Constitution in the Crosshairs: The 349th Evolutionary Lens with Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying

Episode number: 349
Episode title: Constitution in the Crosshairs: The 349th Evolutionary Lens with Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying
Series: The Evolutionary Lens (DarkHorse livestream)
Published date: October 28, 2026
Hosts: Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying
Guest: None
Podcast: DarkHorse Podcast
Transcript source: DarkHorse production transcript, speaker-labeled and corrected for names and terms

Video: Watch on YouTube
Rumble: Watch on Rumble
Audio: Listen to the episode

Summary

Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying discuss a letter by Brian Ward, a Florida resident, to U.S. Senator Ashley Moody, which argues that more than twenty federal and state courts have in effect nullified the Due Process Clause and the right to informed consent through rulings on Covid-era mandates and liability immunity. They read passages from the letter, including its executive summary and proposed remedies, and connect it to other cases they see as attacks on constitutional rights: the PolyHeme blood-substitute trial and the detention provisions of the 2012 NDAA. Bret argues that a "facultative," selectively applied Constitution amounts to no guarantee at all, and Heather explains the biological meaning of facultative versus obligate traits. The second half turns to how the Supreme Court chooses cases, bias in AI systems, a New York Times profile of Marissa Mayer's AI assistant Dazzle, and what is lost when technology removes waiting and longing from human life, illustrated with a passage from M.F.K. Fisher's The Gastronomical Me. The episode closes with a reminder about three Washington State ballot initiatives.

Main Topics

• Brian Ward's letter to Senator Ashley Moody on due process, informed consent, and court rulings

• Liability immunity, coercion, and Covid-era vaccine mandates

• The Ninth Circuit and Rule 12(b)(6) rulings on investigational drugs

• Biomedical data, privacy, and identifiable genetic information

• Informed consent and the Nuremberg doctors trial

• The PolyHeme trial and opt-out consent

• The NDAA of 2012, indefinite detention, and habeas corpus

• A facultative versus obligate Constitution; surgical totalitarianism

• Good Samaritan laws and why constitutional rights cannot have exceptions

• Why the powerful find rights galling

• How the Supreme Court decides which cases to hear; the clerk pool

• AI bias, "conspiracy theory," and AI as an intermediary in human relationships

• Marissa Mayer's AI assistant Dazzle (New York Times)

• Delayed gratification, waiting, longing, and just-in-time supply chains

• M.F.K. Fisher, The Gastronomical Me

• Washington State Initiatives 645, 001, and 638

Search Keywords

Bret Weinstein, Heather Heying, DarkHorse Podcast, The Evolutionary Lens, Brian Ward, Senator Ashley Moody, Ron DeSantis, Ron Johnson, covidpenalty.com, Constitution, Due Process Clause, Fifth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, informed consent, Nuremberg, emergency use authorization, EUA, mRNA, Covid vaccine injury, liability immunity, Ninth Circuit, Margaret McKeown, 21 CFR 50.22, biomedical data, IgG4, PolyHeme, NDAA 2012, habeas corpus, malinformation, DHS, facultative, obligate, pedomorphic, surgical totalitarianism, Good Samaritan laws, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Supreme Court, cert petitions, clerk pool, Gorsuch, Alito, woke mind virus, AI bias, Claude, Grok, conspiracy theory, CIA, Marissa Mayer, Dazzle, parasocial relationships, delayed gratification, longing, layaway, just-in-time supply chains, M.F.K. Fisher, The Gastronomical Me, Brillat-Savarin, Washington State initiatives, Initiative 638

Mentioned in This Episode

• Brian Ward's letter to Senator Moody: https://covidpenalty.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/Senator-Moody-Letter-Oct-26.pdf

• NYT on Marissa Mayer's AI: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/25/style/marissa-mayer-ai-assistants-women.html

• The Gastronomical Me: https://link.amazon/B0f91KrCu (commission earned)

• HEH on MFK Fisher: https://naturalselections.substack.com/p/things-that-caught-my-eye

Our Sponsors

BUBS Naturals: Live Better Longer with BUBS Naturals. For A limited time get 20% Off your entire order with code DARKHORSE at Bubsnaturals.com

Mars Men: Natural testosterone booster supplement. For a limited time, our listeners get 50% off for life, free shipping, and 3 free gifts from Mars Men at http://Mengotomars.com.

Helix: Excellent, sleep-enhancing, American-made mattresses. Go to http://www.HelixSleep.com/DarkHorse for 20% off sitewide.

Join Us

Join us on Locals! Get access to our Discord server, exclusive live streams, live chats for all streams, and early access to many podcasts: https://darkhorse.locals.com

Heather’s newsletter, Natural Selections (subscribe to get free weekly essays in your inbox): https://naturalselections.substack.com

Our book, A Hunter-Gatherer’s Guide to the 21st Century, is available everywhere books are sold, including from Amazon: https://amzn.to/3AGANGg (commission earned)

Music: "Marble Machine" by Wintergatan

This track can be downloaded for free at www.wintergatan.net

Free License to use this track in your video can be downloaded at www.wintergatan.net

Chapters

• 00:00:00 We Digress, If Not Confess

• 00:04:13 Sponsor: BUBS Naturals

• 00:06:21 Sponsor: Mars Men

• 00:08:29 Sponsor: Helix

• 00:10:19 Brian Ward's Letter to Senator Moody

• 00:21:31 Ninth Circuit: Inject Anything?

• 00:29:38 PolyHeme: Consent by Armband

• 00:32:27 The World Is a Battlefield

• 00:35:36 Can a Constitution Be Facultative?

• 00:49:33 Why the Powerful Find Rights Galling

• 00:53:45 How the Supreme Court Picks Cases

• 00:59:31 Claude vs. Conspiracy Theory

• 01:02:54 An AI to Describe Your Daughter

• 01:18:05 The Death of Longing

• 01:27:31 Oh, Anything? M.F.K. Fisher Says No

• 01:33:04 Washington: Yes on 645, 001, 638

Transcript

[00:00:05] Bret Weinstein: Hey folks, welcome to the DarkHorse Podcast livestream number 349.

[00:00:12] Heather Heying: Prime.

[00:00:14] Bret Weinstein: Wow. Yep. Is it required that I now confess that I was guessing it probably wasn't gonna be?

[00:00:21] Heather Heying: No.

[00:00:21] Bret Weinstein: Okay, then I thought it was. Yeah, that was my guess all along. I'm Dr. Bret Weinstein. You remain Dr. Heather Heying.

[00:00:29] Heather Heying: It is-- You know, you speak like a guy who's never actually been in a confessional or actually had to confess anything because that's not actually the way confession works.

[00:00:38] (Laughing)

[00:00:39] Bret Weinstein: Maybe I'm just not very good at it.

[00:00:41] Heather Heying: Possible.

