#201: Unchecked & Out of Balance (Bret Weinstein & Heather Heying DarkHorse Livestream)
In this 201st in a series of live discussions with Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying (both PhDs in Biology), we discuss the state of the world through an evolutionary lens.In this episode we discuss New York’s emergency rule 2.13, which has now been reinstated after being overturned, and which paves the way for quarantine camps in order to “control the spread of a highly contagious communicable disease.” We also discuss penguins, their ability to tell each other apart based on the dots on the...
Hey folks, welcome to the Dark Horse Podcast, livestream number 201.
That is the first livestream of our second series of 200.
That did not add a lot of information, but it sounded, I don't know, not poignant really, but momentous is what it sounded.
No, I don't think that either.
Well, I don't know, any morning on which you can use the word both poignant and momentous is a pretty good morning, I would say.
Even if you've used them to indicate that neither applies?
Technically, I think it still counts.
This is like what kids in fourth grade, maybe eighth grade, maybe also twelfth grade do when asked to use a word, a sentence.
The word momentous is not applicable here.
No, it's slightly better than that.
This involved my knowing the meaning.
Oh, I know that you do.
Yes.
I have for quite some time.
All right.
Here we are.
Evolutionary Lens, live stream.
Number 201, end of November.
We are past Thanksgiving, heading into the rest of the holiday season.
No Q&A today, but we're going to be talking about quarantine and penguins, pretty much?
Yeah.
Quarantine and penguins today?
We're not quarantining penguins.
The penguins are not inflicting quarantine on anyone.
They wouldn't do that.
No.
No, they would not.
No.
But hey, come join us on Rumble and on Locals.
We got our Watch party going on at Locals right now.
We've got early release of guest episodes of Dark Horse at Locals.
We've got our private monthly Q&A, which we did last Sunday, which is still available there.
AMA's Discord server available there.
Come join us at Locals and subscribe on Rumble and generally come be with us there.
Also, we've got the store, which Zach is going to show, where you can get stuff like... I don't even know.
I mean, I do know, but I don't know what he's going to show us.
It's, uh, it's, yeah, Blueberries Because Oxidants Happen.
Uh, yeah, I wasn't really ready for this, I think.
Well, that worked.
Yeah, that was a hint of things that one might get.
That was fun.
You can get Dark Horse March, you get shirts, hats, hoodies, Goliath.
Goliath, nice.
Very good.
Blueberries Because Oxidants Happen.
We have YouTube Community Guidelines Because You Can't Handle the Truth.
Yeah, man.
Yeah.
Epic Tabby more.
We got at least one more coming out before Christmas happens as well, I hope.
I'm getting a worried face from our producer, but, you know, we hope.
And we're not doing a Q&A this week.
We will do, after the live stream next week, we'll do like a special, like, recommended gifts episode.
And we're going to move the rest of our announcements to the end, except for our ads.
Yes.
Yes.
Wait, what?
And for the store, right now, we still have our holiday discount going.
Oh, we have a holiday!
It's the code for 10% off.
Holiday 10 at the store right now for 10% off at darkhorsestore.org.
Correct.
Awesome.
And as always, we have three ads to start the top of the hour.
We are grateful to our sponsors.
We choose them carefully.
And let's just go.
You're first this week.
I'm first this week.
We are pleased to have as our first sponsor, The Wellness Company.
World-renowned experts like Dr. Peter McCullough have partnered with The Wellness Company to create real change in healthcare.
They offer a wide variety of supplements and services, including telehealth, emergency medical kits, which have ivermectin, and teams of medical professionals that can assist in helping patients kick the pharmaceutical habit with their Freedom From Pharma program.
The wellness company has all sorts of useful and important products.
Personally, we are fans of MitoSupport.
Mito as in mitochondria, which is formulated to provide energy, both physical and mental.
And their Spike Support Formula is their most popular product.
It's useful not only for those who have been vaccinated, but for anyone who may be suffering from long COVID as well.
The wellness company says on their website, if you're looking to get back to that pre-COVID feeling, their Spike Support Formula can help.
Spike support is made with a combination of natural ingredients like natokinase, dandelion root extract, selenium, black sativa extract, Irish sea moss, and green tea extract.
These ingredients all contain immune-boosting capabilities, and the natokinase specifically has been used by the Japanese for decades because of its ability to dissolve blood clots.
But more recently, natokinase has been shown to be able to break down spike proteins in the bloodstream and even block them from binding to cells.
Dr. McCullough says, Out of all available therapies I have used in my practice and among all proposed detoxification agents, I believe natokinase and related peptides hold the greatest promise.
Whether you've taken the vaccine or just had COVID, if you're concerned about circulating spike proteins, go to twc.health slash darkhorse and use the code darkhorse to save 15% on your first order.
That's twc.health slash darkhorse, code darkhorse to save 15%.
Our second sponsor this week is Hillsdale College.
Time is our most precious commodity, and too much of our time ends up wasted in mindless activity.
At Hillsdale College, though, there are more than 40 free online courses to choose from.
They're self-paced, you can start whenever you want, and you can start right now.
Please wait until the end of the podcast, though.
It's everything you need, all in one place, with no long-term commitment.
Learn when and where you want.
Since 1844, Hillsdale College has been providing an education that focuses on freedom and character.
At Hillsdale, they believe that a virtuous citizen is the best defense for liberty.
Time and technology have changed a lot of things, but they have not changed basic, fundamental truths about the world and our place in it.
Hillsdale College's online courses range widely.
There are several on the Constitution, on Congress, the Presidency, the Supreme Court.
There are great books courses, as well as courses focusing on the works of C.S.
Lewis, Mark Twain, Shakespeare, and Jane Austen.
There are history classes from ancient Christianity to the rise and fall of the Roman Republic to the Second World War.
Even classes on math and logic, from Euclid to modern geometry, and one on the great principles of chemistry.
One of Hillsdale's newest online courses is American Citizenship and Its Decline with Victor Davis Hanson.
In this eight-lecture course, Hanson explores the history of citizenship in the West and the threats it faces today.
Threats like the erosion of the middle class, the growth of an unaccountable deep state, the disappearance of borders, and the rise of globalist organizations.
The course is self-paced, so you can start whenever and wherever, so start your free course American Citizenship and Its Decline today.
Go right now to hillsdale.edu slash darkhorse to start.
It's free and easy to get started.
That's hillsdale.edu slash darkhorse.
Once again, hillsdale, h-i-l-l-s-d-a-l-e dot edu slash darkhorse.
Excellent.
