Who Wins & WHO Loses? The 227th Evolutionary Lens with Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying
In this 227th in a series of live discussions with Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying (both PhDs in Biology), we talk about the state of the world through an evolutionary lens.In this episode, we discuss the failure of the WHOs Pandemic Preparedness Treaty—what it means, what the world did right, and what Goliath may have learned from the experience against a scrappy band of emergent Davids. Also: who cheats in high school sports, who does not, and what the Washington State Track and Field mee...
- Hey folks, welcome to the Dark Horse Podcast livestream, We are your dark heaths in residence.
I am Dr. Brett Weinstein.
You are Dr. Heather Hying.
It's number 227.
It is number 227.
I think I forgot to mention that.
And now people don't even know that I didn't know what number episode it was because we just covered it so seamlessly.
Yeah.
Another prime.
Another prime.
Here we are.
End of May.
Lots of good stuff to talk about.
End of May.
And I should just say, um, I don't know if it shows on screen.
I'm slightly swollen in the forehead.
I yesterday hit myself.
That's not metaphorical.
No, I hit myself in the face with a two by four.
It was a Cedar two by four.
For those of you who care about these things.
Um, I was putting it up to get it out of the rain and it slid back and hit me in the forehead.
And so.
You're blind to be in the rain.
That is one interpretation.
I will just say, as far as hitting yourself in the face with a 2x4, one star, do not recommend.
It was not the best part of my day, by far.
But anyway, if I appear swollen, that's what's going on.
And you should see the 2x4.
It's unscathed.
That's probably true.
All right, so we're here a day early on a rainy, cloudy, foggy day in the Pacific Northwest.
Yeah.
And we had some glorious, glorious spring weather that felt like summer, and now it's back in like early spring, late winter weather, except it's all green out there.
It's unusual.
It's unusual.
It does kind of make you appreciate the glorious weather.
Oh, always.
So we're doing our usual Watch Party on Locals.
Please consider joining us there.
We've got lots of good stuff there, including our Q&As.
We're not going to have a Q&A today, but we will next week.
And we do also at the end, the last Sunday of every month, lots of good stuff.
Please join us there.
And also, as usual, we have three sponsors right at the top of the hour.
Seed, Maui Nui Venison, and Sundays this week.
You can be sure that if we are reading ads, it is for companies that we truly vouch for, and this week is no exception.
Our first sponsor this week is Seed, a probiotic that really works.
If you've tried probiotics before and felt no benefit, try Seed.
Learn to trust your gut.
If it's telling you something is off, it probably is.
Seed can help you get back on track.
Do you pay attention to what you put in your body and avoid synthetic ingredients?
Do you only want to take products that are backed by extensive and careful research?
Then Seed may well be for you.
Seed supports the health of your gut microbiome, helping you become healthier overall.
One of the unique things about seed is that it is double hulled, with its capsule-in-capsule design, engineered to maintain viability through your digestive tract until it reaches your colon, which is where you want it.
That 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, make a habit of taking seed to improve and maintain your gut health, and don't take a break when you travel, because that can be exactly the moment when you need a healthy gut microbiome the most, and when it's hardest to maintain one.
And Seed's subscription service means you need never run out.
Great gut health means relief from digestive discomfort, bloating, and occasional constipation.
Seed also supports the integrity of the intestinal barrier, promotes a healthy microbial environment in the gut, and helps you maintain clear, smooth, and healthy skin.
Seat is a broad-spectrum probiotic and prebiotic formulated with 24 clinically or scientifically studied strains for benefits across the body.
Seat is also free from 14 major classes of allergens, including but not limited to sugar, animal products, soy, gluten, peanut, glyphosate, dairy, shellfish, and corn.
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 trust your gut with Seed's DS01 Daily Symbiotic.
Go to Seed.com slash Dark Horse and use code 25DARKHORSE to get 25% off your first month.
That's 25% off your first month of Seed's DS01 Daily Symbiotic at Seed.com slash Dark Horse.
Use code 25DARKHORSE at checkout.
It's trust your gut, your innovation.
Bloogenweiser, did we inherit that?
I don't remember.
It might have been mine, I'm not sure.
It's pretty good.
Trust your gut.
Yeah.
Anyway, I like it.
Yeah.
Might have been them.
They're great.
They're likely to have come up with it, but I don't remember.
Our second sponsor this week is Maui Nui Venison.
Maui Nui Venison brings the healthiest red meat on the planet directly to your door.
We love this meat and the mission of the company.
The meat tastes amazing, has extraordinary nutritional value, and is easy to cook.
And the company, Maui Nui Venison, is both environmentally and socially responsible.
No, really.
Maui has a population of Axis deer that are invasive.
Maui Nui Venison is helping to restore balance to vulnerable ecosystems and communities in Hawaii by harvesting a limited number of these deer.
They are seeking to restore balance to Hawaii and not eradicate or farm these animals.
Maui Nui Venison harvests a limited number of animals, always with a USDA official in attendance.
And they do so in a way that is stress-free for the animals, harvesting fully wild meat in a completely unique way.
Maui Nui hunts exclusively at night, using forward-looking infrared technology to give them eyes in the dark.
This allows them to hunt with such precision that only the animals targeted are impacted by the hunt.
Plus, Maui Nui venison has donated over 16,000 pounds of meat to Hawaiian communities that have food insecurity, amounting to over 43,000 meals distributed.
Research out of Utah State shows that the meat from Maui Nui venison is the most nutrient-dense and protein-dense red meat available on the market.
This is nutrition of place.
The deer live on volcanic-rich soils, which support remarkable plant diversity, and the deer engage in true wild grazing, all of which give Maui Nui venison the highest protein per calorie, up to 53% more even than grass-fed beef.
We highly recommend trying their all-natural venison jerky sticks for an optimal protein snack, or their amazing bone broth, or any of their wide variety of fresh cuts, all available in their online butcher shop.
Now, Inui Venison delivers the healthiest red meat on the planet directly to your door.
So, go to mauinuivenison.com slash darkhorse to get 20% off your first order of fresh venison jerky, bone broth, or even their special ohana box subscriptions, which, like the deer they harvest, are limited in number.
That's m-a-u-i-n-u-i-v-e-n-i-s-o-n dot com slash darkhorse to get 20% off your first order.
Do it today.
You will not regret it.
It's fantastic.
It is really, really good.
Now, Heather, our final sponsor is Maddie's all time favorite.
Yeah.
It's Sundays.
It's one of our favorites, too.
And if you have a dog, it's likely to be one of yours when you make your dog this happy while giving her amazing food that is good for her.
What's not to be thrilled about?
Sundays makes dry dog food, but it's not the standard issue burnt kibble.
The standard high-end dry food that we were feeding Maddie pleased her well enough.
She's a Labrador and Labs will basically eat anything.
But it turns out that Maddie does discriminate.
She loves the food that Sundays makes.
Seriously loves it.
If we run out of Sundays and give her the previous high-end kibble instead, she's clearly disappointed.
This is really true, by the way.
We should be giving her Sundays.
She knows it and we know it.
Sundays is the only human grade and we do mean human grade.
We've tested it.
Some of us humans have tested it.
We, I as a subset of we, have tested it and therefore we have tested it and it is human grade.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Best I ever tried.
What grade you gave it?
uh five stars do recommend unlike hitting yourself in the face with a two by four c earlier discussion indeed okay um but it turns out that maddie does discriminate oh wait i lost my place um sunday Sundays is the only human-grade, air-dried dog food on the market.
Air-drying combines the best of cooked and raw approaches.
Air-drying preserves nutrients and taste, just like raw food does.
Better than raw, though, Sundays' unique air-drying process includes a kill step, which kills pathogens.
So unlike freeze-dried, raw, or frozen dog foods, there is no food safety or handling risk with Sundays.
And Sundays has no artificial binders, synthetic additives, or other garbage.
All of Sunday's ingredients are easy to pronounce and healthy for your dog.
Your dog will not find them easy to pronounce, but that is a matter for another time.
It is far better for your dog, and ours too, than the standard burnt kibble that comprises most dry dog food.
Sorry, reading is a struggle today.
Happens.
Yeah, it does to me more than to some.
One word of caution.
If you've got cats, they are likely to want Sundays too.
Our own Epic Tabby has broken into Sundays on occasion, much to the dismay of our Labrador, who keeps her dismay to a dull roar.
She looks balefully at us when we find the cat eating her food.
Yes.
Making the implicit argument that it is our fault, which it is for having left it accessible.
But I digress.
Sundays is an amazing way to feed your dog.
There's no fridge, no prep, no cleanup, no wet dog food smells.
It's a total pleasure for the human interacting with it, which is a bonus.
In the blind taste test, Sundays outperformed leading competitors 40 to 0.
And our own little anecdote, Maddie, our Labrador, supports this result.
She doesn't support the result.
She behaves in a consistent manner with the result.
She bounces and spins and leaps in anticipation for a bowl of sundaes.
And now you're laughing at me.
We're writing the results section of a paper now.
Way more than, yes.
I will go back to the beginning of the sentence for those who may have lost track.
She bounces and spins and leaps in anticipation of a bowl of sundaes, way more than for her previous food.
Do you want to make your dog happy with her diet and keep her healthy?
Try Sundays.
We've got a special deal for our listeners.
Receive 35% off your first order.
Go to SundaysForDogs.com slash dark horse or use the code dark horse at checkout.
Switch to Sundays and feel good about what you are feeding your dog.
Yes.
All right.
So you once tweeted about Dark Horse.
I did.
Intentionally.
Intentionally.
Seeing if you were to rile up some people and maybe drive more traffic.
Did it work?
