded on that principle. And that B extends into the cultural layer such that parents are transmitting material both genetically and outside of the genome through those children. This is the way that our culture is built. Furthermore, you will find if you embrace the genetic part of this analysis that a child's the fact that a parent is inherently aligned with their child by genes is also the strongest argument in favor of monogamy, which conservatives embrace. The reason for that is because a brood of children that is the product of a monogamous relationship is genetically united much more than a brood of children that have different fathers. So from the point of view of the view of Western civilization functioning the way conservatives correctly think it should function, they're leaving cards on the table that shouldn't be left on the table. These are cards that should be played. This guy in his tie with his high mind addiction is a madman. I mean, or he's under the spell of something and, you know, he might wake up from it one day. But nonetheless, the idea that rando 24 year olds who, by the way, are not like God given instantiations of something, these people are the product of schools that suck and the online environment, which is a battleground. So what they think they know isn't real. And the idea that anything should supplant the natural alignment between parents and children is preposterous. I'm not saying it doesn't go wrong, but or that some people's votes, people who aren't allowed to vote, should have their votes somehow proxied into the system by giving by waiting some people's votes that the entire the entire plan is bad shit crazy. The whole thing and the idea once again from the left, there is instead of balancing the idea that it would be good to get that an election, it would be good if we got the widest sample of the population. That's true. But the idea that we're going to prioritize getting more people to cast their vote over the idea of making sure that the people who cast their vote are actually allowed to or that they're only voting once is not so right. There is nothing that says getting the maximum number of data points is the only contributor to how good the sample is. No, your methodology in getting the sample has everything to do with the quality. And frankly, pursuing the every last data point, the person who lives in a place that's so remote that it's an imposition on them to get a voter ID, that we've got to get them through there no matter what other carnage there is. Like, no, you people are nuts. This is the same madness. We've got to count the votes of these tiny children through the people who are closest to them in age. Like, I'm sorry. Is this an elaborate? Are you, you know, is this an April Fool's joke? Well, I didn't. I mean, I just saw this clip this morning and so I didn't have time to go get any of his books with the professor. But his his scholarship, so to speak, is about effectively the gerontology that we are living under the the the gerontological society that he claims you're living under and a desire to have more representation of the young. So when you say it like that in the sort of abstract, it doesn't sound like it's emerging inherently crazy position. But his solution as evidenced here by the Ross Dutta interview is obviously crazy. Yeah, I mean, I think it's it's one of these things where there are real issues, right? There's a lot of boomer power and it does seem to be leaning in a direction that is not great for us in the future. Now, that's a bad thing. There is a question about whether people who elect not to have children and therefore have less of a direct investment in the future vote differently than people who have children and are trying to vote in a way that protects those children as well as possible going forward. But the problem is, this is one of these places where a sort of libertarian style thinking is the right one. Any solution you would propose to these problems is a nightmare. It's going to create madness. And so it's not to say that the system we have of allocating votes evenly across people is all good. It's not. It's just better than any alternative you would come up with, because any place you introduce structure is going to become a battleground of I'm going to take this stuff from you. Yeah. And I've seen this. So I'm going to I'm going to privilege these people. But then I didn't see this. And so next comes along. You just you end up with a bureaucracy very, very quickly. Yeah, you end up with a system that is nonfunctional and that actually everything that is missed explicitly suffers more than it would in a system that just says, you know, what one person, one vote. And here's the age at which you can start voting. That's it. And imagine what happens if we lived this guy's dystopia. Imagine what would happen to the battle for the minds of the young people as they got disproportional representation. They'd be no hope for them. They'd be twisted into knots to extract their votes from them. And they wouldn't know which way is up. I mean, as confused as they are, they are a lot better off than they would be if they were directly targeted, over their extra votes for the little ones. Yes, absolutely. You're right. Right. All right. What else you got? I had one, maybe two more things that I wanted to point to. All right. You started with a sign of hope that the the the gender madness, it hasn't given way, but we at least see some kind of organized pushback. I think that with Trump's DOJ, attorney general's attorneys general, attorneys general in both Texas and Ohio have made great strides in stopping and reversing the trans madness at a couple of major hospitals in the U.S. Yes, that is a huge ray of hope. Kudos to the attorneys, most general who are participating in this. All right. So what I wanted to point to was another little ray of hope that I think, you know, it's just a little something. But it's it does show signs of life and it has to do with the suddenly on everybody's mind question of flock cameras and the vigilante movement that has risen up that is taking down these cameras. So let me before we show this interesting tweet and news report. I think a lot of us are having the reaction. I haven't heard anybody say that they thought that those removing the flock cameras weren't breaking the law. They're breaking the law. But I think a lot of us have the reaction of actually civil disobedience is an honorable concept. We did not invite these flock cameras. This is being done quietly around us. And I think a lot of us were shocked to discover just how much of it is already deployed. And we don't like where it's going. And so feeling is I get that they're breaking the law. There are times when that is what is called for. And I'm not going to cast any side eye at people who are doing that now. I think they need to be very freaking careful. The next move is very clear. They're going to make these cameras face each other in such a way that there's going to be no way to approach them. So, you know, it's a temporary thing that it's even possible. I hope that people who elect to engage in this law breaking for noble purposes will do so thoughtfully with respect to their future. But what I wanted to show you was this interesting phenomenon that's happened in this one case where a young man was allegedly caught in the dismantling of flock cameras. A wild story tonight where it appears nearly 20,000 people have vouched for the whereabouts of a man accused of destroying flock cameras in West Virginia. Thousands of people have publicly said they were with or saw 20 year old Wesley Jackson during the time he was accused of the crime with comments such as couldn't be him. He was helping me replace the roof on a homeless shelter. And I saw him serving at a soup kitchen at the time of the incident. He has pleaded not guilty to the crimes against him. Yeah, that's awesome. Now, so I think it's it's hilarious. Yeah. All of these people are vouching for him. I happen to know that they are all lying because at that moment he was at our house. He was at dinner. No, I was. It had dinner hadn't started. We were outside collecting eggs from the chickens. Oh, so anyway, yeah, he didn't do it. But it's heartening to see how many people want to make sure that the court reaches the right conclusion in this case. You know, it does have a kind of I am Spartacus kind of vibe to it. And I think. I was disproportionately heartened to see this because it shows that people are finally fed up enough that they're going to get clever in their opposition. And I think it's a marvelous, marvelous thing. So maybe maybe with that as our final bit, we should we should sign off. All right. All right. Before the dog runs away in her sleep. Yes. All right. So you're going to have at least one, maybe both your Patreon calls this weekend. Consider joining Bret on on those. They're pretty great. I posted another Covid era story on my sub stack this week on Natural Selections. Great one from a woman out of Belgium who was working, doing like intersectional kind of work work for women's and immigrant rights when Covid hit. And she found so much of what she believed turned on its head as she saw the idea. The beliefs of her colleagues become exactly what she thought was only found in what she thought was the extreme right. So Covid era did this. Covid did a lot of this sort of thing to many of us where we were confronted with our own biases, our own privileges as well. But especially our own biases. And that was it. It's a powerful story. No, that's great. I'm ready yet. I'm looking forward to it, though. A reminder that we are supported by you. Our audience were also supported by our our sponsors, which were Timeline. Sorry, Farmera and Caraway this week. We are supported by you. We appreciate you very much. Boy, hope that you will subscribe and like and share any content that you find and of ours. And until you see us next time, be good to the ones you love. Eat good food and get outside. Be well, everyone.