That's the one word?
Uh, I was actually slightly distracted from Hillsdale, a marvelous institution, by the fear that I may have mispronounced natokinase.
But anyway, I'm back.
Good.
Our final sponsor this week is Seed.
No one else was concerned.
It may be that everyone else was concerned.
The natokinase purveyors may be concerned.
They may be irate at this point.
Where's it from?
Natokinase?
Yeah.
I don't know.
How's it synthesized?
What organism does it come from?
Well, now you're putting me on the spot.
I don't know.
I mean, if you're going to mispronounce it, you've got to know something else about it.
Is that a rule?
I think so.
I don't think that's a rule.
Okay, so we've heard about the Wellness Company in Hillsdale College, and now Seed.
Our final sponsor this week is Seed, a probiotic that really works.
If you've tried probiotics before and got nothing out of it, try Seed.
It's designed differently from other probiotics, better, and it actually works.
Seed helps improve the health of your gut microbiome, which means that it supports you becoming healthier overall.
Our resident gut microbes directly impact the development and function of the immune system.
Even before we're born, microbes inform our immune system, teaching our body how to distinguish between benign substances and pathogenic antigens, that is, substances that our body doesn't recognize as its own.
You can support your gut immune axis in a variety of ways, including by prioritizing sleep.
New research suggests that the gut microbiome has its own circadian clock, and that changes to your normal rhythms can disrupt your microbes and the important functions they perform.
Prioritizing regular sleep can thus help keep your gut immune axis healthy.
Seed's DSL-1 Daily Synbiotic also supports your gut immune axis.
Seed is a plant-based prebiotic and probiotic with 24 strains that have been clinically or scientifically studied for their benefits.
16 of those 24 strains are specifically geared towards digestive health, and 4 of the 24 probiotic strains are known to promote healthy skin.
Your skin, like your gut, has its own microbiome.
Seed supports both gut and skin health.
Seed is free from 14 major classes of allergens, including but not limited to sugar, animal products, soy, gluten, peanut, glyphosate, dairy, shellfish, and corn.
And seed is basically double-hulled with its capsule-in-capsule design, engineered to maintain viability through your digestive tract until it reaches your colon, where you want it.
The same design makes it resistant to oxygen, moisture, and heat, meaning that no refrigeration is necessary.
Among other things, this means that you can travel with it.
Seed's Daily Symbiotic supports gut, skin, and heart health and micronutrient synthesis.
People who use Seed often report improvements to their digestive function in 24 to 48 hours.
So start a new healthy habit today.
Visit seed.com slash darkhorse and use code darkhorse to redeem 25% off your first month of Seed's DSL1 Daily Symbiotic.
That's seed.com slash darkhorse and use code darkhorse at checkout.
Now, have the folks at Seed considered using Capsule My Capsule as a slogan?
You should ask them.
I should ask them.
I should ask them.
Yeah, why do we talk about microbes but we never talk about macrobes?
Speechless.
Well, people talk about macrobiotics.
Yes, they do.
But I was thinking more like, I mean, it could either refer to, you know, tapeworms, or it could refer to things like pets, macrobes.
Yeah, I mean, I think this is sort of in the spirit of, you know, conservation biology types refer to charismatic megafauna being the things that grace the logos of the big conservation societies.
Like, I think Wildlife... World Wildlife Fund has a panda, maybe.
I can't remember what CI has or WCS, but anyway, they tend to have, you know, the big charismatic megafauna, the lions and the tigers and the bears.
Yes.
And I like to think about, talk about the charismatic mesofauna, which are things like margays.
Uh, yeah.
Margay is.
You think that still qualifies as mega?
Oh, that's mega.
When you think about it.
Margay is the smallest of the five cats found at least at Tipitini in the western Amazon in Ecuador.
It is small for a cat, gigantic for an animal.
Still miso.
Yeah.
I don't know that it's gigantic.
For an animal?
I don't know.
I mean, it depends how we weight it.
If we do it by species, it's clearly gigantic.
The huge majority.
But are most animals charismatic?
See, that's the question.
Yeah.
This is this, but it's not a meso fauna.
It might be meso among the charismatic fauna.
Yeah.
But yeah.
All right.
We're now losing people.
I know that.
We are driving them away in droves.
100%.
We are droving them away.
I think is the way you would say that.
So you wanted to talk about quarantine, which seems appropriate.
I seem to be avoiding it.
Yeah, let's talk about... Zach, do you want to put up the legal order here?
Yeah, so what has happened here is the Supreme Court of New York has reinstated Rule 2.13, is it?
Is it this that you want him to show?
I want you to show the, this is the ruling of the court, I want you to show the order itself.
Is it this that you want him to show?
Yes.
You can just show my screen then.
Or enlarge it if you would.
So what this is, is a very tiny at the moment This is a provision now of New York state law that has been reinstated.
A panel of judges had struck it down, and I believe in this last week it has been reinstated by the Supreme Court of New York.
And what it applies to... So just for people who are just listening.
Section 2.13, Isolation and Quarantine Procedures, State of New York, effective April 22nd, 2022.
It was struck down on November 17th of this year, so a couple weeks ago, or a week and a half ago, it was reinstated.
So the strike down was struck down.
The strike down was struck down on a basis that we will get to here in a second, but let's begin reading this thing so people know what we're talking about.
So 2.13, isolation and quarantine procedures.
A. Duty to issue isolation and quarantine orders.
procedures.
A, duty to issue isolation and quarantine orders.
A1, whenever appropriate to control the spread of a highly contagious communicable disease, disease, the state commissioner of health may issue and or may direct the local health authority to issue isolation and or quarantine orders consistent with the due process of law to all such persons as the state commissioner of health shall determine the state commissioner of health may issue and or may direct So we will continue here in a moment.
But I just want to point out, let's steel man their position here.
So this is a set of quarantine procedures that they are laying out.
And these are things necessary to control highly contagious communicable diseases.
So these are frightening things.
They are nothing to sneeze at.
They are things as dangerous, potentially, as the common cold, which meets that definition.
I just want to point out.
Highly contagious communicable disease.
So this... What they want you to do here... I am now no longer steelmanning.
What they want you to do here...
is mistake them for being extremely concerned about very dangerous diseases when the provision that they have laid out here isn't about very dangerous diseases it could certainly include them but it also does include these very same powers even to control the common cold now i find that uh
I think that they have actually telegraphed their desire to use these control mechanisms by not actually saying anything about dangerous diseases.