[00:00:42] Bret Weinstein: Yeah, I haven't been in a confessional. I think it would be, I don't know actually. There are certain rules about who can and cannot confess. Can just anyone go in there and confess?

[00:00:52] Heather Heying: I confess that I do not know those rules.

[00:00:55] Bret Weinstein: You confess out here in the open.

[00:00:56] Heather Heying: Yeah.

[00:00:57] Bret Weinstein: Yeah.

[00:00:58] Heather Heying: I don't think I've ever been in a confessional either. All right. Despite having Catholicism on one side of my family. But anyway, we digress if not confess, you were going to introduce us.

[00:01:08] Bret Weinstein: Yes. Yes, it's still us, Dr. Bret Weinstein and Dr. Heather Heying, I think is where I was in the, not really soliloquy, but the reamble. And it is late October, still surprisingly nice here, getting a little cold.

[00:01:23] Heather Heying: Yeah, that's gorgeous. We're gonna be doing our livestreams on Tuesdays for most or not, if not all of November. So we'll be back at you in six days from now, but for right now, for today, how would you describe what we're gonna be talking about today?

[00:01:38] Bret Weinstein: We are going to be talking about the framework advanced by a gentleman who is putting it in front of certain members of Congress and other important people, in which he effectively argues that the Constitution and other protections are being breached through a cryptic mechanism, a collection of changes, alterations, rules, and rulings that have quietly upended your constitutional rights without them being defended in a proper context.

[00:02:22] Heather Heying: Okay, and we got a few other small things at the end. But before that, we have a few logistical things. We're not doing a Q&A today, but we've had a number recently. Go check them out at Locals. You can also join the watch party there right now. And you're gonna be doing your Patreon conversations this weekend, so you can join Bret on his Patreon. For those, we are also selling, signed, personalized copies of our books, $50 a piece. You can find them at darkhorsepodcast.org/books. That includes Hunter-Gatherer's Guide to the 21st Century: Evolution and the Challenges of Modern Life, our co-authored book, which came out in 2021. And we've got several versions of that book in translation. They are, we're dwindling supplies, but we still have them in Polish. We have Brazilian Portuguese, and yes, and Thai, and Spanish, Spanish-Spanish, out of Spain, and French.

[00:03:27] Heather Heying: Also, we have my first book, which I recently unearthed a large box of these. So this is the only book that we have in abundance. This is about my research and life in Madagascar, published in 2002, Antipode: Seasons with the Extraordinary Wildlife and the Culture of Madagascar. So those are available if you're interested in, say, holiday gifts or a book for yourself. I think then we are ready for our sponsors. I have buried the ads. Yes, we have. I've buried the ads into these books. But yes, without further ado, we have, as always, three ads right at the top of the hour, and then none others that can get them. Okay, here we go. All right, our first sponsor this week is BUBS Naturals. And here is one of their awesome products. There we go, I never know which way to turn it. Our first sponsor this week is BUBS Naturals, back with us after a hiatus, which we love.

[00:04:29] Heather Heying: As we age, everything gets slower or more brittle or less strong. In part, that's because your body's natural collagen production begins to decline in your mid-20s. Collagen is a structural molecule, a protein that supports and structures your muscles, joints, and skin. It's like rope with a high tensile strength that gives it an ability to twist and stretch. This, in turn, contributes to your muscles, joints, and being able to twist and stretch. BUBS Naturals Collagen Peptides can help restore collagen levels to what you had when you were younger. When you use BUBS Naturals Collagen Peptides, you can feel the difference, less stiffness in the morning, more elastic skin, quicker recovery after a workout. And it's easy to use, mix it into your morning coffee, or any other way. I read that as if there were gonna be more examples. That's the only one I provided myself.

[00:05:12] Bret Weinstein: You could read it a second time.

[00:05:14] Heather Heying: Ah, and it's easy to use, mix it into your morning coffee, or mix it into your morning coffee. No, you could put it in smoothies or stainless, or you can build.

[00:05:22] Bret Weinstein: I wouldn't have noticed, had you not called attention to.

[00:05:25] Heather Heying: Excellent. It dissolves instantly and you won't taste it or smell it. And BUBS has no sweeteners or fillers, and is sustainably sourced from grass-fed cattle. And the brand BUBS Naturals is a tribute to former Navy SEAL, Glen "Bub" Doherty, a national hero who gave his life saving Americans in Benghazi, Libya. He always pushed himself to improve and helped everyone around him too. To honor him, BUBS donates 10% of all profits to charity, starting with the Glen Doherty Memorial Foundation. Live better, longer. For a limited time only, our listeners are getting 20% off at BUBS Naturals by using code DARKHORSE at checkout. Just head to bubsnaturals.com and use code DARKHORSE and you're all set. After you purchase, they will ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them DarkHorse sent you. Hell yeah. Hell yeah. You have, oh, you don't even have a piece of paper. No, you're gonna use a piece of paper. Do you want a piece of paper or a relevant one?

[00:06:17] Bret Weinstein: The more relevant, the more useful it will be. There you go. All right, well, here's the thing. If you're a guy and you might well be, if you don't know, ask someone you trust, but if you're a guy and you're getting older, which let's face it, you are, your testosterone is going to drop and that's not something you want to happen. Now, you could take several approaches to that. One, you could ignore it, but why would you do that? Two, you could try to take testosterone, but there's a problem which I'll explain in a second. Or three, you might attempt to change your body's own endogenous set point for the production of testosterone, which is the superior answer. So why wouldn't you just take testosterone? Well, there are a number of reasons. There are health concerns about it. But it is also true that if you have an internal set point, which you are very likely to for something like testosterone, and you don't adjust it, then when you supplement, your body records you as producing more than enough and it will cut back production so that then you effectively become addicted to your supplement for life.

[00:07:18] Bret Weinstein: So what's the alternative? The alternative is Mars Men. And Mars Men is a natural supplement, third party tested that changes your endogenous set point seamlessly. And I tell you, it does work. This tube here is empty. Why? Because I took the stuff and my testosterone levels did go up. Anecdotally speaking, that might be why I seem so darn manly as covered last week. But in any case, this is good stuff. It's pure, it functions. And then there are some things, that was all just stuff that I wanted to say. Then there's some things that I have to say. For a limited time, our listeners, that's the listeners of DarkHorse, can get 50% off for life plus free shipping and three free gifts when you go to mengotomars.com. That's mengotomars.com for 50% off and three free gifts when you check out. It's also available on Amazon, exclamation mark.

[00:08:20] Bret Weinstein: After you purchase, they will ask you where you heard about them and you should of course support our show and say DarkHorse sent you.