Um, you know, let's put it this way.
A lot of people noticed it, but I don't know that it had any significant impact, but I'm glad to have carved out that piece of territory so we can return to it if need be.
Yeah.
Okay.
Excellent.
So this week we're going to talk about winning and losing, and winning and losing, and dreams.
Yeah, I would say that's what we're going to talk about.
The Who Pandemic Treaty, competition in high school sports, and dreams.
And dreams.
All right.
Can we start with the Who?
Yes.
Okay.
The WHO and I don't know I I know that we call it the WHO and I know a lot of other people do but I also know it sometimes confuses people and search engines because the WHO is obviously an epic band in addition to a now tyrannical global health organization.
But we are talking about the World Health Organization and the remarkable fact as announced I believe yesterday Uh, of the failure of the WHO pandemic treaty.
Now, for those who have been following us, you will know that we did a segment, our first segment on the WHO pandemic treaty.
Do you have the date?
Mm-hmm.
It was livestream 197.
We titled the episode, Who's Your Daddy?
Yes, we did.
Which streamed on October 17th, 2023.
And it was responsive to a John Campbell video from September, which was itself responsive to a speech by Swiss lawyer Philip Kruse, both at the Health and Democracy Conference in the EU Parliament in September, and another one that he gave in July of 2023.
Yep.
All right.
What appears to have happened as of yesterday, at least as I would phrase it, we won.
And I believe we won against spectacular odds.
Let's take a step back and say what it was.
That's all in the agenda.
Feel free to take us wherever you think we should go next.
The WHO pandemic treaty was under negotiation along with amendments to the international health regulations.
The whole mess was so convoluted and boring that it was almost impossible to figure out what it was that they were doing.
And in fact, They engaged in many shenanigans over the course of the negotiations, changing the names, having drafts in secret that we couldn't see.
There was all kinds of stuff done to just cause any rational person to walk away because you couldn't even tell what the status was at any moment.
Nonetheless, as of yesterday or the day before, as a vote was approaching in Geneva at the World Health Organization, Tedros... The vote will have been by member states, representatives of member states.
Right.
And Tedros announced that the attempt to reach agreement had failed.
The treaty is dead.
Yeah, hell yeah.
So the treaty, if we treat the treaty and the International Health Regulation amendments as one unit, they are not, it's not as simple, right?
Again, part of the game here is to prevent us from knowing what's where, right?
The International Health Regulation amendments are still alive, though heavily Amended in response to the pushback that we have I believe triggered to happen by bringing awareness to this issue But the sum total the 30,000 foot view analysis is that the what the World Health Organization
largely at the behest of the United States and China, was trying to do was to create a framework in which the World Health Organization, at the sole discretion of the Director General, could declare a pandemic over absolutely anything that it wished to call by that name.
And that having declared a pandemic, that this would trigger requirements of all of the member states to do what the who directed and Things that were included, some of this is so shocking that it's even been lost.
I was talking to one of the prime movers in the movement against this treaty, and he had forgotten that the initial draft of this thing actually included in the named medical remedies that the WHO wanted the right to impose on citizens of signatory and he had forgotten that the initial draft of this thing actually included in
They literally said not only did they want the right to mandate vaccines, they also wanted the right to mandate gene therapy, which would, of course, include mRNA, so-called vaccines, and it could also include editing of your genome.
The World Health Organization actually wanted the right to edit your genome if it decided that was a good idea.
So among the things in this package were the ability to mandate drugs, vaccines, gene therapies, the ability to redistribute materials globally in favor of what they were calling equity, which the ability to redistribute materials globally in favor of what they were calling equity, which So the entire package I believe was designed so that in a rematch over COVID,
The globalist authoritarians would simply win across the board.
Everything that went wrong for them during COVID that caused them to lose control of the mainstream narrative, that caused people to become aware of the dangers of the therapies that were being mandated on them, to become aware of the drugs that they had at their disposal that were truly safe and effective.
They didn't like how badly things went for them during COVID, and this was their attempt to fix all of the things that had worked against them.
And in so doing, what they were really up to was something analogous to the Five Eyes Partnership.
The Five Eyes Partnership is a security alliance.
um that allows countries including the United States, Britain, New Zealand, Canada to violate the rights of their own citizens by Allowing another state to violate the rights of those citizens and then trading the information.
So if you imagine that our Constitution prevents our government from doing things like spying on us, but it doesn't prevent us from hiring some other government to do the spying, that's a way of getting past a constitutional prohibition.
This treaty was the same thing.
The idea was the founders of the U.S.
and the other states of the West did not envision that there would be some quasi-governmental authority above our national authority.
And so if you find the rights that citizens have as a result of a well-structured constitution to be galling, one thing you can do is say that that's not the top authority.
Imbuing the who with these special powers was really an attack on constitutional freedoms by people who had grown sick and tired of, you know, discovering that those things couldn't just be wished out of existence.
So that's the 30,000 foot view level.
Did you add something you wanted to?
Yeah, just to put a little more flesh on a couple of things that you said.
Article 1 of the proposal, which again is now dead in the water, Adds cell and gene-based therapies to the health products that they list as things that they might recommend.
And the advice from the WHO is no longer to be considered non-binding, which of course means that it would be binding.
And one more thing, This would have been an amendment to an existing document.
The existing document reads, the purpose and scope of the regulations were limited to, quote, protecting, controlling, and providing response commensurate with and restricted to public health risk.
And the proposed changes change that to all risks with the potential to impact public health.
So this reminds me of, frankly, the NDAA that Obama oversaw in 2012, was it?
2012?
It was the NDAA of 2012, which was signed on the last day of 2011.
2011, okay.
Okay.
Which effectively said, you know, terrorism is the biggest threat that we have, and we can pull anyone off the streets anywhere until hostilities cease, right?
And so this is similarly, well, you know, we're going to use a big scary word.
Everyone's scared of terrorists.
Everyone's scared of pandemics.
And we're going to hide a bunch of stuff under that by saying, Nothing to look at here.
we get to redefine what a pandemic is or remain vague about what terrorism is, in the case of the NDA and the AA of 2012, which then allows us to do the work that we want to do.
Right.
And so vagueness is used as a feature where you hear that the government has carved out some incredible powers relative to terrorism.
And you think, well, OK, that's probably not good, but you would have to be engaged in something that looked like terrorism before it mattered.
And then years later, you find out that malinformation is a kind of terrorism and you don't put the two together.
You don't realize that somebody has carved out the ability to do anything they want at any time they want for any reason they want.
And once again, malinformation has been precisely defined and malinformation is true things the state views as not good for the state.
Yes, true things that cause you to distrust the state.
Amazing how the vagueness works.
But so let's let's go through a little bit more of the material so people can just see where we are.
Can we maybe let's show Tedros' strange admission of defeat on the treaty, not the health regulations, by the way.
My wish is We will come out of the Assembly re-energised, inspired.
We will try everything, believing that anything is possible, and make this happen.
Because the world still needs a pandemic treaty.
And the world needs to be prepared.
Because many of the challenges that caused a serious impact during COVID-19 still exist.
Still exist.
Starting from equity, for instance, was the center of this negotiation.
So, still exist.
And we should really prepare the world.
So, let's continue to try everything and anything is possible.
And as we always say, if there is a will, there is a way.
So I'm still positive, to be honest.
Despite the outcome.
That's what I am.
That's what I believe.
What does that mean?
He's speaking extemporaneously and it's not all that clear, but what does that mean about equity?
Um, I mean, I think two things.
I hear two things.
One, I would imagine there must be some kind of a competition for who can put the most platitudes in a paragraph.
And I think he's a strong contender here where there's a will, there's a way.
Yeah.
Well, he lost the treaty, so he's going to, you know, he's going to be most congenial or something.
Right, something.
But the equity thing is interesting because I remember it's one of the easy things to lose sight of, you know, how equity was infused in that initial document.
It was actually, wasn't it?
And I think what this is, is it is the use of a... Oh yeah.
Yeah, it's all over there.
Article 3 principles did read, you can show this if you want Zach, the implementation of these regulations shall be with full respect for the dignity, human rights, and fundamental freedoms of persons.
The proposed changes included the implementation of these regulations shall be based on the principles of equity, inclusivity, coherence, It's all over.
accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities of the state's parties taking consideration they're sort of like you know they use the word coherence in a totally incoherent sentence um anyway yeah it's a few on the basis of equity solidarity um and financial mechanism for equity and yeah yeah it's all over it's all over and what i think it is is there are a couple years past the the sell-by date
but it was certainly true that anything that had the equity label was very difficult to oppose because you immediately got accused of all kinds of defects of character like racism if you opposed it So, you know, okay, this is not only is this a bureaucracy, this is a global bureaucracy, so it's really slow and they haven't caught on to the fact that nobody responds to that term the way they once did.
Yeah.
So they've used it here just the same way, you know, the beginning of the of the COVID so-called pandemic.
The term anti-vaxxer was highly effective at just clearing the decks of anybody who had questions about what was being developed and proposed.
By the end of the pandemic, That was quite different because people had seen they'd experienced harms.
They knew people who had experienced harms.
They were spooked.
And so the point is, well, what kind of argument is that exactly?
So anyway, these things, as they get abused, they lose their power.
And so I think the equity thing is just, you know, strangely conspicuous in 2024 in a way that it wouldn't have been in 2020.
Yeah, I mean, the summer of 2020 was a disaster in so many ways.
George Floyd died just about four years ago now, right?
It was maybe the last day of May.
And that spawned protests and riots, both.
You know, where we were living at the time, Portland, 100 straight nights of, 100 straight days of protests, 100 straight nights of riots.