Um, and I would point out that the way that you would do that if you were actually serious about controlling dangerous diseases, now mind you, none of these things, these provisions would be justified even in the case of dangerous diseases for reasons that we can get to, but
The conflation in the public mind, just the same way you saw the public was confused by lots of talk of antibodies, because the public knows what an antibody is, but it doesn't really know what a T-cell is, this is also the same thing.
By saying highly contagious, that sounds very frightening.
What you want to look for is virulent.
That's the term that says that something is destructive.
Highly contagious just means it passes easily from one person to another, which is true of the common cold, which you certainly would not want to see civil liberties overturned to control.
It would be an absurdity.
And yet they've given themselves that power.
Okay, so your objection to the language of the paragraph that we just read, and you might actually put it back up, Zach, so people can see it again.
This is paragraph A1 from this Rule 2.13 that was just reinstated.
In the state of New York, it is about controlling the spread of a, quote, highly contagious communicable disease.
And your point is lots of things are highly communicable, but they don't matter that much.
And there should be no justification for invoking emergency powers simply for things that are highly communicable.
That is the wrong standard.
I would add what struck me about this first paragraph is the use not once but twice of the term appropriate, and I believe that they do not go ahead to define appropriate below.
In fact, they continue to use it.
I see it on, well, I'm looking at a different screen than you guys are, but I see it in paragraph four as well.
So, whenever appropriate to control the spread of a highly contagious communicable disease and then to all such persons as the state commissioner of health shall determine appropriate.
So we've got appropriate, which is entirely a subjective assessment, which I do not know.
I don't know if you found the basis by which this was struck down in the first place, but we do know the basis on which it was unstruck down this last week and a half or so.
Yes, I believe so.
We should dig deeper, but I believe that the reason it was struck down was that it clearly It clearly challenged well-established civil rights in an inappropriate way.
It was re-established, as you know, on the basis that the legislators who challenged it in court were deemed not to have standing, which is fascinating in two different ways.
There's a legal term, meaning.
Well, meaning... Not a term, a legal principle.
A legal standard, yeah, a legal principle.
And the idea is that you don't, you know, I can't sue you for your breach of contract with some third party, right?
So the idea is the court establishes that somebody is actually deemed harmed or jeopardized by some legal statute.
So that's unfortunately a civil example.
But let's take the case, which I think is in some ways parallel, of the National Defense Authorization Act 2012, which instantiated a right to indefinite detention that the executive branch could dictate that somebody was a threat and have them hauled off any street in the world and detained indefinitely without trial or the right to see a lawyer, any of these things.
Until hostilities end.
Until the end of hostilities, and hostilities of course in the war on terror, how is there going to be a moment where there's no more terror?
So basically indefinite to the end of time.
Now the reason I raise it is because Chris Hedges And, uh, Noam Chomsky actually sued the Obama administration over this and were deemed to have standing on the basis that at least Chris Hedges was in jeopardy because he had Interviewed members of Al-Qaeda, the way the provision was written.
He was actually in jeopardy of being hauled off of any street in the world.
And one degree of separation from established terrorists or members of terrorist organizations was sufficient to possibly get you hauled off.
It wasn't even one degree of separation.
There was a vagueness.
I've forgotten the exact term, but it was something like, you know, aid.
To a terrorist organization helping to publicize their existence exactly and I would point out as people who've watched previous podcasts know there is a special concern about anything that the executive self defines it's one thing.
Um, you know, if you had this provision, we can haul anybody off of any street in the world, but then a court gets to review it.
But by the way that the NDAA was structured, no court could review it.
In fact, they didn't even have to admit that they'd detained you.
And likewise here, there is, um, There is that same self-referential executive move, but if we go back to the question of standing, so in the case of the NDAA, Chris Hedges was deemed to have standing on the basis that he was in jeopardy from the law in question.
A three-judge panel later reversed it and reinstated the NDAA 2012 provisions in question.
In this case, the legislators who sued to prevent this provision from being enacted had their rights as legislators violated because this superseded, this was the executive taking power away from the legislature to make law.
This was the executive making law through its executive powers rather than allowing the legislature to do it.
So that was one thing, but also These are citizens.
They are in jeopardy.
Legislators are citizens first.
Legislators are citizens.
And so they are also in jeopardy of having their freedom to associate and their liberty removed.
When determined to be appropriate.
Right.
Now, amazingly enough, the court deemed that they did not have standing, which implies not only that their right as legislators to make law was somehow not even in legal question here, but that the harm done to you
only happens at the point that somebody decided decides to exercise their unconstitutional right to detain you right so you're not harmed until the actual thing is invoked but if somebody it's like
The court is failing to recognize that taking a right, the right to be free, and turning it into a privilege, that is to say you can only be free until we decide you can't be free, that that's not a harm in and of itself as long as you're still allowed to be free.
As long as we're granting you the privilege to be free, it's as good as having the right, which is nonsense, legally speaking.
Okay, so we've got a number of issues.
We've got the question, the weird case of a court not seeming to understand the most basic legal structures and requirements.
And we have what I'm arguing is not just the language of the rule is bad.
The rule would be bad even if it did say Virulent diseases.
We've learned, you know, and again, as I think we said last week, you should just simply run everything that is being proposed through the test of what would have happened during COVID if this provision had been there.
This is, I mean, we haven't said it, but this is patently responsive to COVID.
So this comes out April of 2022, a little more than just slightly more than two years after lockdowns were imposed in March of 2020.
So, you know, I don't think anyone is pretending that this isn't precisely responsive to COVID and therefore is imagined to be something that the state of New York anyway would have benefited from, would have behaved differently had this been on the books.
I agree.
It is obviously responsive to COVID.
The fact that it is going to be instantiated in law permanently without reference to a particular disease, we have another issue here, which is so much of the tyranny that we've seen has to do with the selective application of standards, right?
It's double standards all the way down.
The idea that the public health authority of the state of New York has the right to rob you of your freedoms and literally have you detained having committed no crime, I would point out, Also, they don't have to demonstrate that you're either sick or have been exposed.
They have written this in such a vague way that it's when deemed appropriate.
And what that means is that they can pick a disease and they can decide that in this case, you need to be locked up.
Exposed or not, sick or not, and then they can ignore it for other diseases.
So we have this obviously inconsistent concern over the spread of pathogens.
We are obsessed over COVID.
We are not similarly obsessed over flu, and we are not at all obsessed over human papillomavirus, right?
We're literally in schools now teaching kids about sex as if any reluctance about it is misplaced, when in fact there's a communicable disease that is transmitted highly regularly that has a very dire consequence, which is cancer.