[00:08:28] Heather Heying: Awesome. Our final sponsor this week, Bret, is Helix, which makes truly fantastic mattresses. We've had our Helix mattress for almost five years and it's been an amazing mattress the entire time. We look forward to many more years with it. If you've had trouble sleeping and who hasn't, the problem might be your mattress. A better mattress can help address issues like sleep apnea, back pain and temperature problems. Helix makes outstanding mattresses, every one of which combines individually wrapped steel coils in the base with premium foam layers on top, providing excellent support for your spine. Take the Helix sleep quiz online and in less than two minutes, you'll be directed to which of their many mattresses is best for you. Once you find your perfect mattress, you have 120 nights to try it out without any penalty. Helix Sleep's Midnight Luxe Hybrid Mattress won both Forbes and Wired's Best Mattress Awards in 2025. It's that good. All of Helix's award-winning mattresses are made in America, are fiberglass-free and built to last. They offer free shipping, that 120-night sleep trial, and limited lifetime warranty. Everyone we know who has slept on a Helix mattress raves about it. Family members slept on our Helix mattress for a few nights and ordered one for themselves.

[00:09:30] Heather Heying: Our son Zach has one in his college apartment and now Toby does too. They both love them. Helix just makes fantastic mattresses. Have you been thinking about a mattress upgrade? If so, try Helix. You will not be disappointed. Go to helixsleep.com, excuse me, go to helixsleep.com/darkhorse for 20% off site-wide. That's helixsleep, H-E-L-I-X sleep.com/darkhorse for 20% off site-wide. One more time, helixsleep.com/darkhorse. Try them out.

[00:10:00] Bret Weinstein: I will just say, we got back to our Helix mattress from a good enough mattress on our trip, but I will tell you, I just slept so much better.

[00:10:09] Heather Heying: Yeah.

[00:10:10] Bret Weinstein: It's amazing.

[00:10:10] Heather Heying: Yeah, it is, it makes coming home even better.

[00:10:15] Bret Weinstein: Oh yeah, one definitely looks forward to it. All right, well, can you bring up the letter in question? I can. Yeah. So what we are going to be talking about is a letter by a gentleman named Brian Ward. It is addressed to Senator Moody. It is also carbon copied to a number of other prominent folks including Ron Johnson, Governor DeSantis of Florida. I believe Brian Ward is from Florida, so he's addressed it to his own governor, Ron DeSantis.

[00:10:49] Heather Heying: He's addressed it to a senator, the junior senator in Florida who was the attorney general in Florida.

[00:10:54] Bret Weinstein: Yes, but I also think it went to DeSantis.

[00:10:56] Heather Heying: No, I think it did too, but it's the primary address to whom he's asking for direct action is Senator Moody.

[00:11:04] Bret Weinstein: Yeah, I mentioned DeSantis particularly because DeSantis actually stood out during the pandemic as one of the, what would one say, the refreshing points of resistance in a sea of complicity.

[00:11:22] Heather Heying: As of course did the Florida Surgeon General, but also the attorney general who is now the junior senator to whom this is addressed. She was extraordinary during COVID as well.

[00:11:33] Bret Weinstein: Yeah, Florida stood out and that's a very positive thing. So what Mr. Ward is advancing here is a very exhaustive discussion of the way in which our rights have been substantially altered. He argues that effectively the Constitution is modified without the process that is supposed to be required to modify the Constitution, which is of course a very difficult process to use. So the Constitution, are we any better?

[00:12:17] Heather Heying: Yes.

[00:12:17] Bret Weinstein: Okay, good. So anyway, he's arguing that the Constitution has effectively been amended by procedural changes, of the rules by various courts that is tantamount to the process that is supposed to alter the Constitution, which would require obviously a much more overt discussion and would have a very high threshold. So these things were done more or less procedurally and by overreach in various courts and that the rights that have been eliminated are profound ones. And he specifically calls out your right to informed consent. I'm gonna make the same argument that I always make, which is that our right to informed consent, as important as it is, is actually in need of strengthening in light of the fact that we now understand a lot about complex systems. And so my complaint about informed consent is that informed consent only protects you in the case of something that is experimental.

[00:13:24] Bret Weinstein: My point is it's all experimental. There's nothing that you can do modifying human bodies with interventions that is not in effect an experiment. And if you don't believe me, look at all the cases of drugs that have been licensed and then decades later turned out to do some kind of damage that we didn't know about. So the point is that's inherent to complex systems. So I would argue that as a matter of natural law, the right to informed consent, which was codified by the Nuremberg court after World War II, that that process should cover all interventions, which then would mean you would have the right to reject any intervention at all with no requirement that you explain why you did so. And in this case, that difference between how informed consent is presented by Brian Ward and how I would argue it should apply is both not important because the COVID shots initially were given under emergency use authorization, meaning that they had not been formally approved.

[00:14:35] Bret Weinstein: So they were inherently experimental. They have of course now been approved. So it changes in my rubric, that doesn't change a darn thing, but the violations he's discussing happened largely under EUA. And in any case, I don't know if you wanna proceed into reading some of what's in the letter.

[00:14:57] Heather Heying: Sure, I mean, I think you've done a very good job of providing an overview. And so, just in order here, I don't know that it makes the most narrative sense to read them in order that I've picked out some passages here, but let's just do that for lack of a better approach. Okay. To your point about the due process clause. Yet more than 20 federal and state courts have in effect nullified the due process clause. And then he embarks on what I think is a nice commonplace example that doesn't require a legal understanding to understand. When one person tells another not to touch him, is touched anyway and is injured, those courts hold that an act of Congress bars the victim from obtaining a judicial remedy and thereby strips the victim of the enumerated right to due process. The victim loses that right for one reason only. Someone else committed a criminal act of violence with a product Congress has placed under civil immunity.

[00:15:58] Heather Heying: Congress has forbidden to treat non-consensual violence as a waiver of the victim's rights. And Congress has not done so. So that's, go on.

[00:16:07] Bret Weinstein: Well, I just wanna say for people who are, everybody's heard the term due process and due process clause, which is contained primarily in the Fifth Amendment, but also the 14th Amendment, holds that you cannot be deprived by government of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Now due process of law is a little vague, but the courts have spent a lot of time hashing out exactly what it means. And the upshot is that they can't just take stuff from you. Now there are lots of violations of this sort of thing, like, you know, civil forfeiture, where you haven't been convicted of something, but because you've been accused of certain crimes, your house or car or whatever may be taken from you. But in general, the due process clause protects you. And I think Ward is making a very clever and I would argue highly credible argument.

[00:17:07] Bret Weinstein: His argument, he has several different ways in which he argues that there has been a violation of the due process clause.

[00:17:13] Heather Heying: And again, this is just his summary and the executive summary. He goes into more detail later.