But also, before I'm trying to think.
No, I guess it was after George Floyd had died and all these protests are happening.
So we're not talking about the riots now, but the actual peaceful protests that did happen on a lot of streets in the country.
There were all of these healthcare workers who signed something saying that racism is the true pandemic and that protesting on the streets is safe because mumble mumble mumble.
Now it turns out what no one was talking about, with the exception of a few people including us, was that actually being outside seems to be your best mechanism for staying safe.
And so these protests did not end up, you know, prompting big outbreaks.
But, you know, a month earlier, there had been protests from the wrong political side in which people were protesting against lockdowns and against businesses being shuttered and against basically, you know, these were people who were early to say, you know, these governmental intrusions into our freedoms are unconstitutional and we are going to protest to stop.
And, you know, those were declared to be, you know, really dangerous from a public health perspective.
But it turns out that viruses think carefully about whether or not the politics of the people protesting are amenable to the people in charge and therefore do or do not infect based on politics.
Yeah, the number of elements of magical thinking Around viruses the walk to the table with the mask take it off all that stuff Was all pretty pretty remarkable But yes, I think they've just used every trick in the book and some of those tricks are laughably out of date, but they don't know that yet So anyway, that's that's what I think equity is doing there so let's The treaty is dead for the moment.
Of course, Tedros believes that where there's a will, there's a way, and anything is possible, and six other platitudes.
Zombaya.
Exactly.
So anyway, I wanted to address a couple things.
One, I do think that this was a spectacular against all odds kind of victory.
The degree to which this seemed unimportant was going to fly under the radar and be passed because that was the momentum was profound.
It seemed inevitable, honestly.
It did.
It seemed inevitable.
I think, um, when we did our episode, I felt we were arriving late, um, that this thing already had so much momentum that it would be unstoppable.
And I remember, you know, as you and I, I don't remember the exact details of how it happened, but having seen John Campbell's video on it, becoming aware of the true depth of what it was and grappling with Oh my god, Goliath wants a rematch and it wants rules that would allow it to win a rematch on every front.
Right?
It wants to be able to silence Kilrogan.
It wants to be able to transfer Ivermectin to far-flung parts of the world so you can't even get it.
Right.
It wants to be able to do all.
I don't remember that.
I don't know what that's.
Well, that's my guess, because one of the provisions involved the right to redistribute drugs and other materials to where they were needed on the basis of equity.
And so there's no way that in the same scenario that it wouldn't just simply mandate that those things be delivered to places where there's river blindness so that you wouldn't be able to access them anywhere else.
I'm not sure about that, but it's, you know, there's a lot of coded language in there and we can't know what all they had intended.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Even if they didn't intend it when they got there in the rematch, that's what they would discover is that they had the power to do it and they would do it.
So anyway, The point was, though, we felt that we were arriving late and that there was already a tremendous amount of momentum.
But I remember a discussion between you and me, and the discussion was, we have to derail this because once it has been passed, the ability for us to fight the battle necessary to repel all the provisions, it will be unwinnable.
And so anyway, we put a lot into Trying to turn the tide on this even thinking that it wasn't likely to work.
So what I want to get to now is I want to talk about how to think about What has taken place and what it means, and I want to counter something and it's frustrating.
I can't find a really great example of it.
I've seen a million allusions to it, but there is a reaction to this victory.
There's a very correct reaction, which is the treaty is dead.
The amendments to the International Health Regulations, though they've been tremendously weakened, is still technically alive.
They could pass something.
It could mean nothing.
They could pass something and it would help them a little bit.
But the chances that the international health regulations might pass are significant, but they don't contain what they contained back when we became so profoundly alarmed.
So let me just clarify that what I was reading from with regard to equity and and such was from the original compilation of proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations to the 2005 International Health Regulations.
And so I do not have the updated like what what how they have further weakened that what I have is the document as it existed in mid-October of 2023.
Yep.
I think a new draft came out.
As the failure of the treaty was announced so I've been trying to get that draft, and I haven't seen it Yeah, Zach.
Do you want to show my tweet from yesterday?
So anyway, I just wanted to show this because it will at least give you a sense Or a conflict.
So I said, we have won a decisive victory against tyranny at global scale.
The failure of the WHO pandemic treaty is a clear defeat for Goliath and a demonstration of David's true power.
Congratulations to all involved and to every free person.
Let's finish the job, which it turns out is a slogan of Biden's.
I did not realize.
But let's finish the job.
Hashtag defend the West.
What job is he trying to finish?
Yeah, he's trying to get to lunch, hoping that there will be ice cream.
OK, so can you now scroll down into the responses?
Keep going.
Oh, wait.
Top one.
Second, it may not be over, Brett.
And then there's an allusion to the the Internet.
Yeah, the amendments.
OK, keep scrolling.
Keep going.
Keep going.
There's a whole series like 10 in a row of people saying, OK, there's one victory goes back.
Victory will be when and if these monsters are all arrested for their crimes against humanity.
Next one, the treaty won't go away.
It will change anyway.
So imagine that those of us who are arguing that this is a major victory.
Are running into and in fact many dissidents are saying actually this isn't a victory these people don't stop it's going to come back Yada, yada, yada.
I want to put this in context so people People understand it.
I'm not saying that victory is not that these people are done.
Okay?
This is a victory That was surprising These people will not stop the kind of people who dream of having this kind of power over citizens, especially at global scale will be that way for the rest of their lives.
But what I want to point out is that the failure of the treaty because the signatory states.
Became aware of the hazard because their citizens were alarmed the Failure of that treaty is an admission of weakness They don't like to admit weakness.
If they could have watered this thing down so much that it meant nothing and still passed it so that it looked like they had strength, they would have done it.
But they couldn't pull it off.
So there's a thing amongst wolves when they battle, right?
The losing wolf reveals its jugular vein.
It is showing its weakness to end the fight.
It doesn't want to fight to the death.
And so by giving the winning wolf the power, then the point is there's no reason to continue the battle.
It's an acknowledgement.
It's a white flag.
Yeah, it's an acknowledgement.
And so I'm not claiming these people aren't going to do this again.
Of course they will.
There is no way that they're revealing the weakness of their position by admitting defeat on this document is not evidence of a profound victory for us, and I think a very surprising one.
So anyway, should we stop being vigilant?
No.
Should we, you know, ignore the international health regulation amendments?
Of course not.
But should we treat this as the victory that it is?
Yes, not only because we deserve to celebrate it, But also because the most important thing here is that we learn the correct lesson of what tools we have at our disposal, how they work, how to wield them, how to turn the tide when the odds are against you.
And if we look at this like, oh, it's nothing, they always, you know, they're always You know, playing a shell game, then we won't learn the lesson of what we accomplished and we won't be any better the next time, right?
So anyway, this is an arms race.
No doubt they learned the lesson of how we beat their treaty, right?
They will be better next time.
So we need to at least learn the lesson of how we did this so that we can have a sharper tool again next time.
Will you show Meryl Nass' tweet here?
So I'm going to get to a discussion of all of the various contributors to this win.
Meryl Nass was one of a small number of people who were tracking the progress, the details.
This is one of the experts on this process.
This is somebody I know her in person.
I also quite admire her and what she's done over this treaty.
So she says with three exclamation marks that whose pandemic preparedness plan is over the entire prepare Pandemic preparedness project has been rolled out through lies and stealth globalists created legal documents that are replete with euphemisms and flowery language always Disguised to hide the documents true intentions, but we saw through them and didn't let them get away with it You want to keep reading I'm having trouble seeing it Oh, sure.
Uh, you're on the third paragraph?
Yeah.
And that is... Oh, third, yeah.
And that is what they are doing today, attempting to make people think they can still pull it together.
They don't want you to savor this sweet victory.
But they are not stopping me from pulling out the corks and dancing.
The treaty cannot be resurrected from the ashes.
It is not a phoenix, despite what some want you to think.
This was the foundational argument for the treaty.
As negotiators are fond of stressing, quote, nothing is decided until everything is decided.
I heard this over and over and over as I watched the proceedings and read about the negotiations.
Yet the phrase is hard to find today with regard to the who.
I suspect the thought police have scrubbed it from the search engines.
So, nothing in the treaty can rise from the ashes of the negotiations to be voted on this week.
The treaty is done.
People now understand what it was about, what was in it, and how it was the first step to a one-world government.
They have said no to all that.
What about the IHR amendments?
While it is true that some articles in the amendments had the agreement of negotiators and could be voted on, the agreed-upon items were not the dangerous ones.
They tended to be the flowery-language ones, not the meaningful ones, with a single exception.
Interestingly, the negotiators were fine telling nations to surveil their citizens and combat misinformation and disinformation, i.e., they were fine with censorship and propaganda.
This, however, should not surprise us, since nearly all of our governments are already surveilling and propagandizing us.
So while this provision is odious, it really doesn't change anything.
Nations are trying to legalize surveillance and censorship, using linguistic tricks like calling truth, hate speech.
The U.S.
government hopes to overturn the First Amendment, freedom of speech, and the Supreme Court, where Missouri vs. Biden is headed.
This is another battle we need to win.
Soon, I hope.
It is a major one, because control of information is the absolutely essential piece the globalists must hang on to in order to succeed.
Yeah.
you can read them for yourself and see it was agreed what was not agreed don't be fooled we won the first round in the war of democracy versus one world government it is time to celebrate yeah hell yeah meryl um that's powerful Really, really appreciate what you did.
And I think one of the lessons which we'll get back to is that the world is never going to understand what you did.
For reasons that I will make painfully clear, but some of us do know what you did and appreciate it.