Well, I would put a different spin on HPV, on the public health response to HPV, which is that, once again, like with COVID, what we have is a recognized pathogen.
a disease or condition that is downstream of that pathogen, and a solution that is created by pharma that we are told is the one and only way to respond to the pathogen and the disease.
And so, in the case of COVID, obviously, we have these so-called vaccines, largely the mRNA vaccines.
There were a few other options available, but largely what was being pushed on everyone was mRNA vaccines.
And to reject those, Many of us were told and still continue to be told, although I hear this less and less and less now, because most of the vaccine enthusiasts have quietly stopped doing their little boosters, right?
What we were told was, if you do not sign on to our solution, which is mRNA vaccines, then you do not believe in the problem that we have identified, which is a logical fallacy that is so basic that a two-year-old should be able to figure it out.
Same thing with HPV.
I would say, "You are saying the public health establishment doesn't recognize that HPV is serious." No, I don't think that's true because they've got a vaccine for it and they would have us believe that is the only, not only that it is effective, but that it is safe and that it is the only thing that you can do.
And they seem to then suggest that, you know, once you've got that, then you can behave any way you want.
And so, you know, the idea of behaviorally avoiding, or in the case of COVID, like using lifestyle changes in terms of getting outside and eating good food and exercising and all of that will perhaps bring your obesity and your metabolic disease and your diabetes all under more control such that you are less likely to be badly affected by COVID.
Similarly, with regard to HPV, how can you avoid exposure?
Well, you can avoid exposure, right?
You can avoid exposure.
But the issue with HPV, I agree with you that the narrative is, well, there's a vaccine That's how this is controlled.
When you look into that vaccine, you discover that it isn't such a simple story.
Of course not.
There are significant health risks.
There is a failure to stratify, in this case by sex.
And maybe more to the point, and the reason that I raised it without mentioning the vaccine, is that it has a limited coverage in terms of the strains of HPV.
I am not arguing that it's an appropriate response at all.
Yeah.
That was not the position that I was taking.
No, I know.
The position I'm taking is they're not ignoring it.
They have produced a solution that many of us believe to be, in fact, an anti-solution.
But this is how, you know, this is not ignoring it on the part of public health.
I'm sure there are things that are being actively ignored, but this isn't one of them.
This is another case of, no, no, no, we've got the solution for you right over here, and if you don't take the solution, you know, what kind of monster are you anyway?
Do you want to kill grandma, or in this case, young women, right?
Right, but I guess I now see public health as two things.
A lot of people that we know, a lot of COVID dissidents come from the public health sector.
Yeah.
That said, public health is the perfect excuse to go after civil liberties.
Because the idea is, well, medicine leaves something to be desired with respect to how well it treats over an entire population.
And as I've said a dozen times, in theory, there is a gap.
I no longer believe that this system can be trusted to do anything responsible with that gap.
What it does is it uses that gap as an excuse.
And so what we are left with is it, you know, the coup of public health against medicine has left you with terrible medical care and an inability to trust your doctor because they've been overridden by a public health authority that coerces them into saying things to you that aren't accurate or helpful from your perspective.
And it's not because public health is so obsessed with protecting the public.
That's just simply the fact that there is something called public health explains why you're overriding doctors, right?
So to use a medical pretext to override the normal law, and in fact I would point out that one of the things that it says in the law itself is that this will all be done in accordance with due process.
But the problem is How exactly does that work here?
For one thing, you've just seen an egregious failure of due process with respect to whether or not the legal provision itself is being treated with proper skepticism by the court.
Well, actually, I don't understand this.
So you read aloud paragraph one.
Paragraph two says, paragraph one of the subdivision shall not be construed as relieving the authority and duty of local health authorities to issue isolation and quarantine orders to control the spread of a highly contagious communicable disease consistent with due process of law in the absence of such direction from the state commissioner of health.
Yeah.
I think maybe that's simple and I'm just missing, I'm like, I'm not tracking it.
I puzzled over it myself.
I think I know what it says.
I think the idea is they are giving the Commissioner the right to pull individuals out of society and lock them up for reasons having to do with communicable disease.
The fact that the Commissioner has the right to do that to individuals does not mean that the system is relieved of the responsibility to lock down the population.
That this is not an alternative to lockdowns, that this is an addition to lockdowns.
Now, consistent with due process of law, the problem is they've set out such a broad authority here that it's not even clear what that means, and I would point out that, you know, As was the case with the FCC rule changes that we covered last week, the
The vision here is written so broadly that I couldn't even convince myself that they couldn't pull a person exercising their right to speak freely about their skepticism of either the nature of a disease, the seriousness of it, etc.
In other words, if they deemed you, if we run this through the COVID standard, And they deemed somebody, you know, like us, guilty of spreading misinformation for suggesting that their vaccines might not be perfectly safe, or suggesting that the disease itself might be better treated by a much safer alternative than the vaccines, whatever.
It's not obvious to me that their excuse here doesn't work.
that they couldn't quarantine you.
They isolate you in some facility and they carve out a broad latitude in terms of what an appropriate facility they could quarantine you at home, but they can also not quarantine you at home.
They could deny you access to the internet to keep you from jeopardizing the public health in their mind.
And of course, all of this is wildly unconstitutional.
And now here you have a court saying that the very people who are best positioned to make the argument don't have standing to even challenge it.
So, you know, it's, it's, it's the wish for more wishes.
It's, um, the abuse of theories of executive power that evade checks and balances.
It's all of these things wrapped in one.
Well, it feels, what you just said about what this might allow, feels very similar to what the WHO addendum, whatever it's called, the new referendum, the revisions to the established rules that are going to be voted on in May of 2024, with regard to expanding the scope of what they have access to.
And with the WHO, it was quite clear, they actually make it fairly explicit, whereas here,
When I re-read, so you just said, could they not use this to keep people like us, who are speaking about what a communicable disease is, how it transmits, who is most at risk, whether or not the proposed treatment is actually effective, could they not use this to stop us from doing what we do?
I think the language is vague enough that that's probably true.
Once again, paragraph one, which again you read already, whenever appropriate to control the spread of a highly contagious communicable disease, the State Commissioner of Health may issue and or may direct the local health authority to issue isolation and or quarantine orders consistent with due process of law to all such persons as the State Commissioner of Health shall determine appropriate.
Yeah, that's the phrase.
To all such persons as the Commissioner of Health may deem appropriate.
That's rather complete latitude to define threats to public health as they would.