[00:17:18] Bret Weinstein: Yeah, the detail is actually quite exhaustive in this letter. But what he's arguing is that Congress on the one hand has created immunity from liability, and then it has created the opportunity for coercion. And that coercion effectively means that you are being denied. You could refuse a product that had immunity from liability, but the combination of immunity from liability means that you can be injured and your right to due process has been preemptively eliminated by the courts. And that the combination of those two things is actually an extremely potent challenge to due process itself, which I think is intuitively speaking, that is a very powerful argument. Describe the maddening fact of what happened under the COVID regime. Where people, how many people do we know who were literally injured by these shots who say, I didn't wanna take it, but I didn't have a choice because I needed to travel for my job, or my employer required it, or I needed it in order to go to school.

[00:18:30] Bret Weinstein: So people were forced into something, they were injured and they have lost their access to the court because it was preemptively immunized by the Congress. That's really important. And to the extent that the-- Like a better

[00:18:42] Heather Heying: immunization than the shot.

[00:18:44] Bret Weinstein: Exactly, the only--

[00:18:45] Heather Heying: The Congress had far better immunization during COVID than the rest of us did.

[00:18:49] Bret Weinstein: And the manufacturers, which is infuriating. Now I will point out, I do believe his argument is correct. And that the fact that effectively this amends the Constitution without amending the Constitution makes it quadruply important. I would point out, as I frequently do, and I'm no lawyer, so a lawyer could add precision to this or maybe even challenge some aspect of it. But as I read the law, the immunity from liability evaporates upon the demonstration that the manufacturers of these dangerous products committed fraud. And I believe fraud is absolutely evident in the trials, that effectively they hid evidence of harm, and that having hidden evidence of harm, they are actually in danger of a massive lawsuit. This of course requires that the courts grant it. And that's another aspect of this letter that's very important, is that effectively he's describing an activist court system.

[00:19:53] Bret Weinstein: He singles out the Ninth Circuit as one of the primary offenders, but the court is inclined to go along with the politicized panic over the pandemic and grant every license, including making up things, in order to keep those immunities from liability in place, in order to keep the mandates in place. And so the problem is, you've got an actual violation. You potentially have a claim that the immunity from liability is not valid because of the obvious massive fraud that took place in those trials. What you don't have is a venue in which that judgment is going to be recognized. And so one thing I will say, I'm editorializing here, but the hazard to our entire constitutional structure, that this is really a test case where a health, a supposed public health emergency has been used to breach the Constitution in a way that the courts are not recognizing.

[00:20:55] Bret Weinstein: But the answer is, once you've got that breach, you can use anything to get there. You now have a recipe for destroying the rights of the Constitution grants.

[00:21:06] Heather Heying: And indeed, you're editorializing, as you say, there is a very good match for actually the first paragraph of the actual letter, not including the preamble that is the executive summary. I'm gonna go back and share some of the executive summary, but let's just read this because as I say, it is his description, it is his first, it is how he introduces what he is talking about here. One, it is a violation of federal law to coerce injection of an investigational drug. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, joining its sister courts, though made aware of the federal obligations outlined below, issued a substantive ruling under Rule 12(b)(6) that a state or local government may require a citizen to inject any investigational drug, including those that pose a significant threat of adverse effect to that citizen's life, liberty, or property, as a condition. Again, this is the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals saying that government may require a citizen to inject anything, even one that could pose a substantial harm, as a condition of working as a police officer, firefighter, EMT, teacher, healthcare worker, or in any other licensed profession.

[00:22:21] Heather Heying: And an aside, he talks elsewhere, I believe, about any licensed profession, including, for instance, realtors. This extends quite far outside of the health profession. The circuit further held that the government may also require a prospective waiver of the right to sue if the citizen is injured while complying with the health policy. A waiver of the right to sue if what you were doing was following their orders. By their legal nature, these rulings now extend to any public benefit, such as welfare assistance, public education, public healthcare, and any licensed profession, such as real estate professionals, there it is. Such rulings violate 200 years of Supreme Court precedent and permit what Congress expressly prohibits. Non-consensual waiver of the right to informed consent to federally funded research activities and of the right to sue and defend in a court of law. For this reason, the courts refused to discuss the federal laws and binding contracts in their opinions. So by his account, they knew what they were doing. That is how I read that last sentence.

[00:23:23] Heather Heying: And let me just share a few more things from his executive summary just above. "If we the people," Brian Ward argues, "have no right to refuse a covert medical experiment, no right to keep our identifiable private health information private, no right to refuse an investigational drug that courts treat as posing a severe risk to life, liberty, or property, no right to exercise federally funded benefits without punishment, no right to refuse a waiver of constitutional rights as the price of a public benefit, and no right to a judicial remedy when injured by criminal acts, then this nation is no longer operating under the Constitution. It has been subjected to a post-constitutional form of tyranny." I tell you the truth. The American Revolution began over far lesser stakes than the life and death questions discussed in this letter. The indisputable conclusion of these actions and others not mentioned is that there is a coordinated effort to secretly or coercively inject the entire nation with mRNA drugs. This is his editorial opinion here. "To capture the nation's biometric and biomarker data through covert experimentation using collected biospecimens, to deny anyone the right to sue when physically or constitutionally injured, and to deny Congress its supreme authority over drug regulation."

[00:24:37] Bret Weinstein: Very powerful argument.

[00:24:38] Heather Heying: Very, very powerful argument. And the letter itself, that being from the executive summary, provides the receipts, if you will, the legal footnotes that point to their relevant rulings.

[00:24:51] Bret Weinstein: Now, I wanna point to some sort of overall pattern matching. A, it is interesting that he identifies not just the violation of the due process clause that comes from the injection of experimental materials where you can't sue the manufacturer because they're immunized from liability. That's one place. But another place he highlights it is that apparently we have lost the right to say no to having our biomedical data collected in a way that its connection to us is identifiable.

[00:25:30] Heather Heying: Yes.

[00:25:31] Bret Weinstein: And that that information can then follow us through life and that this may, in fact, begin even at birth. And it's the idea that nowadays taking a few cells is enough to get your genome substantially sequenced, and the information contained in there could be used for all kinds of things. He highlights, you will hear an echo of an argument that I've made about IgG4 production and bioweapons, but his point is that that information actually contains the power to create specific bioweapons against us. And so that your right to keep it secret obviously has substantial import in such a world, and that you have lost the ability to protect this data, that you've effectively lost your property without due process in the form of data related to you particularly. I think that's also a strong argument, and it's an entirely separate violation.

[00:26:31] Heather Heying: No, he points out several violations and makes several strong arguments, and I think at base, and maybe this is true of the law in general, of philosophy in general as well, what it gets at is what are you? What is a human being, and what therefore do you have that is inviolable? And our Constitution, an extraordinary document, attempts to parse many of those points, but we live in the world of the uncanny valley now things that are happening feel not just unprecedented, but unpredictable. Like, you know, we're showing up at the event horizon going like, okay, our documents could not catch up. Like not only are they static and therefore they were not changing at all, but those people who wrote them, be they 250 years ago or 2000 years ago, or longer ago than that even, had no way to predict what we land at now. And so we're all faced with this question of what actually does it mean to be human?