All right, so what I want to do is put this in the context of the toolkit that we develop here on Dark Horse, which I think is really significant.
I want to call a couple of things that Dark Horse viewers will be familiar with.
I want to put them on the table so that they're useful.
Yeah.
First one is emergence.
Emergence are processes that are a feature of a collection of things that you wouldn't necessarily deduce from the individual things.
And what happened here was a matter, I'm going to argue that we have this myth of David and Goliath, and Goliath, the force that opposes all meaningful change, is at least partly an emergent property.
It's not an individual anymore, right?
There really probably was a Goliath, a pituitary tumor giant.
He wasn't defeated by David, he was defeated by a guy named Elhanan, but the story got turned into David versus Goliath.
And the point is, Goliath is no longer an individual, and David also isn't an individual any longer.
David is an emergent property composed of many individuals.
So anyway, emergence is one of the things that I want to put on the table.
The other one has to do with something you and I say in an educational context all the time, which is that it is very important that an education include interaction with physical systems in which success and failure does not require somebody to tell you.
Right?
If you are trying to troubleshoot an engine, it either starts or it doesn't.
Right?
Nobody tells you, you know, if it doesn't start and your teacher says, good work, your teacher is not giving you information.
The engine gives you information.
And so what I want to argue here-- - It's not your, how you were doing is not socially negotiable.
You can't talk yourself into having succeeded when you did not.
- Yeah, and you can't talk-- - Just because the audience, just because some audience is like, yeah, good job.
You did or you did not do an actually good job. - Yep.
And in the collapse of the academy, we are watching the demonstration of why a truly educated person needs to have had that interaction with an unambiguous physical system.
And the reason is because if you just have social authority, if you have some educated person at the front of the room who tells you when you got the right answer, And if that person is a moron, if that person is subscribed to some school of thought that isn't true, then the point is you will, you know, they will keep giving you a fish for saying stuff that's wrong and it will make you dumber rather than smarter, right?
The engine can't make you dumber rather than smarter.
You know, the worst you can do is not learn anything, but you will presumably learn things at hand.
That's a fair point.
But anyway, the idea is feedback is the coin of the realm with respect to getting smarter.
And that's true for the individual in the context of education.
It's also true for the emergent David, right?
David has to have good feedback.
And so, Goliath knows this.
And Goliath is trying to pollute our understanding of what we accomplished so that we don't learn the lesson correctly.
I'm not telling people, you know, some of my favorite dissidents are very cautious about this victory because they've seen so many dirty tricks that they just don't know what's going to come from where.
But you can't, we have to not, we have to not talk ourselves out of understanding what we accomplished.
Right, and celebration is not an invitation to rest on one's laurels.
Recognition of success is not an invitation to stasis.
There can be no stasis.
We have an interlocutor, a Goliath interlocutor, who will not be static, who will change its game.
As you have said many, many times, the major advantage that an emergent David has against an emergent Goliath is, being smaller, it's more nimble.
It's more able to redirect at the point that it sees opportunity.
Goliath can't redirect as easily, but with each one of these things, it becomes more Knowledgeable, although I think your point about why is equity showing up in such an important way in Tedros' comments and in the document, I think should give us hope, actually, because it does point to the slowness of response of global-level bureaucracy.
So I keep having these discussions with other prominent dissidents and one of the things I find myself saying to them when they say why.
Why what?
We're constantly talking about why this happened, why that happened, why did it do this, why did it do that, why did it fail to do this other thing.
And the thing I keep resorting to, which is it's too blunt an instrument, but I keep finding myself saying Goliath is a big dumb giant, right?
And what I mean when I say that to myself is that don't underestimate this guy's power.
Tremendously powerful.
Giant.
But dumb, right?
The point is, it is capable of discovering that you have a new weapon and doing something about it.
But anticipating changing its game, it's slothful.
And so, you know, your point about the equity thing is exactly right.
This is this is you're watching a dim-witted, very powerful entity.
And you've got to understand that one of our advantages is that we're little and nimble and smarter.
And our advantage is not power, right?
It never will be.
It's always going to be powerful.
So we have to fight with the advantages we've got.
Nor is the advantage likely to be using Goliath's tools as well as or better than it does.
Perhaps using Goliath's tools in ways that it has not imagined, but that's going to be tough, creating our own tools.
So exactly as you say, Goliath doesn't anticipate.
It is the changing environment in which the Davids do best.
So this is another tool I want to borrow from the toolkit.
There's some reason, I'm not sure I even really know, I have a guess, but I don't really know why it's true.
But a lot of things, when you hit on an important fact, you will find that it suddenly breaks into a fractal.
And the point is, oh, That important fact is not only correct, but I see it at a bunch of different scales.
Sure.
Right.
So the point is the lesson, the wrong lesson here is we didn't win and it won't stop.
Right.
That's that's the lesson it wants us to learn.
Right.
This is futile.
Right.
You just beat it against all odds is a lesson it doesn't want us to learn.
So it's going to try to confuse us about that.
But the point is, what is The global the the World Health Organization pandemic treaty and the amendments to the international health regulations They are Goliath learning from our last victory, right?
That is what it is These are the rules that it wants so that in a rematch it would win every set.
Yep so The lesson is hey, we won the last time it learned and now The one of the things that we did well the last time is we learned something about our own victory, but we're about to screw that up if we learn the wrong lesson here.
So figuring out what David turned out to be and how it worked and realizing that that exact play is probably not going to work next time.
The point is, hey, we just won two rounds.
Not only did we defeat their narrative during COVID, But we've now defeated their rematch plan.
Does it mean they won't try again?
No, of course they will.
But the point is, let's be smarter next time, right?
That's two rounds for us, so I'm gearing up for round three.
So, alright, what do we know about Emergent David?
And I just want to point out a tiny number of people, I don't really have a good guess as to the number, but a tiny number of people actually turned the tide here.
And I want to put them into a few categories, okay?
These are just people that occurred to me this morning in thinking about who had played a role that had made a difference, right?
Okay, so we've got... These are probably not in any sort of reasonable order, but one category.
Maybe actually I should save that category.
Okay, let's start with us.
Um, we've got science educators.
Okay.
We learned from John Campbell that we were missing something on the international stage at the World Health Organization.
So John Campbell, you and me, some others are playing a role.
Now it might not be the thing that we most want to be doing in life, but we are playing a role of taking complex material, making it intuitive and getting people an ability to understand what's at stake.
Yep, sometimes called popularizers, but science educators.
Yeah, science educators, I think, is a fairer term for it.
Okay, you've got some politicos.
Senator Ron Johnson stands out to me as somebody who has understood the stakes, has put politics aside, and has played a very important role.
In fact, the Senate hearing that I went to several months back, I met some of heroes from abroad that he had actually brought to the US to speak in the Senate, including Robb Ruse, Philip Cruz, who is a lawyer.
So Robb Ruse is a member of Parliament, a Dutch member of Parliament.
People will perhaps know him from a famous confrontation he had.
With a Pfizer exec where he confronted them and he asked, did you even test this thing for transmission?
Yeah.
And she famously said something like, no, no, no.
We had to move at the speed of science.
That's right.
So that famous interaction, right?
That's Rob Ruse.
So Rob Ruse was doing something in Europe that was tremendously important.
Philip Cruz was a lawyer who testified in the European Health and Democracy Conference in September of 2023 in the EU Parliament.
Do you actually want to show that Rob Roos clip?
I have a Rob Roos clip that I hadn't seen.
It's relevant.
Yes, the WHO, people think that it's a government organization, but it's not.
Most of all, it's a private organization funded for 80% with private money.
And with this, W.H.O.
pandemic treaty or the 300 amendments that they want to change the international health regulation, they circumvent our democracies because the W.H.O.
has then the right to declare the pandemic and they have also all the right to end the pandemic.
So they can decide when there is a pandemic and when this pandemic will end.
During that time, they can impose all kinds of regulations.
For example, lock up the people in the United States at home, to impose medical regulations in Spain or to have a mask mandate in the Netherlands.
And this is a development we should not have.
The national parliaments should always have the last say if there is a crisis, not some All right, so a couple of things.
where people are working and we cannot hold them accountable for what they are doing.
All right, so a couple of things.
Go ahead.
Oh, the bit about it being 80% privately funded?
The Who being 80% privately funded?
I did not know that.
That's remarkable.
And it raises, I mean, it raises the specter of funding everywhere.
And some of which we've been talking about, you know, the idea that
Research universities in the United States are public versus private, but in many ways the public ones are actually more funded by the citizens because they are getting not actually that much from the states usually, certainly the ones that we know about, and a lot from tuition, and at least the smaller schools are often not getting as much from research grants, and the private schools, the elite schools, are getting a ton of their money
From government outfits like NSF, NIH, DOD, etc.
And so, what is private, what is public, then messes with our ability to apply constitutional thinking to things like free speech.
And the WHO, 80% privately funded?
I'd like to know who.
I'd like to know who exactly is driving that.
You once you do know you see how this whole thing works, right?
This it is saturated in Pharma money Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation the villains of kovid right control this entity welcome trust probably yeah Yeah, so the point is oh once you get that it all makes sense and wait What powers do they want?
They want the power to declare a pandemic and mandate a vaccine which means That they want the ability to force Governments to pay for a privately produced vaccine and force it on the public right this is such an obscene abrogation of even just basic market principles it's it couldn't be worse and the whole idea is that We walk around every day thinking, what's the World Health Organization?
Oh, it's some supernational governmental body.
And the answer is, well, that's not what it is.
And if you understand what it is, right, if it was called the Pharma Collective, then you'd laugh them out of the water.
Just the idea that they want that right.