Now I would also, all of these tricks need a name.
I don't have the name for this one, but there is some way of writing a legal provision so that a generous interpretation, it's the legal version of Maughton Bailey, a generous interpretation You are supposed to infer their intent from language, which suggests that their intent in this case is to control very dangerous diseases that may arise, right?
Whereas the thing in question says nothing about dangerous diseases.
It's not even in there, right?
So, you're supposed to impose that interpretation, and that is supposed to make anybody who's like, wait a minute, do you see how broad their latitude is, sound like a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist.
And the point is, that's even good if it slides it by, you know, the court and the legislature, and then at some future date, some future Anthony Fauci...
decides to invoke the aggressive meaning that does not involve quarantining people because they're sick.
It involves quarantining people because they're a threat to public health, meaning Anthony Fauci decides what information and misinformation are, and then convicts you of it in private.
And then the next thing you know, you're being hauled off to isolate you, not from spreading a disease, but for spreading insight on the internet, right?
Yeah.
So that's what courts are for.
And culture is highly communicable.
So communicable.
Yes, it is contagious even.
It is highly contagious.
But there's a reason.
When you go and you look at a piece of law, right, it is not written for the average person to just simply understand what's being said.
It is written in a Tortured way legalese is tortured for a reason and yes that can be used to obscure things.
You know the The legalese that's at the end of the documentation for some machine that you've just bought that's dangerous, right?
That's designed to obscure your understanding of your rights or maybe even the hazards in question But in the case of the law well-written law looks like that because it is supposed to be so Precise that it cannot be abused by somebody who decides they want to evaporate your civil liberties And this is the opposite.
And the courts are not reacting to it like, hey, you call that law?
Right?
No, we're striking that down.
Right?
It's the wrong people who made this rule.
And what's more, the rule in question is so broad.
Here are 16 ways it could be abused that do not appear to have anything to do with controlling the spread.
of an actually serious disease.
So, anyway, that's the world we're living in, is like, because the public is not in a position to detect the lies, it doesn't matter how many experts can see the lies, because what we're going to default to is the public interpretation, and the court is just sort of going to, you know, adhere to that.
That does seem to be where we are.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So I would suggest that people read up on this, The lawyer who fought this, who just had her previous stay overturned by the Supreme Court of New York, is Bobbi-Ann Flower-Cox, who has written about this on her Substack.
It was republished by the Brownstone Institute.
to.
Do you want to put that up?
So she describes the absurdity of this ruling and goes through a series of important questions that people are likely to have In part, what she's struggling with is that it is so hard to imagine that a court actually let this stand.
That processing what that implies is actually quite difficult.
And so anyway, she goes through it at length.
I think it's definitely worth people's time to read it.
Anything else you want to say on this topic?
Well, I would just say the one last thing is we are now seeing tyrannical modifications of the structures of society moving outside of The normal channels of rulemaking so that they, you know, the FCC is working on some change to its own authority.
Public health rules in New York are now establishing blatantly unconstitutional rights to sequester people for whatever reason they see fit.
The Hoon is now going to be granted the right to override national sovereignty.
It's hard to even keep track of all of the fronts on which the normal rights that are supposed to be protected by our excellent Constitution are being threatened.
So I would say people need to start paying attention to all of the little places where these rights can be whittled away without it seeming like a big deal, because that's the mode that has been adopted by whatever it is that has chosen to go after our rights.
Well, I think people are not aware of it.
I don't know that it doesn't seem like a big deal.
There's just too much.
I can't pay attention to everything.
So I think many people have, at this point, kind of thrown up their hands, like, what am I supposed to do?
What am I supposed to pay attention to?
I don't know anymore.
Right?
And I'm sure that this particular one will be regarded.
And, you know, I feel this way a little bit myself.
Like, oh my God, well… For the grace of God, you know, if I were that sort of person, like, I don't live in New York, although the governor of New York is, you know, on a par with the governor of Washington State, where we are, so who knows if it's coming down the same thing as coming down the pike for us.
But, you know, it feels like there's so much to pay attention to that it's hard to know where to turn.
A couple things on that front.
One, I do see people discussing, and I've actually been hearing discussions of it for months now, of people actually moving out of New York precisely because of this.
Well, and people, I mean, people have been fleeing New York since the lockdowns.
Yes.
And we've seen people flee California for other reasons.
Oregon as well.
I'm not sure about Washington, but Oregon has a net loss for the first time in a long time, this last year or two.
So the fact that people are fleeing one American state for another over changes in law or the powers of the executive branch in their state says that we're in a frightening period of history.
I would also say Lots of things are unclear about what it means that New York is going to have these powers.
Does that mean that we have to route flights around New York if we're going to travel somewhere and there's something contentious in the public health space and New York has carved out these rights?
Are we in jeopardy just because... You don't want to fly to JFK.
Yeah, maybe you don't.
So how extraordinary is it that one even has to ask that question?
in the United States of America in 2023, right?
That's a shocking question to have to ask, but there are so many of these things where we've seen powers exercised that are Almost impossible to imagine, right, from a perspective of five years ago.
So somehow we are decohering as a nation to the extent that one has to worry that some state has carved out rights, you know, and we saw this with reproductive rights as well.
There's concern about where you happen to be in the 50 states over major legal differences.
So, strange times.
I do think there is a way in which people are supposed to ignore this.
In part, it's because it's coming fast and furious at all different levels.
But in part, it's also because It is written so as to be boring.
It is written so that a generous interpretation makes it look like a well-intentioned attempt to protect us all.
And you have to read a little further to understand.
That if you were trying to protect the public from things that actually jeopardize it, you probably shouldn't have those rights in this case, but a well-intentioned attempt would look different.
It would have some sort of standard for the seriousness of disease, and there would be some way to establish that we were going to treat all diseases of that seriousness in the same way, and maybe We wouldn't establish these rights in the case of diseases that couldn't be controlled in these manners, right?
Are you going to quarantine your way out of a highly infectious respiratory virus?
Right?
I want to see a demonstration that that's going to be possible.
But the point is, what's really going on here is an abuse of power disguised as public health.
And we all ought to get pretty good at spotting that at this point, having seen what we've seen over the last several years.
Can we move to penguins?
Penguins is not a place.
Penguins is an idea in the mind.
It's a state of mind, yes.
We can move to that state of mind, yes.
Actually, first, before we talk about penguins specifically, Let's talk a little bit about the evolution of sociality, of being social, the condition of being social.
Most organisms, most animals aren't social, but it evolves in many organisms, as you know, especially in many mammal and bird species.