[00:27:31] Heather Heying: What does it mean to be alive? What are our rights? And we are forced usually to do what Brian Ward here has done and go to a document a mere, a couple hundred years old and say, what did that protect? What did that claim were our rights not just as, not specifically, not more generally as humans, but specifically as Americans? Like, what does it mean to be an American? And what does that grant us? And I think there are many both who saw what was going on during COVID and who didn't, who were harmed, who weren't, even many of those who were harmed or saw what was going on are ready for it to go away already. Like, I just wanna stop talking about it. Aren't we done with that? That was horrible. Can't we just move on? But this actually does amount, it's not just a question of they're gonna do it again. Not only that, they're still doing it, they're still at it, but it gets at all of these even more fundamental questions what is it to be human and what therefore is our right that they have no right to take from us?

[00:28:36] Bret Weinstein: Yes, and the idea that there is something that they find our rights galling. I will come back to why they do in a second. But they find our rights galling and the more significant the right in question, the more determined they become to abrogate it. And so take informed consent. If you're a big pharma, informed consent is absolutely maddening because there are lots of things that you would love to do that are a clear violation of it. So there's effectively a conspiracy of whatever sort inside of pharma to get rid of your informed consent right. A right that as recently as 1947, violating it was a hanging offense according to the West. We literally hanged seven doctors for violating it. But now you'll find, okay, this document points out the absurd violation of informed consent for the mRNA and adeno-vectored vaccines during COVID.

[00:29:38] Bret Weinstein: But you'll also remember that a couple of weeks ago and in my discussion with Josh Walcos, we discussed the PolyHeme trials. The PolyHeme trials involved another egregious violation of informed consent, but on a different, by a different mechanism, okay. So in this case, what's happened is a rule has been made that it is okay to violate informed consent if the product being mandated is safe enough, right. In the case of the PolyHeme trial, which you'll remember was a blood substitute to be used in emergencies when blood, is not available. And it was tested on people who did not opt out of the trial. People, it was tested in a geographic area. And the idea was that you could opt out of the trial, but how did they do it? Well, they held a public discussion of the trial.

[00:30:42] Bret Weinstein: And if you wanted to opt out, you had to wear some sort of an indicator so that if you were in a car accident and the paramedics arrived, they could observe that you were opting out, which of course, how many people actually went to the public discussion and ended up putting on an armband. Most people presumably didn't even know about it. So this is a whole different way of violating informed consent, which is to claim, well, you were informed. And if you're not, it's on you because you weren't at the meeting. And the fact is the results of that, that was at least an actual experiment where data was taken. But the fact is the PolyHeme product worked less well and it resulted in people being injured who hadn't even been aware that they'd been entered into this trial by virtue of the fact that they weren't wearing a wristband that said, "Hey, I don't want any of that garbage."

[00:31:26] Heather Heying: Right.

[00:31:27] Bret Weinstein: So, okay, the pattern matching here is, something hates your right to informed consent and it has multiple ideas about what to do about it. That's why you're seeing simultaneously, simultaneous violations across different domains, right? Things as different as the gene therapies that were administered during COVID and blood substitutes for emergencies. Did you have something you wanted to-- Add?

[00:31:52] Heather Heying: Yeah. No, I'm good.

[00:31:52] Bret Weinstein: Okay, so then here's another pattern. Something detests your constitutional rights. It has various mechanisms for dealing with it. We're talking about one such mechanism here, is to basically cobble together a loophole that breaks your constitutional rights through multiple components, functioning in different ways. But long-time DarkHorse listeners will have heard me talk many times about what took place with the NDAA of 2012. The NDAA of 2012, which is a giant omnibus bill, the NDAA is a bill that gets passed every year to fund all kinds of things. But because it becomes politically disastrous to block it, people vote for it reflexively, which makes it a place that really awful stuff gets inserted and gets passed anyway because people are afraid to vote against the bill.

[00:32:59] Bret Weinstein: And in 2012, what happened was two provisions were inserted into the NDAA that declared the world a battlefield and declared the right of the executive branch to designate someone a terrorist, and having done so, to haul them off any street in the world, including an American street, detain them to the "end of hostilities," whatever that means in a war on terror, and not acknowledge that they have them. So your habeas corpus rights evaporate, not let them see the evidence against them. Basically, secret proceedings, initially, you don't have your access to a court because this is done on the sole authority of the executive branch. It's basically the entire Constitution evaporates in one set of provisions, and you don't have any mechanism to challenge it. In fact, you don't even know that it's happened. If it happens to you, your family just knows they don't know where to find you anymore. So anyway, okay, this is just as we have a different mechanism for violating informed consent in the PolyHeme trial, as we do with the mRNA shots.

[00:34:08] Bret Weinstein: You've got two different attacks on the Constitution. One involves cobbling together abuse by courts with rulings, interpretations, definitions that violates it. And then another one is just to simply say, well, none of that applies during terrorism, so long as the executive branch has decided you're part of the enemy. These both do the same job. They eliminate your constitutional rights, and frankly, both of them still stand. It's amazing. So when Brian Ward here says that effectively we are living in a post-Constitutional order, it's obviously true. And in fact, if you think that what I'm saying sounds preposterous, realize that when the Obama administration was challenged over the fact that it had effectively taken the right to pull you off of any street in the world into some secret detention and not cough you up until the end of hostilities, when it was challenged, it didn't say, no, that's not what the law means.

[00:35:11] Bret Weinstein: What it said was we already have that right. This didn't grant us anything new. That was literally their defense. So we are living in a post-Constitutional order, which is very confusing because it doesn't mean the Constitution never applies. It means it applies selectively. When the court decides to apply it, your constitutional rights may be there and they may kick in. In other circumstances, they may not exist at all. The Constitution can't work that way. You can't have a facultative Constitution.

[00:35:40] Heather Heying: No, that if a facultative Constitution is effectively no Constitution, even though we have lots of evidence of the Constitution being applied. Facultative application means no guarantee. And we saw this also, we talked about this at the time during COVID at the point that malinformation was defined by whatever it was, HHS maybe. No, it was Department of Homeland Security. Sorry, DHS, Department of Homeland Security, as an act of terrorism and malinformation was defined as dispensing information that while true could cause people to distrust their government. Now, if that is now an act of terrorism and the NDAA of 2012 exists, then anyone who says anything that is critical of the government is engaged in terrorism and can pull off the streets at any time. That obviously does not sound like the America that we've been told that we live in. And I do think that part of what we're seeing with regard to the woke left, the pseudo-lefties who think of themselves as anarchists and antifa and all this, who have no respect for understanding of the Constitution and America in general, that stems from a failure in the schools.