Like, who the hell are you?
So, all right.
So we talked about science educators, We've talked about some politicos, both Americans, internationally, dissident experts, and I want to highlight three.
Kat Lindley was on the Dark Horse podcast, so people may be familiar with her, but I also want to point out Meryl Nass, whose tweet we just read, and David Bell.
These folks have played a role that is uh it is destined to be lost to history because they did the hard legwork of tracking the shell game and figuring out what was actually on the table when and all of that and anyway um Greatly appreciate their efforts.
It's really I don't think we would have won if they had not done what they did.
Internationally, Musako Ganaha, who is now a friend of mine, she was on the Panama trip that Zach and I We're on she has done a tremendous job raising awareness in Japan.
There's a very strong resistance movement in Japan that is wouldn't have expected to see it but That's that seems surprising.
I think Japan's Reluctance about this process actually may have played a decisive.
Yeah Decisive role and then I want to get to the last category Which is the mega channels.
So as the world has changed in light of the internet and YouTube and all of this, channels of independent media people have emerged and they have eclipsed the major mainstream channels.
And of course Joe Rogan, Tucker Carlson, Russell Brand.
These are people with huge reach and they ain't corporate.
Yeah.
Right?
They're their own bosses.
So the power that they have to put stuff on the agenda is utterly profound.
Now, I do want to There I run a risk saying this here because it's gonna sound like self-obsession and it really isn't but The trajectory you and I learned from John Campbell that we had missed something important when we looked at it directly It spooked the hell out of us.
We covered it on Dark Horse, which only has so much reach and I then reached out to Tucker Carlson and I said, do you know about this?
And he said, only vaguely.
And I told him what was going on.
And he was like, Oh my God, do you want to come talk about that?
And I did.
So I got on an airplane and, um, that interview, I know you want to show a couple minutes of it here.
So you're saying that an international health organization could just end the first amendment in the United States.
Yes, and in fact, as much as this sounds... I know that it sounds preposterous, but... It does not sound preposterous.
The ability to do it is currently under discussion at the international level.
It's almost impossible to exaggerate how troubling what is being discussed is.
In fact, I think it is fair to say that we are in the middle of a coup, that we are actually facing the elimination of our national and our personal sovereignty.
And that that is the purpose of what is being constructed, that it has been written in such a way that your eyes are supposed to glaze over as you attempt to sort out what is under discussion.
Okay, so I know from feedback that I have gotten, right, when I went to the Senate and spoke there, I met people that I knew of in the dissident movement who I'd never met or spoken with.
And I know that that interview had global reach.
Many people told me that it had turned the tide in their country, that people were suddenly aware of something that they had not been aware of before.
Fantastic.
But my larger point here is How did we win?
Okay?
I think that interview was decisive.
And I think it was decisive because it had reach.
Right?
I do think I have a talent.
You and I both have it, but I have a talent that I applied here.
I'm good at taking complex material, making it intuitive, and also helping people understand why it's important.
Yes.
Right?
And it worked in this case.
It changed the number of people who were aware that something profound was taking place and that their natural instinct to ignore it was going to result in massive hardship down the road.
Okay, it's important to learn that lesson.
I think what I am struggling with is that there is a contrast.
That interview actually produced a It produced a more negative reaction for me than almost anything else I've ever done.
Reaction back to you.
It caused an allergic reaction amongst many dissidents.
Okay.
In particular, I said something.
It wasn't something I planned to say.
Well, you know, it's a thought I had had, but I phrased it in a way that may have just triggered people.
And then Tucker Carlson's people edited some Clips into the video over my audio that may have put it in a context that I didn't even know about until I finally saw the clip.
But I said that Goliath had made a terrible error, that he had thrown out all of the competent people who had courage and integrity, and he had in so doing created a dream team on the outside.
Right?
I still believe this is a very important fact.
People reacted to that comment as if I was declaring myself in charge of a dream team.
They reacted to it, uh, they basically started theorizing that I am part of some new attempt by Goliath to recapture control.
You know, a limited hangout, blah blah blah blah blah.
Whatever it is.
Now, I think you talked about this shortly after it happened, and I may have said on air that time, but the idea of you jostling for control is laughable.
Not my style.
It's not what you want.
Yeah, it's not.
It's just not.
But I think the point is, okay, You can imagine that the failure of the WHO pandemic treaty is part of a trick, that it was planned all along, designed to make certain people look like whatever they are supposed to look like.
Or you can wake the fuck up and you can realize that actually, no, we just want a victory and that we can learn from it.
And really what I want people to understand is that a small number of us Without getting together and deciding how we were going to do it, figured out how to operate an emergent machine sufficient to get across the finish line here, right?
That is the lesson.
How do you, how does the team assemble on the battlefield in battle and coordinate, right?
Well, and I think part of what you're saying is that there was some coordination, but largely there was not coordination.
Largely, the advances were done sort of with, you know, a step here, a step over there.
There was not some overarching plan.
And so when we are asked, as we are asked over and over and over again, Um, you know, to what do you attribute, uh, the move on the part of the authoritarians and how they're getting, you know, is, is, is this, you know, a conspiracy or several conspiracies, or is it this sort of organic thing that's moving through the world?
And, you know, the answer is, you know, it's both.
It's not, it's not a conspiracy, but, you know, there's certainly conspiratorial elements, but there's also just organic evolution of things that are working for Goliath.
But that's going to be even more the case when you've got, you know, your ragtag band of Davids.
Yeah.
Because once you do start to organize, those plans, at the point that they are static, become knowable by Goliath, and Goliath will be able to respond to anything static.
Yeah, totally.
That's what Goliath is going to do.
Right.
There's some sort of general lesson to extract here.
Now one thing, I believe if we think about what they were trying to do.
The who?
The World Health Organization and whatever dark forces it represents, and I do believe I think Tedros is just a bureaucrat, but I believe that the forces that fund that thing knew what they were doing.
They were trying to create a global authoritarian control architecture that they had designed with a certain amount of care.
Yeah, the people who actually want control don't put their faces on the front of their brochures.
Right.
He's the front man.
And it's not even clear that he knows what he's the front man for.
Shades of CDC.
Yeah, exactly.
All of these entities are going to have some hapless bureaucrat who puts a human face... NIH with Collins, maybe?
Yeah, totally.
But he was also in Cahoots.
Yeah, he was more witting than many.
So you've got a success, a surprising success.
It implies something about our capacity.
The response amongst many is you're in on it.
You're part of a limited hangout, whatever.
And it is important not to If we try to say what the magnitude of this is.
Okay.
Forgive the analogy.
It's super crude and imprecise, and I'm sure there's a better one, but we talk sometimes in philosophy about what you would do if you had a time machine.
Do you go back and kill baby Hitler?
Right?
Well, okay.
Let's say that there's at least a strong argument that you go back and kill baby Hitler.
How does history record that?
Well, it doesn't.
Right?
You're a baby killer.
That's it.
That's what history sees.
Yeah.
So the point is, it's not like you do that and the world, you know, puts a statue of you somewhere.
The world doesn't know what to make of it because it doesn't know what bullet it dodged.
I don't think the world knows what bullet it dodged here.
Right.
And this is why you're saying that the dissonant experts, like Meryl Ness, are not going to be remembered or recognized for the utterly critical role that they played.
How could, how could they be remembered for what they did?
They can't.
Um, so anyway, the sum total, the last thing I want to say on this is that I would like the people, the dissidents who have been sniping at me and at us and at Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan and all of these people, the people who've been saying, Oh, you guys are, you know, you're part of the new mainstream, blah, blah, blah, whatever.
Right.
If we were, would we have just defeated this treaty?
I don't think so.
I think your hypothesis that we are part of some new control architecture was just tested and it was falsified.
What's more, I think you will have a hard time doing something That prevents more misery than we just prevented.
So I would say to all of those people who have taken up this petty infighting and sniping at other dissidents.
You've got your work cut out for you.
Okay?
We've just accomplished something important.
It's not the result of any individual's action.
People did what they were good at.
We figured out how to coordinate enough to get it done.
And we accomplished something that took a plan for global tyranny and derailed it.
Okay?
So, you don't get to snipe at us until you've got something like that as your contribution.
And I'm not saying that the dissidents who are sniping don't have their contribution.
Some of them do.
But in terms of how much good you've done for humanity, I don't think you get to snipe at anybody who participated in this in a significant way until you've got, you know, a similar basis on which to claim that you've protected humanity from something.
All right, I'm gonna get off my soapbox right there.
All right.
So ends winning and losing part one.
Yes, part one.
Now part B.
Part two.
You know, you say that.
I'm looking at these divisions in high school sports in Washington.
1B, 2B, 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A.
And, you know, I think you are part of the naming commission on these divisions because it's deeply confusing.
I'm just traumatized by those naming conventions.
Okay, so winning and losing part two for today.
We're going to talk about high school sports, specifically track and field in Washington State.
There were two of the state track and field meets for Washington this last weekend.
I was lucky in the end.
I was lucky to be at one of them.
There are, one is for small schools and one for large schools.
There's three divisions at each.
Actually, I'll just show this even though this is not the main point.
Wow, is that, yeah, so you can, why is it doing that?
You can show this, Zach.
So this is just, in high school sports in Washington that are competitive, there are six different classifications or divisions based on the enrollment size of the school.
And so if you're in 4A, 3A, or 2A, with school sizes being at 450 students for 9th through 11th grade, up through as big as you get, you end up at the, and you make it to state, which of course you've been competing all season, and then you get to regionals, and then you know,
Depending you know maybe top two for your event at at regionals and or districts ends up going to state then you end up at this large school and if you were to school with 450 or fewer students in 9th through 11th grade then you end up in one of the divisions at the smaller school division so you can give me my
Screen back here so that's all you know when you say I'm going to state it sounds like you're going to the state event and you know it doesn't turn out to be the case which I didn't know I learned a lot this weekend about the way that high school sports are now now being run.