Under conditions where being social and cooperative in general has adaptive value.
To be social, you have to be able to recognize individuals.
And that's a little piece of the puzzle that doesn't occur to people who haven't thought about what it means to be social and under what conditions sociality might evolve.
Imagine being social with other human beings, but not being able to tell any of them apart.
Like, you know who you are, or maybe you have a sense of self, maybe.
But you can't tell any of the individuals apart.
You're not really going to be able to be social.
You can aggregate.
You can end up, you know, clustering together and maybe, you know, being together as, you know, a bunch of fish when a tuna or a shark comes by that wants to eat you.
But those aggregations are not social.
They're clumping, but not social.
So you need to be able to recognize individuals in order for sociality to evolve.
And we tend to take this for granted, although even in humans there are jokes about this, right?
And they're no longer considered acceptable.
But, you know, people joke about, you know, people outside of their ethnicity, kind of, all of you look the same to me, right?
This is not something that we're allowed to do anymore.
And yet we all know that there's a little bit of truth in, if you are a member of an ethnicity with whom I have very little exposure, Uh, at first, it may be true that I am less likely to be able to tell members of your ethnicity apart than members of my own, because I have more experience telling members of my own ethnicity apart.
Well, look, I'm, uh, you know, at the risk of being cancelled over it, I'm going to admit that I have this very issue, uh, with Antifa.
Yeah, that might have to do with the, uh, the cloaking device that they use.
Right, but they all do it, and then it's, you know, hopeless to tell who's who.
I'm not all that interested in telling who's who, but if I... That's one of the reasons Andy Ngo is doing such a service.
Yes, he has decloaked them.
Yeah, but no, so you have to be able to tell individuals apart in order to be social, and Being able to tell individuals apart can allow you to be cooperative, can allow you to be social, can also allow you to recognize, and this is just from the paper that I'm about to be talking about, some other reasons that it might be good to be able to recognize individuals.
Understanding where individuals are in a dominance hierarchy, like if you can't tell, if you exist in a dominance hierarchy and you can't tell who anyone else is, you're constantly going to be going up to individuals and doing the wrong thing, and either um, ceding a dominant position that you could have had because, um, because you're responding badly, or, um, getting clocked, uh, because you are, uh, engaging with someone who is actually higher in the dominance hierarchy.
Uh, you need to be able to tell individuals apart in order to, um, and this is, this was in the paper, and because one of our sons is, uh, here as our producer, I thought I'd just, uh, Read the phrase verbatim, allocating parental care efficiently.
So if you can't tell your kids apart and one of them has already gotten a lot of food, you might continue to give them food and not the other one.
Cutting back to the front of the line.
Yeah, cutting back to the front of the line.
So you need to be able to tell your kids apart in order to make sure that they all get equal treatment, if that's what you want to give them.
And of course, there are cases where people don't.
And then telling neighbors from intruders when engaging in territorial defense.
So these are all just examples from non-human organisms where research has been done and demonstrated that there is advantage in recognizing individuals, but of course all of these apply to humans as well.
So the question then is, how do we do it?
How do we tell individuals apart?
And we no doubt use many, many senses.
We use chemical senses, we can smell differences, and vomeronasal as well, sort of the larger form of olfaction.
We detect people by the sound of their voices, People can definitely recognize people by sound.
In fact, I had a couple people approach me while we were traveling recently and say, I didn't recognize you, but once I heard your voice, I recognized you.
And also, of course, we have language.
So we have names and in In social media we're often restricted to very few of these signals, but there will be like a little image and a name and we can use that.
But of course, as primates, most of what we do is visual.
Most of what we do is visual.
And that's in part because, although mammals are largely olfactory in terms of our dominant sense, primates have moved to having our eyes in the front.
We've got frontation, and now we can do, you know, binocular vision, and we've got this expansion of the part of our brain that focuses on vision.
And so we are really highly visually attuned And primates will tend to recognize each other on the basis of visual cues.
Birds, though, not so much.
Even though birds have these elaborate displays, these sexual selection displays, when it has been looked at, when people have investigated on what basis individual recognition happens in species of birds, it's often auditory.
And so there's some parrots that actually have effectively different names for their offspring.
They use different vocalizations for different ones of their offspring.
And in general, birds are known to cue off of different tenors, different songs, or timbres in different individuals.
So I would just point out that you could infer a lot of that from the fact that parrots are obviously trainable to get to make human-like vocalizations, which tells you that they have the discrimination capacity to detect these little differences.
So not surprising that that clade would be particularly sensitive to subtle differences between individuals' vocalizations.
Exactly.
So you can just show this picture briefly, Zach.
These are some African penguins who were the subject of some new research just published in Animal Behavior.
Just hanging out, walking.
I guess they're walking.
And they kind of all look alike-ish.
But probably even Even humans who aren't necessarily that good at telling penguins apart, which is to say most of us, can quickly see some differences between these different individuals.
What do you see?
Well, I see different patterns of dots.
Now, are those dots, is that in the feathers, or have they splattered themselves with something?
Nope, that's plumage.
That's plumage.
Yeah, those are dot differences across the chests of these penguins.
And this species is noticeably enough variable with regard to the pattern of these dots on their chests that these researchers, again published in Animal Behavior recently and then reported on in Science, specifically went and looked at whether or not individuals were telling each other apart by virtue of the dots.
And actually, Zach, why don't you just show the little video of the setup of the experiment and then I'll explain what's going on because the video is kind of cute.
And I think there's no sound for this.
So I'll just say for people just listening, you've got a penguin who has been encouraged away from his group into a little pen that is then closed behind him and And in the pen he finds two pictures, and I don't know if that was a he or a she, two pictures of penguins.
And then, as is so often the case with choice experiments, the amount of time that the penguin spends orienting towards and then approaching and spending time and proximity towards one of the images is what is measured and is considered, you know, that image that the subject of the experiment spends most time orienting towards and closest to is what is considered the preference.
So, what are the pictures this bird is looking at?
Do you have something to say first?
Well, I'm wondering if it was the dots in the pellage.
Well, but they did a number of things.
I don't know.
I don't know.
Feathers.
Feathers certainly works.
So they did what we just saw, and this is from a captive colony, and there were six monogamous pairs in this colony.
Interestingly, five heterosexual pairs, one male homosexual pair, and then at least one individual who's not paired up in this colony.
And so they took these six pairs And for each of the 12 individuals in them, they did a number of choice tests.
Is this a captive colony?
As I said, yeah.