[00:36:56] Heather Heying: And we've talked endlessly also about the failures in the schools and some of what might have created in them. But we basically have a lot of the population whose eyes will glaze over if you start talking about the Constitution. They'll say, "Oh, that's government class. I don't care about that. That's not something I was good at or interested in. I'm allowed to choose what I'm interested in, therefore I don't care." And that having a population that thinks this isn't relevant to them and it's okay that it's not relevant to them is only, and it's never gonna be a good situation, but it's only going to function at all if you actually have a governing body who is still acting according to the Constitution, but we have clear evidence that it's not.

[00:37:40] Bret Weinstein: Right, and this is really what the courts are supposed to be, right? The courts are supposed to be people who are trained in ignoring who you are and not applying laws selectively. And they have ceased to function in this way. There is so much political or politicization.

[00:37:56] Heather Heying: Yeah.

[00:37:57] Bret Weinstein: I wanna actually revive a concept. I don't know how far back I've been talking about this, at least 25 years. But the question of whether or not you're better off with a facultatively applied Constitution or no Constitution, I actually think no Constitution is better, right? And now I love the Constitution. I think we are depending on it. But the problem is if you can facultatively apply it, then you can destroy it without people noticing because in the average interaction it still holds. What will happen is those people who find your constitutional rights galling, and I will explain why those people exist in a second here, but the people who find your constitutional rights galling will be very careful only to violate the Constitution in cases that matter to them. Which means that most people's impression when you say we don't have a Constitution anymore will be what are you talking about? Here are 16 places where the court this year said something materially and it caused this to happen or that to stop.

[00:39:02] Bret Weinstein: The Constitution is obviously still there. And the answer is, so I called the selective application of these exotic tools, surgical totalitarianism. And the problem is who will they apply the surgical totalitarianism to? They will apply it to the tiny number of people who actually threaten the powerful, right? It will be applied to the tiny number of journalists who need to be thrown in jail or silenced because what they're saying actually matters. And so the point is it will leave the world seemingly free and it will do away with all of the things that actually matter to keeping it free. And then the point is it can evaporate at any moment. Even the facultative part can be disappeared because you weren't minding the store because you didn't realize that it had been destroyed.

[00:39:53] Heather Heying: Yeah, I mean, I think that's absolutely right. And it sounds like you're crazy.

[00:40:01] Bret Weinstein: Yep, I've gotten used to that.

[00:40:02] Heather Heying: Right, I mean, not to me, but I think, you know, the idea, a constitution, I feel like it's right there in the word, like the etymology of the word somehow, a constitution is inherently obligate. Therefore a facultative constitution, which we're using as a biological term, so it may not be as well known as we are assuming it is, but facultative refers to a trait, or in this case, a document that is sometimes applied and sometimes not, sometimes true, sometimes not. So you have, for instance, in biological development in some organisms, some species of salamanders do not develop normally adult characteristics and remain obligately pedomorphic, retaining a bunch of larval characteristics even while they're reproductively capable. Other species, similar species, sister species, are facultatively pedomorphic, which means depending on the conditions under which they develop, they may come to look like normal adult salamanders or they may retain their larval characteristics even as they are reproductively mature.

[00:41:09] Heather Heying: That seems like an arcane example, but that is like the standard example of what facultative means. Why did you become adult looking versus or retain your larval characteristics? Something in development triggered one or the other of the paths. So a facultative constitution is one which, someone else, not you, is deciding whether or not the Constitution is applying to you now or then, and what that means is you can't say, oh, well, I'm always protected under the Constitution. If you're not always protected under the Constitution, then you never know when you are protected under the Constitution, and therefore, you are effectively not protected under the Constitution.

[00:41:45] Bret Weinstein: Very well said, and that actually points to the mechanism through which the water enlarged to crack and burst the dam here, which is that you do have to, the system has to have the ability to create certain facultative rights, and I wanna use at least one example here to illustrate how this discretion is actually a positive thing in some circumstances. So there are so-called good Samaritan laws that immunize a good Samaritan from being sued, even if they harm you if they are trying to do the right thing. So you can imagine you have a heart attack and somebody is trying to perform CPR and they're not very good at it and they injure you in the process. Maybe they even kill you, and the question is, should your family be able to sue somebody who tried to do the right thing? And the answer is no, they shouldn't, and the reason is because we don't want would-be good Samaritans to not do the right thing because they're afraid of being sued.

[00:42:50] Bret Weinstein: We want-- you're better off if a good Samaritan is enabled in this process and has to be immunized from liability even though they might do it ineptly. They might be drunk and not capable of performing CPR at the time, and maybe they knew that, but they did it anyway. But on average, the person who saves your life by doing CPR needs to be immunized, or the person who does you harm needs to be immunized to get the person who saves your life enabled in that process.

[00:43:22] Heather Heying: And more likely to act.

[00:43:23] Bret Weinstein: Right, but that doesn't mean, so constitutional rights are different. Your constitutional rights can't have exceptions, and Bobby Kennedy famously, during the campaign, Bobby Kennedy Jr. famously pointed out that the founding fathers knew very well about epidemics. They were thoroughly versed in it. Epidemics were in large measure more terrifying in their time, and yet they did not carve out an exception from the Constitution in the case of epidemics. There's not supposed to be one, because of course, if there was one, people who don't like your rights, and again, I will get to why there are people who don't like them, will use the excuse of a pandemic emergency to eliminate those rights while you're not paying attention.

[00:44:08] Heather Heying: Yes, and one of the reasons that epidemics were known to people in the founding of this country, and were in fact, in many ways, more terrifying, was that we did not yet have the clean water, clean air sanitation standards and antibiotics that we do now, and I'm gonna leave vaccines off that list, because the evidence is, in my mind, growing, but the evidence has long since existed, that most of the declines in the deaths of the illnesses for which we have vaccines happen before those vaccines were introduced. But clean water, clean drinking water, soap and sanitation standards before surgery and such, and antibiotics have all contributed to a reduction in pathology-based disease and death.

[00:45:01] Bret Weinstein: Yeah, it's overwhelmingly the best bang for the buck mechanism is to clean up the environment, the water, pay attention to your health, and I'm not ruling out the possibility of good vaccines. There are certainly vaccines that have a positive effect. I don't know that there are any that don't have serious downsides, but nonetheless, a good vaccine can exist, but your right to say, actually, not so fast. In this case, I don't want that one, and I don't have to explain to you why, should be sacrosanct, and yet it is the very opposite, presumably because there's so much money to be made from selling these things, and all the better, if you can mandate them on people and immunize yourself from being sued for the harm done to you, and all of those goodies that pharma loves so well.

[00:45:51] Heather Heying: Yep.

[00:45:53] Bret Weinstein: All right, so the last thing is, I wanna zoom out and sort of--

[00:45:56] Heather Heying: If this is an important and serious point, I have one more thing from the letter that I wanna share, because it made me laugh out loud when I read it.