Yeah, I do not want to derail us, but I think the logic of this is, I don't know what the explicit logic is, but it's fascinating to think about.
Well, actually this, I was going to divert us here briefly, like why, why would there be six different divisions?
Like, why don't you just have, why don't you just throw everyone into a pot and have them all compete with one another?
And I think that there are good statistical reasons for this.
And I've never heard anyone explain it explicitly.
But basically, when you pull from a larger population at a larger school, you expect to hit the tails of the distribution out further along the edges.
And we're not seeing the kids out the left end of the axis in terms of whatever it is that the event that they're competing in is being measured for.
But a larger population is more likely to get the faster kids, the longer jumping kids, the higher pole vaulting kids, etc.
And there will be exceptions, as we will talk about here.
But if you want kids who happen to be at small schools, either because they're at elite private schools, which tend to be smaller, or kids from districts with lower population density.
And so they're rural high schools.
They're high schools like our son goes to, which isn't exactly rural, but it's kind of rural-ish.
We have no stoplights.
We have two stoplights on our island, right?
And you want them to be able to compete and actually, you know, experience competition at more than just the hyper-local level, then you split up the competition by division based on population size.
Population size of the school.
Okay.
But this is, I mean the whole thing is interesting.
It's actually one of these fractal questions.
Yeah.
Because this is also the reason to have women's sports.
And you're old enough to remember when women's sports didn't have men in them.
I played women's sports when there weren't men in them.
When there weren't men in them, right, which on the whole was bound to be better.
I played high school volleyball.
We have no men.
But if you don't want all the women to get shut out by the men, you create a women's division for the same reason that you have a smaller schools division.
But here's the confusing part of this.
The kids who have the misfortune of going to the bigger schools are already getting smoked by the kids at the farther edge of the distribution.
So you restore a kind of fairness at the school level that you do not create at the individual level, which is interesting.
There's a fish and pond issue, right?
Which, you know, this is something that we used to tell our children a lot when we lived in Olympia.
Like, you know, you, you may be really excellent at this, but remember that you live in a little town and you know, this little town is not the world.
So big fish, little pond.
Wait till you get into a bigger pond and you'll see what the other fish look like.
Right?
Yep.
There's also an argument to be made that this, Because it means that there is state-level winning to be done in the smaller schools, that it gives the smaller schools an incentive to distribute.
That, in other words, if you were at a small school and nobody ever went to state because it's not a large enough population to reach far enough into the tail of the distribution, then the point is there'd be very little incentive to participate in those sports.
And so, by redistributing the amount of winningness, to those smaller schools the students are served better yeah actually in that way it does very much match the original intent of title nine yep uh to you know by distributing some availability and encouragement for sport somewhat more widely You get rural kids, you get women.
Now, the interesting thing that I saw, because I was at the small schools one, is that the small schools attract not just the underfunded rural and low-population density public schools, but also the elite private schools.
You actually end up with two very different populations of kids.
I didn't know the names of the schools, and I couldn't tell while I'm watching the competition, which was extraordinary.
But then when I'm looking down, like, oh, right, most of the schools that were doing extraordinarily well across the board were private schools.
All right, one other thing that belongs on the table here is that if you're talking about how to solve these problems, and you know, if this were 20 years ago, we could talk about the problem as an equity problem without dragging in all of the nonsense, right?
What is the most equitable way to distribute the winningness in order to incentivize everybody to participate who might be able to do it?
It is interesting that there is an exception.
outlier in terms of how you address this issue that is Ultimate Frisbee, which you and I have talked about before.
Yes, I've written about it.
Yes, absolutely.
And so the point is in Ultimate Frisbee, you can actually redistribute this within a game and it is dependent on one fact, which is that it is self-enforced.
And so just to make this clear for people, you can have men and women, strong and weak, young and old.
You can have people of very different skill levels, as long as you are playing such that you line up against somebody who is similarly matched, right?
So the teams redistribute in informal ultimate so that if one team is much stronger, a strong player will be moved.
And then you line up across the line and you follow around the person of similar skill.
And so the point is, actually, that's a very strange solution, but it works really well.
So, and it's, I mean, yeah, we could, we could spend a long time on this, but we both played a lot of pickup frisbee, including a lot of summer league and.
I captained a number of summer league teams, which were all co-ed.
I did not.
But you played on summer league teams in Ann Arbor, and I also played on the University of Michigan women's team for a couple years as a grad student.
And in so doing, as we traveled to various events around the region, I got to watch not only play a lot of Women's Ultimate, but also watch a lot of Men's Ultimate, and played in some other competitions not associated with universities, and then played a ton, a ton, a ton of both pickup and co-ed, more formal co-ed in terms of Summer League.
And A, women's games are not very interesting.
They're a little ponderous.
They're a little too polite.
There's a lot of emphasis on making sure everyone handles the disc.
The throws tend to be short, but they tend to be fairly technical.
The men's games are full of drama, but it's brief, and there is no focus on making sure everyone gets a hold of the disc, and they tend to be long hucks into the end zone, with one guy running and laying out at the end with a spectacular catch, or not, in which case there's a turnover, and then it's the same in the other direction.
Now, these are stereotypes, and, of course, they don't all go that way.
And, you know, my friend and yours, who was on the team with me, Tony Antonia, On the women's team in Michigan, both liked to throw long and lay out and run hard.
And we were always a little bit challenged by the slower pace of the women's games.
Whereas co-ed, Ultimate, actually works.
It actually really works.
And it isn't going to appeal to you if what you really want is the particular way that women's games tend to go or the particular way that men's games tend to go.
But it's got the best of both worlds.
And most team sports, you just can't do co-ed.
You're lying to yourself if you think you can, but you can with Ultimate.
And it's fantastic, but I will say that what, you know, so you can, in pickup, you basically, you know, it's not about, yes, you want to win, you know, at the point that you're all getting ready to go, and it's like, okay, well, let's do a game to three.
You want to make sure that those teams are relatively evenly matched, because otherwise, what's the fun?
What are you doing?
Right?
You didn't come out, you didn't wake up that morning going, okay, I don't know who I'm going to play, but I'm definitely going to beat them.
That's not the point.
The point is the game and the sport and the athleticism and the camaraderie and the competitiveness of it, but not the thing that I want to do is win no matter what.
So when you go to pickup, and I'm sure this is true in basketball, like in any kind of pickup games, if the teams are obviously mismatched after a few points, you're like, OK, come on, let's come back together and shuffle it, because it's not working.
But sometimes, if you've got people doing pickup who have a lot of experience with the game, they'll want to do, so what you're talking about, lining up and you do man on defense, you basically line up from someone who you think is your relatively equal match.
And that works.
But if you have a team who wants to throw a zone defense at you, and even one of the members of the team Really doesn't know what's going on, then that's a way to win.
Yep.
And so a way to basically, you know, cheat the ultimate system, which is really frowned upon because it's the self-refereeing game, is to go like, okay, well, yes, we've got players at different skill levels and man on, we could probably, you know, man on defense, we could probably do okay with each other, but if we throw a zone defense at them, we're going to be able to get them to drop the disc and then we'll get it.
But if it's windy, what else are you going to do?
If it's windy, what else are you going to do?
So anyway, all of these considerations are real, and none of them obliterate the fact that men are going to beat women if that's all you have.
And if nothing else, all else being equal, a team from a larger school is more likely to beat a team from a smaller school.
Probably.
My guess is like we could do this a number of ways.
OK, if you've got a team entirely of seniors versus a team entirely of freshmen, the team of seniors is likely to win because they've got more experience and a little bit more like they're not they're not at peak.
They haven't peaked their athletic ability yet, but they've got more experience.
But they were also probably higher on drugs and.
Oh, true, true, true.
And thinking about how they're going to waste their lives in college.
Yeah.
So anyway, there's a number of ways you can split these things, right?
But yeah, so six divisions in the state of Washington split between two state meets for which the track and field teams at every school have been working since, gosh, I don't know, when did practice start?
April?
March?
Something.
And our son Toby, our younger son Toby, made it to state in two events, and their team did not do brilliantly, but that's not the point here.
Simultaneous with me being in Yakima, which is where the small school state event was, which I will say more about, there was the big school event happening in Tacoma, where a boy who calls himself Veronica Garcia won the girls 400-meter race with a time of 55.75, a full second faster than the fastest female.
Apparently, when he got to the podium, people in the stands booed him.
Good job.
You know, in general, I don't, you know, I'm not into that.
But you know, what else are you going to do if failure after failure after failure has happened to allow this dude with a frankly, you know, good but not Winning, in terms of male times, time in the 400 meter is allowed to compete against the girls.
Well, as you've said many times, it's cheating.
Booing a cheater is different than booing a winner you don't like.
Exactly.
So the Oregon State Track and Field Championships that happened the previous weekend, and I was Interested.
I was already long since slated to go to the event in Yakima, and I was very curious to see if any such thing would happen.
And, you know, I got the okay from our son beforehand to make a scene if I needed to, if it did happen.
And he said yes, but there was nothing at the small school event.
And I had several conversations, some explicit, some implicit, with a couple of coaches and several parents, only a few of them from our school, but from, you know, just people I met there, which revealed that nobody, at least who I was talking to, and these weren't any at least who I was talking to, and these weren't any people who knew me from Dark Horse or I was just there as the parent of a competitor.