And it's relatively small, right?
So in one of the choices, they show just a picture of the partner versus some other member of the colony unchanged.
The entire body visible.
With that experiment, the individual always prefers the partner, okay?
So therefore there is some visual cue for sure, right?
They're not just using vocalization or smell or something.
If they can see a picture and prefer to be with the partner, they're using vision somewhat.
They have another experiment in which – there's actually five, but I'm only going to talk about four here, five experiments.
The second one is they've got an unaltered picture of the partner, showing the dots and the whole body, and then they've got an altered picture of the same individual, the partner, but in which the dots have been cleared.
And in that choice test, the individuals always prefer their unaltered partner as opposed to the partner with the dots gone.
Okay, that doesn't necessarily tell us anything on its own, because maybe having no dots at all just feels like I don't even know who that is.
It tells you that they are registering the dots.
Right.
There's a third experiment in which they've got partner versus non-partner, but in both of the cases all the dots have been removed.
So maybe there are other cues that they're looking at, and maybe the dots don't matter, but when individuals are exposed to those, all body shots, partner, non-partner, but no dots, there's no preference.
They show no preference at all.
And then the fourth experiment, which had a clear result, they've got partner versus non-partner, and only the head is visible.
So they're only showing the head, and again, no preference.
Interesting.
Interesting, right?
That suggests that they're definitely using the dots.
Yep.
It does not rule out the possibility of other visual cues.
Such as?
What if, so these were all static pictures?
Yes.
So they didn't register.
What if, you know how you can tell who somebody is by the way they, even if you're not close enough to see who they are, by the way they walk?
Sure.
So if they, maybe the way these penguins run could be a cue, meaning that it would be a matter of dots and dashes?
No.
I mean, you will grant me that not only is that a decent pun, but it's also a valid scientific point, and so that's not all that common.
Yeah, so you think underneath your pun there is the hypothesis that they're communicating in Morse code?
Exactly.
Exactly.
Yeah, well, I have the communicating author's email here if you want to just email.
I think it was a her.
I feel like sending them this observation in Morse code.
Yes.
Anonymously, perhaps.
You know, perhaps.
Maybe that would be wise.
Yeah.
But, I mean, that's the research.
Both thought that the experiments themselves were elegant and really going down the line, telling you something real about what these penguins are paying attention to.
And it's also just an excuse to speak, you know, when we were professors, when I used to teach animal behavior, before I would talk about kin selection, before I would talk about sexual selection, before I would talk about the evolution of sex and why sex is binary and all of these things, I would always spend time first on, but in order for almost all of the interesting stuff we're about to be talking about to work, you have to be able to recognize who's who.
And this is such just a basic thing about humanity.
You know, primates can recognize who's who.
I assume, I doubt that the research has explicitly been done in every primate species, but I assume that all primates can recognize individuals within at least a family group.
They can tell them apart.
Yeah, I think the only questions would be certain persimmons, you know, mostly solitary persimmons, but I agree with you.
I bet you I bet you that they can all tell them apart and, you know, I mean with microcebus, for example.
Which is the mouse lemur.
It's, um, they're nocturnal, also tarsiers, um, bush babies.
But, but microcebus, mouse lemurs, of which I think there are a couple of species.
Yeah.
But, um, we saw them when I was working in Madagascar and, um, And I believe, correct me if you have a different memory of this, that you caught some on, photographically, on what at that point was film.
And because we were kind of following them around at night, we ended up feeling like, actually, it seems like these guys are monogamous.
And I think that my memory is that at least was not really being reported in the literature at that point.
They were believed to be solitary, right?
And when we found them, which was not a lot, but when we found them, it just takes a lot of work at night and everything, but I don't know if we ever found one without seeing another one close by and seeing what to our eyes looked like them communicating vocally between one another.
Yeah, I mean, we were obviously in one spot and a lot of it was in a unique situation because we were on a tiny little island off the coast.
So it may have been, you know, two pairs.
Right, but it was the experience that one often has with Stellaris jays.
If you see a Stellaris jay, which are not primates, you almost always see another.
And in fact, one will look out and make noises if something dangerous, a cat for example, comes by.
So, you know, you see one, but if you look for a second, you'll see it's true with many squirrels.
Balloons, which we now have migrating through here.
If you see one, if you look carefully, there's almost always another one somewhere.
So, that did have that kind of implication.
But the question is, if you were a microcebus and you're in the dark, well, maybe you recognize your partner visually, but it might be that you recognize the other members of the population more naturally.
Right, it doesn't need to be visual.
Individual recognition can be across any of these senses, and indeed we've then taken it to an additional cultural level of associating ourselves with names.
And gait is not at the sensory level.
I don't even know what to call that in terms of the modality.
It's not a sensory modality, but for sure, I would think that the penguins dashing and the humans walking across in a particular way, that you can detect people by their walk often, even from a distance.
Totally.
And we are all familiar, if you have a dog, that dogs detect who they're dealing with olfactorily because, of course, all dogs look alike.
I mean, unless you're very, very careful.
Dogs also don't get offended very easily.
I have had trouble offending them with words.
I don't think, I mean, all dogs, I don't think that's the way to offend her.
If you want to offend the dogs, you say, I just, I can't tell you guys apart.
Yeah.
Yeah.
No, I was just, I was kidding because dogs are the only creature, I think they vastly exceed human variation in morphology within species because of what we've done to them under domestication, but they certainly are highly variable.
They are highly variable, but I think the point here is that so are all organisms, even the ones that aren't social, that don't have individual recognition, but the ones that do.
What is it?
What are the cues that they're using?
And in the case of these African penguins, they're using those Yeah.
adorable dots on their chests.
And it does raise the question, you know, you asked when you first saw that picture, is that plumage or is that, you know, mud splatter?
Do they become less easy to tell apart for other penguins after they've been walking in the mud?
Yeah.
I don't know.
Could be, and And are they more inclined to clean themselves off because it's confusing?
By the way, I don't think all animals differ within species substantially.
I don't think gnats... I didn't say substantially.
I said there's going to be some variation.
I think even gnats don't care.
I didn't say that all animals have individual recognition.
I said there's variation between individuals.
Yeah, I was just kidding.
I'm not even disagreeing with you.
I just think if I was in that, I wouldn't care.
I mean, it's a very... Yeah, I think most animals don't care.
Yep.
I don't know what we're talking about.
Nats, mostly.
Okay.
So that's what I had.
I wanted to talk about penguin dots and their ability to tell each other apart based on their dots.
Cool, well that's exciting.