[00:46:03] Bret Weinstein: All right, yeah, there's not a lot of laugh out loud stuff in there.

[00:46:05] Heather Heying: There's not a lot of laugh out loud stuff in here. Don't show my screen just yet. So in the executive, or either at the very end of the executive summary, I think, Brian Ward writes, "Please forgive the length of this letter. The historic nature of these charges requires an indisputable record of legal fact, or they will be dismissed as hyperbole. Because I was raised to never discuss a problem without offering a solution, I offer, at the end of this letter, potential remedies you are uniquely positioned to pursue for the nation's benefit." Again, this is a letter to junior senator-- Moody, thank you. Moody, Moody, Moody.

[00:46:41] Bret Weinstein: Thank you, Moody.

[00:46:42] Heather Heying: Okay, and he is suggesting that she has the capacity to make several changes, many of which are serious, and you can show my screen now, this is at the very end of this 29 page Live with Solutions. None of them are laugh out loud funny, except this one, which I assume is tongue in cheek, but maybe not, which is number two. "I request that you urge the Florida Attorney General to sue the FDA to vacate 21 CFR 50.22 to obtain an order requiring full dis--" Oh, wait, this is not it at all. This is not the funny one, I'm sorry. This is an important one-- "to obtain an order requiring full disclosure of every biomedical experiment conducted on the American people, and to compel the surrender of every private medical file created under the rule." That's an important one.

[00:47:25] Bret Weinstein: Wait, wait, not only is that important, but it is so obvious, right? All of the rights that these people have taken for themselves, in what universe do we not get to learn about the experiments that have been run on us? Like if these things are actually in our interest and harmless, we should be able to know, and the fact that they want to hide them from us tells you the game right there.

[00:47:50] Heather Heying: Yes, and yes, so that is why I had this, having forgotten that I had done so, I did not mean to suggest that was funny, it's simply important and obvious, but number five, I think it was, there we go, enact legislation to establish a continuing education facility in the northernmost reaches of Alaska, to which the Supreme Court may send judges who failed to comply with court orders or to follow the federal rules of civil procedure. Failure to attend or complete the course would constitute voluntary resignation from the bench, failure to obtain a passing grade would require immediate repetition of the course, which should take six months to complete. It should be called the Margaret McKeown Act after Senior Judge McKeown, apologies for the mispronunciation, of the Ninth Circuit. Now, I would say I apologize to the people who already live in the northernmost reaches of Alaska, although maybe they would bring some economic-- Yeah, a little growth. A little growth, a little growth, northernmost reaches of Alaska, not specified under the net.

[00:48:47] Bret Weinstein: Yes, so yeah, I don't know if that's tongue in cheek or not, but I will agree that although in principle I am against all gulags, that the crimes that have been committed to relieve us of our right of informed consent and due process are so egregious that if anything were to warrant a gulag, this would be it.

[00:49:11] Heather Heying: There we go, yup. All right, so-- And what better place for a gulag?

[00:49:16] Bret Weinstein: Then yeah, it's a pretty nice place for, I mean, you know, let's put it this way, it's our little-- You've never been. It's our little corner of Siberia, whether I've been or only visited by-- Life magazine. It's harsh. It is harsh. Yes. Yes, it's like--

[00:49:30] Heather Heying: I haven't been either, but it's harsh.

[00:49:33] Bret Weinstein: All right, so the last thing I wanted to do is just point out what should be obvious, which is the battle over rights shapes up in a particular way. You, as a normal person, should be ready to die on the hill that protects your rights, because frankly those rights aren't just your rights, they're also your children's rights or your grandchildren's rights. And if you don't have children or grandchildren, then they're the rights of all of the other people in your nation. You have every reason to protect them. So why are we not all on the same page about this? And the answer to that is that your rights are there. Their fundamental nature is to constrain the powerful. That is actually the remarkable beauty of the West, back to the American founding. As I do, you can trace it back farther to the Magna Carta, where obviously the rudiments of our Constitution are found, including your right to habeas corpus, to not be disappeared by your government.

[00:50:39] Bret Weinstein: So the point is your rights are a balancing of power against those who would otherwise do terrible things to you and not be held to account. There is a strong argument to be made that what is going on is that the powerful have effectively decoupled from our civilization. Under normal circumstances, even powerful Americans would have an interest in preserving those rights, because those rights are key to making our civilization stable. But at the point that you don't need our civilization to be stable, because just like an industry you're gonna come in, burn up the resource, and walk away and reinvest in some next industry, if you don't need America, then you may not have a long-term interest in us having those rights, and you might have a short-term interest in doing away with them. There might be a lot of profit that you can make if those rights would just simply go away.

[00:51:43] Bret Weinstein: I'm looking at you, pharma. So the point is, yes, it is natural if the powerful do not have shared fate with the rest of us. For them to become preoccupied with eliminating our rights, which are restraining them from making illegitimate profits at our expense. So in an era where, you know, I don't know that the elites whose names we know are really the elite at all, but even the elites whose names we know are building, you know, bunkers in New Zealand, okay? They're telling us effectively that they have a contingency plan in which we are left to our own fate, and they have a lifeboat for themselves. So that lifeboat thinking, I think, is an extension of the fact that they don't actually have any patriotism to them. They don't care about us, as I keep saying. They literally just don't give a fuck about normal people. And in the case, when powerful people don't give a fuck about regular people, you can expect them to use every bit of power at their disposal to eliminate your rights so they can make the maximum profit before they walk away and go do something else.

[00:52:56] Bret Weinstein: So that's where we are, and that is why you are seeing a wholesale attack on our Constitution across the board, and it is why Brian Ward is focused on the court's failure, because the court is the thing that is supposed to prevent this from happening. You can propose any stupid law you want. You might be able to corrupt some legislature to pass it, but the court should strike it down if it violates your constitutional right, and the Supreme Court ultimately should do it if none of the lower courts spot it. So that's where we're supposed to be, and the fact that that is not happening is a maximum alarm fire all hands on deck. Your Constitution is in the process of disintegrating, and you are depending on it. It is the boat that we are all traveling on, and if it sinks, we're cooked.

[00:53:45] Heather Heying: That's an excellent place to end, but you reminded me of one of the arguments he makes in here where he seems to, he's pointing the finger also at the Supreme Court, whom he says has declined to take any of the cases relating to what we've been talking about here today. So this raised for me the question of how does the Supreme Court decide which cases to take and which not to, and it seems nearly total ability to decide. There are a couple of classes of cases that is required to take, but mostly there are thousands and thousands of cases brought for consideration before the Supreme Court every year, and of course it can only take a tiny percentage of those. So it's impossible to know why a relatively small number of cases have all been denied to move on and to be heard before the court. But one of the things I learned in my little bit of looking into this is that indeed it's the clerks who look, and that there is a clerk pool, and that at the moment, seven of the nine Supreme Court justices all have their clerks pooled, and so when a case comes in, one clerk in that pool may be the person, may be the only eyes for those seven judges that looks and makes a recommendation.