None of them were okay with the madness.
And this came up in part because, and I don't want to jump the gun here, As it were.
But there was a truly phenomenal female athlete at the Yakima event, someone who I just felt so privileged to watch.
I got to watch her in five of her six races, three prelims, and two of her final races.
She's also a jumper.
And I feel certain that we'll see her on the national stage because her times are incredibly fast.
And that points out that sometimes, even at a smaller school, you have Phenomenon right you you have you have athletes that are just incredible so I will talk about her in a moment But I wanted to say that this this dude Veronica Garcia who showed no understanding of what sport is or dignity or honor by Trouncing a bunch of girls in the 400 meter with a time of 55.75 that time of his
Our son Toby, who just joined track and field this year, and just at the last minute for districts was put on the 4x400 relay.
He was the anchor in the 4x4 because he's fast, but he hasn't been training.
He's never basically run this race before.
A month ago, his team didn't come close to winning.
They actually got DQ'd.
They actually got disqualified because someone stepped out of their lane at one point.
Stepped out of their lane after handing off the baton.
It's a technicality.
It's a technicality.
It wasn't Toby.
They weren't going to win anyway.
But they did give him his split time.
And he doesn't know it precisely, but it was in the low 55s.
Which, again, remember that Veronica Garcia, the boy who beat the girls in the large school state meet, had a time of 55.75.
Which means that our son, who's been running this race for a month, who's fast, but he's not going to be on the national stage running the 400.
That's never going to be what he's doing, I don't think.
Would it be this dude who's pretending to be a girl?
But of course, well, I'm sure Toby would be happy to run against Veronica Garcia.
He would never be in a competitive situation, and he would be happy to, you know, fooling around, run against girls, right?
Just to see what everyone can do, because that's good for us, right?
But the idea of calling it a competition, and having it be refereed, and allowing this dude on a podium with a bunch of girls... No self-respecting.
Young man, who is an athlete, who understands sportsmanship, who has dignity, who has honor, would ever do that.
And that is one of the big lessons that I think we need to be shouting from the rooftops about these cheaters, is that they may have some physical skill.
They clearly do.
But in no other way are they doing anything worth honoring.
Nothing.
Nothing.
Um, this actually reminds me of something.
I was listening.
I'm not going to have the names.
I was listening to one of the most recent Joe Rogan podcasts and he interviews two guys on brothers on AI.
It's really good.
It's frightening, but it's really good.
It's one of the more insightful AI conversations I've heard.
And they're talking about all we don't know about the way the AIs work and what we're discovering about the ways they screw up.
And one of the things they, is it Goodhart's Law?
I'm not sure what the name of the law is, but there's a law that says, it's represented as a law, that once you establish something as a metric to evaluate success at something, the metric loses its value because people learn to game it, right?
And the AIs do this.
So if you train them to To look for affirmation then they will learn to trigger affirmation without the thing that should trigger the affirmation.
So what we are looking at in this case is we are looking at somebody who thinks the objective is not to demonstrate superior athletic ability.
The objective is to get on the podium.
Right.
If the objective is to get on the podium, well, hey, I got to the podium.
How wrong could I have been?
Well, you... There it is.
You declared yourself part of a different sex in order to do it.
No, I mean, this is the problem with metrics over and over and over again.
This is, you know, a book that I love that we cite several times in our book, The Tyranny of Metrics, points this out across, you know, domain after domain after domain.
And it's also simpatico with the problem of reductionism, that once we have a thing that we can count, and not to say that counting isn't an amazing feat of humanity and hasn't given us many of the gifts of modernity, but when you over-extrapolate it and say, once I've counted a thing, and once I know I can continue to count the thing, I'm going to say that that's the only thing worth tracking.
Therein, we start to lose our humanity, and in this case, our sport.
Sport itself.
Yeah, you're going to destroy the sport.
The point is not the podium.
The point is not the podium.
It feels great to win, but the point is not the podium.
The point is not the podium.
Yeah.
That's it.
That said, Braylon Baker, out of Bear Creek Small Private School in Seattle, is a phenomenon.
So on day one of the meet, I got there.
I didn't know anyone.
I had traveled there alone.
I'd driven to Yakima alone.
And I just, you know, got my tickets for the day and sitting in some stands trying to get my bearings.
And 300-meter hurdles.
I'm still trying to figure out, what is this?
There's like three divisions.
It's boys, division one, two, three, and then the heat, one, two.
I'm like, oh my god, what's going on?
So there's just like 300-meter hurdles after 300-meter hurdles.
Heats, heats, heats.
And it's pretty exciting.
Hurdles is a crazy game, right?
You have to run fast, but you also have to jump.
And you have to not flail your arms, because then you slow down.
And you have to get your pacing just right.
And it's like, I've never done it.
And it looks incredibly difficult.
I, I remember in high school finding the idea of hurdles very appealing, but it's so frightening.
I think it's even more frightening, frightening if you have testicles, but it just seems like the chances of getting tangled up with that thing even once just super awkwardly.
Now see, this is a reason to be like a dolphin or an elephant.
Like, you know, apes, primates are doing it a little bit weird with regard to testicles, right?
Like the dangly testicle is not a mammalian uniformity.
Like the dolphins don't have them on the outside, the elephants don't.
There's lots of different ways to store your testicles.
And I think that hurdles would probably have been better invented by organisms that kept them on the inside.
Yeah.
Although, you know, there is room for something like a nerf hurdle.
I don't think they're that hard.
On the other hand, when you're going fast, it's, you know, water's hard when you're going fast.
They're hard enough to be daunting.
Yeah, okay.
Zach, yes?
Just very quickly, they're very hard, but they tip forward instantly.
They don't tip back.
So if you're running forward, you're not going to land on it.
Right.
Yeah, no, it's gonna go over, but I could just imagine getting tangled with the thing.
No, and over the course of the two and a half days of the events, I saw, I think, four falls during the hurdles.
And as far as I know, no one was hurt, but...
It's horrifying to watch.
Live sport is so amazing, no matter what.
Because these people all are striving to do their best and putting their best out there, and yes, trying to win, but you don't want the injury, but then you feel the pathos of the crowd going, like, oh my god, I hope he's not hurt.
I hope she's not hurt.
I did see a couple of guys, I think it was two and two, two guys and two girls fall during the hurdles.
All of whom, I think, actually completed.
So hurdles is also interesting.
I learned a lot of things this weekend.
It's like soccer, where as long as you don't touch it with your hand, you can knock it over.
As long as you go over it and don't touch it with your hand and keep running and stay in your lane, you're still in.
Yeah, it slows you down.
Yeah, you're not going to win.
No, whatever.
If you can overcome it, then it doesn't cost you to have knocked it down.
But physics being physics, it slows you down.
I would just point out that every, I assume you as well, but every guy My age has a certain reaction to the phrase, the agony of defeat.
Do you remember, uh, ABC's Wide World of Sports, the intro sequence?
Wow.
It's discussing sport, you know, the thrill of victory.
And I can't even remember what the clip is.
Some beautiful thing.
Yeah.
And the agony of defeat.
What was it?
Was it a ski accident?
What was it?
I think it was a ski jump accident where the first thing The thing and careened awkwardly up.
Yeah, but yes, the agony of defeat.
Yeah, I watched a certain amount of that with my dad, I expect.
Yeah.
Okay, so I'm sitting in the stands, first day of the state, the small school state meet in Washington, in Yakima, for Washington State, and I've been watching a certain number of the 300 meter hurdle races, and And this one is announced, and it turns out it's for the largest of the school's divisions at this meet.
And I'm sitting near the beginning of the race, which is staggered, of course.
And so it's a little hard to tell at the beginning of most races that start with a stagger who's doing really, really well.
And I've watched a number of these now, so I don't expect it to be very obvious until I'm looking across the track and I'm seeing them go to the, you know, the finish line, all of which is even.
But within like four seconds of this race starting, who is this woman?
Like, what is going on?
This woman is strong, composed, fierce, on her game, no flailing.
She is just going, going, going.
She hits the finish line at 40.92.
Her nearest competitor is... You know, I've seen different things, and what it said at the time was different yet, but at least five seconds behind her.
I believe that all of the other competitors were still on their second-to-last hurdle at the point she crossed the finish line.
And, as almost all good competitors do, she made it look easy.
It just looked effortless.
Then she does it again, in the 100 meter.
And then again in the 200 meter.
She's also a long jumper.
I did not see her in the jumps, but she came in first.
I don't think she excels as much at the jumping.
One of the coaches, actually Toby's coach, Freddie Harbour, told me that he had watched her in the jump.
He said, you know, she's got the speed and so that's why she's getting the jumping, but she's not as exceptional at the jumping part as at the speed part.
But she came in so far ahead of her competitors in the running events that I saw, the 300-meter hurdles, the 200-meter, and the 100-meter.
And she was... I actually didn't have time to look through every single thing, but in the 300-meter hurdles, she set a new state record across all the divisions, not just in her division, across all the divisions, and is near the top of the national time.
And she's just...
Remarkable in every regard.
And the Yakima Herald, which, again, is the hometown paper of the place where we were.
So, we were at a big stadium in Yakima, which is a big enough school that its competitors were actually in Tacoma at the time.
So, they're a big school, but they donated their... They probably rented, whatever.
We were using their stadium, and the Yakima Herald interviewed her, and They say the following.
Baker, soon to graduate from a small Christian school in the Seattle suburb of Redmond, said the record-setting trend can feed on itself as athletes encounter new competitors and watch them succeed.
Quote from Baker.
I do believe that at State, we see a new genre of athletes, and seeing one State record inspires the next, she said.
It is about making each other better.