So tell me more, the African penguin, this is presumably South Africa?
I guess so, yeah.
I did not pursue anything more about the particular species involved.
Yeah, I would think so.
We of course ran into penguins in Galapagos where they seem distinctly out of place because of how warm it is there.
The Galapagos penguins are utterly delightful and I know a lot of people have a particular love for penguins.
My mother does, for instance, and I have never been anywhere where I could have seen them in person and didn't feel a particular fondness for them.
I didn't dislike them, I just didn't feel a particular fondness for them.
But snorkeling in Galapagos and having three penguins circle me and come up to my mask and then swim away and come up to my mask again, It was one of the highlights of life, honestly.
It was completely fantastic.
It's pretty cool.
Yeah, having penguins come right up to you and sort of look at you.
And maybe what were they thinking was, where are your dots?
Yeah, exactly.
Although those penguins, I have this picture, which is actually pretty good, but I don't like it because it looks like they're in a zoo.
The sand is so uniform that it looks like I've taken a picture of a penguin in a zoo rather than this is a wild animal.
You know, they're kind of unlike the rest of that clade.
They're much muddier in coloration.
The Galapagos version.
Yeah.
All right.
Well, I hope we haven't antagonized people.
I know penguins are very polarizing.
People feel very black and white about them.
Yeah, they keep on imagining they're in the northern hemisphere and they're just not.
Right.
It's hard to migrate that far with the matter of waddling.
All right.
I think you wanted to talk about something else.
Yes.
Alright, so we are at the final phase here.
I wanted to alert people that I am participating in a three-part peak prosperity extravaganza called Prospering with Integrity.
And if people want to find out about it, they can go to PEAK, that's P-E-A-K dot fan, F-A-N slash integrity, and they can see the three parts series.
If they want to participate in it, It will be me, Peter St.
Onge, I think that's how you pronounce his name, Ed Dowd, and Chris Martinson.
We'll be doing a three-part deep dive in more or less where the world is, why things are moving in the direction they are, and what might be properly done about it.
There is a discount code for Dark Horse viewers.
It is DarkHorse25.
That gets you 25% off the price of admission.
You can choose to do one of the three sessions if you want, or you could do a bundle of all three.
The code works for either.
And, if you want to save even more, you can join our Locals community as a supporter, and there is a code for substantially more than that off.
So, anyway, that's a good reason to join us on Locals, and whether or not you have joined us on Locals, join us on the Peak Prosperity three-part webinar.
When is it?
It's a great question.
December 9th is the first one.
December 9th is the first one.
Okay, so you got time.
You got time.
And then it's separated by a week?
I don't know yet.
Okay, so it starts on December 9th, but you can join now to get access.
You can join our locals now to get the code.
Yep, and Chris has a video in which he describes the intended activities, but I will just say that one of the things that we're going to do is we're going to divide into two teams.
One of the teams is going to steel man the position of the elites in all of their liberty-destroying glory.
We are going to take their position.
Are you going to draw straws to figure out who's on what team?
No, there is a part of me that's sort of hoping to be on the Steel Manning the Elites team.
I think I might do a good job of that.
Anyway, that could be kind of fun.
So, there it is.
I think it's going to be great.
Chris runs a tight ship and many of you saw him on the Dark Horse podcast or maybe you saw me on the Peak Prosperity podcast.
But anyway, he's a great guy and with him spearheading this, it can't miss.
Awesome.
Zach, do you want to just show the store once more before we sign off?
Yeah, so I think Brett, you need to just reintroduce Jake's Micro Pizza because I've been hearing about it from people and I'm not... there it is, Jake's Micro Pizza.
You want to talk about how awesome it is?
Jake's Micro Pizza is the best pizza you've ever tasted or your money back.
It is actually zero calorie, and that's not because we use low-calorie ingredients.
It's because the slices of pizza are so small that they don't have even a substantial fraction of a calorie.
So you can just keep eating them.
And one of the collateral benefits... Yes, you were looking at me askance.
That's not the way actual calories work.
That is how the FDA views calories, but we're using the FDA's standards now?
Because I don't know if I'm on board with that.
Well, let's put it to you this way.
If I say, uh, how many calories are there in one serving of some delicious organic figs, right?
We don't do fractional calories.
We do round.
Yes, I understand.
This is why the FDA does what it does.
Right.
But if you say there's no calories in one serving, that does not mean that there's no calories in a thousand servings.
No, no.
It's the rounding.
Oh, that's not what I'm saying.
I'm not cheating like that.
I am saying that these pieces of pizza are actually so small That actually nobody has figured out how many of them you would have to eat before you would go from zero calorie to one calorie.
And that's not for lack of effort on their part?
It may be difficulty finding them.
Again, they're very, very small.
What problem does Jake's Micro Pizza solve, Brett?
Two problems.
If you feel like having a snack, I don't think it does solve that problem, no.
Okay, not solve.
Wait, wait, wait.
Okay, no, I grant you it doesn't solve.
It addresses that problem without solving it.
Okay, fair enough, fair enough.
What problem does it solve?
Well, I don't know.
I have noticed that when I've been enjoying Jake's Micro Pizza, that had there been a mask mandate, this would have temporarily freed me from it until I was done eating, and they are so small that there's really no reason to be done eating.
You can just always be eating Jake's Micro Pizza, and if you're not a fan of mask mandates, Very good.
Yes.
in some incidental way free you from having to abide by one.
I mean, you would be abiding by one because you'd be eating, and we all know that mask mandates do not apply when you're eating.
So get yourself a carton of Jake's Micro Pizza and a shirt to explain to others why you don't have your mask on.
Very good.
Yes, precisely.
Okay.
Yeah, we've got a lot of cool stuff there on the website.
Do Not Affirm, Do Not Comply, Epic Tabby, all that.
Go there.
Find cool stuff.
And there will be, I think, another guest episode coming out before we see you next?
Yes?
On set?
Hopefully.
Soon.
And join us on Locals.
Join us.
Join us.
I don't know what's happened to the screen here.
Join us all sorts of cool places and we will be back next week, same time, same place, and follow up the live stream with a short episode on possible gifts along with a, can I say it?
A playlist that you are generating, right?
Yep.
I feel like you did it.
Yep.
So why do you look scared?
I'm not.
Nothing's scared about me.
All right.
So we'll get back to that next week.
And remember that we are supported by you.
We are grateful to you.
We appreciate you subscribing and liking and sharing what we do.
And until we see you next time, be good to the ones you love, eat good food, and get outside.