When you see everyone else going crazy, it is inspiring.
So, this young woman is herself inspiring, and I believe, although it's not totally explicit, but I believe that that last line of hers, when you see everyone else going crazy, it is inspiring, was exactly a reference to some of the nonsense that was happening in Tacoma with men competing against women and pretending that they're women.
And perhaps with some of the nonsense happening in the rest of the world, it was also interesting to see that most of the private schools that were competing were identified by name as Christian schools.
And not only was the level of competition at this meet extraordinary and just heartwarming in every regard, but the phrase that kept on occurring to me over and over again was, the kids are all right, actually.
Some of them.
No, no, no.
The kids are all right.
You weren't there.
At this meet, I didn't see anyone or anything that worried me.
And I cannot tell you the last time I've been around.
I mean, when are you around that many young people?
It's a big meet.
And there are a lot of, you know, a lot of coaches, a lot of parents, a lot of grandparents, a lot of friends, like it's, you know, it's a big gathering over the course of two and a half days.
And They're just extraordinary.
And, you know, something that's going on in both, you know, the rural public high schools and then the private schools, many of which are Christian, in Washington state is producing young people who are athletes who have composure and dignity and honor that is awe-inspiring.
And it gives me hope.
That's awesome.
I did not mean to imply anything about the kids at the meet you were talking about.
I was thinking of I know.
The rest of the world is falling apart, and that, I believe, is what Braylon Baker is referring to.
But this was not a tiny pocket, right?
That's good news.
It was really good news, and it was extraordinary to be there.
Now, one last thing.
I realize that's probably the poignant thing that we should leave that topic on, but it is interesting that the exact thing you would predict, breaking the big schools away from the little schools in order to allow the little schools to be competitive because the big schools will reach further into the tail of the distribution, When you compile the little schools together, they're like a bigger school, so you would expect in that population there to be somebody in the tail of the distribution, and you saw her.
So, I do wonder, does she ever get to compete against the kids from the big... Well, I mean, her number one state across, like, she's by far, in fact, Here, I had the numbers.
The winningest time in the top, in the biggest school, was three seconds behind her.
But does she, at the Tacoma Tournament, somebody was at the top of the podium?
Will she go head-to-head with them?
She has apparently competed in, what is it called, Junior Olympics, something Olympics, so she has been competing on the national stage and I think we'll see her in the Olympics.
She is that good.
Her time is still, I think, a second and a half, maybe two seconds off the world record from several years ago that's recorded.
But she's amazing.
So, you know, I don't...
State happened.
She won't go head-to-head within the state of Washington, but she will go head-to-head with the best competitors from lots of places, and she has already bested many of them many times.
At the national level, she will compete.
Yeah.
Yeah, yeah.
Got it.
Yeah.
Cool.
Yeah.
So, so awesome.
I wish I had met her while I was there, but I didn't get the chance.
All right.
You want to talk about dreams?
Yeah, brief something.
I actually awoke from a dream with an idea that is an elaboration of something I've been building up for many years, something that you and I built on in our book.
And it has to do with dreams, which are a fascinating fact, just that we simply have these narrative things.
And anyway, what we say in the book is that it is interesting that dreams and psychotic breaks and hallucinogenic experience, all you could describe these what we say in the book is that it is interesting And if you didn't say which of them it was, you would often have a hard time telling which was which.
So a schizophrenic, let's say, has, um, the experience, let's say a paranoid schizophrenic is involved in some narrative in which somebody is out to get them and they're talking to people who aren't there.
But the idea that somebody is out to get you and you're talking to people who aren't there is perfectly consistent with what happens in dreams all the time.
Right.
So anyway, dreams are some interesting phenomenon to you and me.
They belong in this category with hallucinogenic experience.
Um, so anyway, that's, you know, that model has existed, uh, for us and something occurred to me, a hypothesis that I hadn't had before in this neighborhood.
One of the things that has to be true for the model that we discuss to be right is that there's a part of your mind which generates narrative and it does so for the purpose of running you through these narratives as a kind of practice in your sleep.
So while your body is offline, your perceptual apparatus is borrowed and this narrative engine deploys stories because there's something useful about having been through these things almost as if they were real.
And I know from my own experience lucid dreaming many years ago, which I haven't done in a long time, but for a while I was trying to induce lucid dreams and I learned things about them.
One of the things that surprised me was that I had control over what I did in the dream.
But I never had the ability to predict what was going to happen.
If I was talking to somebody in a dream, I couldn't for the life of me predict what they were going to say, which is odd because whatever they're going to say came from me, right?
Some part of me wrote their lines and yet I can't find them.
So that's perfectly consistent to me with the idea that these narratives are there for practice.
If you could scrutinize the script ahead of time, they wouldn't be useful practice.
So, the narrative engine is shielded from the conscious part of your mind which is in this unconscious state.
What occurred to me this week is that the narratives, I can't remember what dream it is that caused me to think this was the case, but the narratives, I believe, are written In a waking state, they are built up.
There's some part of you that's writing the narrative while you're awake and conscious and going through life.
And it is doing so in reaction, in part, to what you're experiencing and how much it matters, right?
So if you have a scary experience, the narrative engine may pick up on that and build it into a narrative that then gets deployed on you when you are asleep.
And I believe Can be unleashed by inappropriate mixture of conscious and unconscious states in people who are having a psychotic break, or could be unleashed by a chemical trigger that basically causes these things to unfold.
Now, what I don't have is any strong prediction of this hypothesis yet.
There are lots of weak predictions.
You know, the fact of the overlap between your conscious mind's perception and the dreams you will then have is a prediction, but it's not a unique prediction.
But somehow, I don't think we have the ability to look into the content of the neurological architecture yet well enough, but I think what I'm hoping for is to figure out a prediction where we can actually look at the storage mechanism, right?
Where I assume we won't ever be able to look into, or at least not in the foreseeable future, be able to look into the content But just the idea that there would even be a place in the brain where these stories were being written in parallel to your conscious waking life and then got deployed into your sleeping life, that would be interesting.
Anyway, I'm hoping to find some stronger predictions, but for me it radically changed My interaction with dreams because I've always assumed that those dreams are being generated in real time But the thing that troubled me about that was I had a dream and again, I don't remember exactly what it was but the Carefulness Of the structure of the story was too much to have been produced like, well, what happens next?
What happens next?
Right?
It wasn't a frantic auto-complete, you know, we'll give him what just, it wasn't like 20 people contributing.
Well, what's the next thing that happens?
It had clearly been architected.
It can be improv within an architecture.
Yes, I'm sure there's improv, but what I had the experience was was that there was a point to this dream that existed before the dream began.
Right.
Right.
And the point was to put me through the experience of finding that whatever I do, the lesson is that.
Right.
Yeah.
And that it had to have been built ahead of time for that to be true.
I guess.
I thought that was in the model already because it's so clear.
I have had a few dreams recently that have been memorable, and I can go months without that being the case, and I miss it when it happens.
In fact, I wrote about one of them.
One of them included Elon Musk, and I wrote about that for Natural Selections, right?
But they are clearly responsive to things that you are considering and that you are ruminating on and that you are trying to generate solutions to.
Such that, I mean, I guess I'm not sure how it could possibly be something entirely created in the moment.
Well, the way it would work is, let's say that You had anxiety about a confrontational interaction.
In the future or in the past?
In the future.
Okay.
You could have characters created in the mind and then they could be unleashed in a scenario.
In other words, the starting position of the characters could be built up and the nature of the characters, the kinds of things that they would say, the ways that they would think, what their values are, those things could be built up.
And then the narrative engine could deploy them in real time.
Yeah.
And I guess, uh, and in fact, I wonder if that is not, in part, an explanation for the weird dichotomy that I found in Lucid Dreams.
Because I had no influence over the structures around me.
Again, I had almost total control over me.
You couldn't like, oh, this hill is too high.
Yeah, I couldn't make it shorter.
I couldn't wish something behind the door.
I couldn't do any of that.
It was like I had been dropped into a place that existed.
And, you know, I would have control over me and not what's behind the door or what anybody else says or do anything.
Anyway, it needs more work.
But I did think the question was sort of Significant enough to be worth contemplating.
Yeah.
So anyway, I'm hoping to come up with some better predictions, but at the moment I have only weak ones.
Well, let's, uh, let's continue the discussion as more dreams occur.
Yeah.
All right.
Well, I think that's it then.
Right?
Yep.
All right.
So, uh, we will come back to you, uh, in eight days and, uh, yeah, incoming, I guess.
Wow.
That's better than the 2x4.
Exactly.
So yeah, at our store at darkhorsestore.org, you can get things like Do Not Affirm, Do Not Comply.
There we go.
Which is a nice fit for the destruction of the WHO pandemic treaty.
Oh, hell yeah.
And what is going on at things like high school track meets.
No affirming the delusions of the mildly physically talented and the confused.
Yes, I'm the podium obsessed.
Yes.
Do not affirm, do not comply.
So yeah, get your Dark Horse merch at darkhorsestore.org and you can find upcoming schedule, all sorts of good stuff at our website, which is darkhorsestore.org.
DarkHorsePodcast.org.
DarkHorsePodcast.org.
Find all sorts of things about Natural Selections, Patreons, when we're coming to you next, all of that.
DarkHorsePodcast.org.
Join us there.
We are supported by our audience.
We appreciate you.
We appreciate you sharing, liking, subscribing.
And anything else to say?
I don't think so.
All right.
Congratulations, planet Earth, on defeating the Who.
And congratulations, Braylon Baker, on being an awesome athlete.
Until we see you next time, be good to the ones you love, eat good food, and get outside.