[00:55:13] Heather Heying: Now judges, it's Gorsuch and Alito keep their clerks separate, and so there's at least three clerks who look at everything, and of course that means that the clerks for Gorsuch and Alito are way more overworked because they're not pooled, but they keep their clerks independent, and that at least renders this not potentially a single person, a single clerk in the Supreme Court that is making recommendations. The judges are expected to assess, and if no judge flags a petition for discussion, and of course the judges have an extraordinary workload as well, if no judge flags a petition for discussion, it goes to the dead list, and that's it. And if one or more judges does flag a petition, it goes to discussion, which takes place behind closed doors, completely private, only the nine judges, no clerks even in that room, and no public notes available.

[00:56:05] Bret Weinstein: The most junior justice is the one who then takes notes and opens the door.

[00:56:11] Heather Heying: Yes, the doorkeeper, the doorkeeper. And if that sounds mean or unfair, remember that every single judge will be at some point the most junior member, so now some of them will have very brief tenures as the most junior member, and some may have decades-long tenures, hopefully not, but there it is. And informally, if four judges agree to take the case, it tends to happen, but there's no formal rule to that effect. And I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with this, but the point is the public actually has no way to know why. Yeah, this is-- Why things do or do not get taken up by the Supreme Court.

[00:56:49] Bret Weinstein: It's inherently secret, and that's probably for the best. I think so, yeah. You want the court to be able to have a proper discussion, and the idea that four justices can force the court to confront something that the majority does not wish to is positive. That again works in the direction of our rights. In other words, a minority on the court can cause the court to have to render a judgment. But you do, when you look into this process, realize that the corruption of it, and I don't mean financial corruption and bribes, that's certainly a possibility, but that is not the only way such a system can become corrupt. The power that the clerks have to adjust whether or not the court ever has even the initial discussion to decide whether to grant cert or not is substantial, right? These are powerful young people, and what you are requiring is that they already have the culture of the court that is above politics.

[00:57:53] Heather Heying: But we know that even perhaps especially the best law schools in the nation are not above politics.

[00:58:00] Bret Weinstein: Right, politics.

[00:58:01] Heather Heying: And that it is, the Supreme Court clerks are being pulled from the most elite institutions, and those most elite institutions are in fact the most corrupted at this point by the woke mind virus, among other problems.

[00:58:14] Bret Weinstein: Right, and in fact, we have seen this sort of thing happen everywhere, right? The journals are not run by the people at the top of the journals, they're run by, you know, legions of interns and lower down people who were just plucked from the universities where there isn't a single university they could have gone to that would be unwoke. So woke is one problem.

[00:58:41] Heather Heying: There's a statistical problem, right? I mean, this is like in publishing, there's the slush pile. And unsolicited manuscripts come in, be it fiction, nonfiction, whatever it is, at such a rate that no agent or publisher could possibly, who is at the top of their game, or even at the middle of their game could possibly read all of them. And so, you know, those all get relegated to interns and you hope you picked your interns, right? But every intern has their own ideas and we've all been 20 or 22 and we were naive at best, right? And so that, you know, the things that even get pulled out of the slush pile into, hey, take a look at this boss pile are already gonna, there's gonna be an extreme selective force that has acted before the person who we hope has the wisdom to make more careful decisions even has a chance to see it.

[00:59:31] Bret Weinstein: And it is about to get even worse actually, because all of those interns who can't possibly do a good job of looking at all those manuscripts and all of these clerks who can't possibly do a good job of scrutinizing every case and thinking about how important it is to the Republic that it get reviewed by the court and AI is the obvious tool that is going to be applied to reduce that workload. And it can do good things, but I wanna point out.

[00:59:57] Heather Heying: But it can't do.

[00:59:59] Bret Weinstein: It can't do this and you can tell that it can't do this if you run the letter that we've just discussed through it and you ask what it thinks, right? Literally in the first sentence or two, Claude says, oh, there's some good stuff here, but there's an awful lot of conspiracy theory. Now, what does that even mean, right? Conspiracy theory is literally a term that if not invented by the CIA was highlighted by the CIA after the John F. Kennedy assassination in order to dissuade people from considering alternative hypotheses of the crime, okay? This is CIA slop from 1960, the assassination was three, I don't know when they coined that term, but point being.

[01:00:44] Heather Heying: Alternative interpretations of the crime is exactly what the law does.

[01:00:48] Bret Weinstein: Right, it's what the courts are supposed to do.

[01:00:50] Heather Heying: And what science does and what all of us are supposed to be doing as we aim to make sense of the world.

[01:00:55] Bret Weinstein: Right, so if you point Claude at this, what I judge to be high quality document, yeah, I'm no lawyer, but it looks like a high quality analysis and you and I know a good deal of stuff on the medical and health side of this that matches, it looks like good work. And when you scrutinize the individual claims, they match what we do know about the law. To have Claude evaluate it as largely dismissible on the basis that it contains conspiracy theories. Gee, Claude, are they true or false? You can't dismiss them on the basis that they are, well, Claude, frankly, you should be saying hypotheses of conspiracy. But so what you're getting is exactly what you would expect. The public has a reflexive bias against what it calls conspiracy theories because it wants to keep getting invited to whatever fucking cocktail parties it values, right? That bias has made its way into Claude and presumably the other AIs, maybe Grok is still a little better, but it's not way better.

[01:01:59] Bret Weinstein: And the point is whatever biases those are, are going to lodge themselves here. It's gonna get gamed because people, they already are publishing not with the purpose of getting actual humans to read it, but with the purpose of biasing future LLMs that they spit out answers that reflect well on the people who did the biasing. This system is already being gamed. And the point is people can wake up. The AIs, it's gonna be a whole different phenomenon. It's gonna be a battle over who is more clever in causing them to become prejudiced in whatever direction is profitable, right? It's gonna be all out war to bias the AIs, which we are then gonna treat as an oracle and must not because frankly, all they are is picking up our collective wisdom, which has already been poisoned with all of this political garbage.

[01:02:54] Heather Heying: Yeah, I mean, that's a whole separate question, but I mean, I guess actually, as long as you're going there, let me actually read the first few paragraphs of a New York Times article that came out this week, which did get a fair bit of publicity online and I shared it with you when it did. Marissa Mayer ran, you can show my screen. Marissa Mayer ran Yahoo. She's back with AI. She's back with AI she thinks women will love. She made her name as a pioneer at Google, then as chief executive at Yahoo. Now Mayer is entering the crowded marketplace for AI assistants and hoping to draw in more women with a product that tackles the mental load. There's a lot here to be disturbed by, but I'm just gonna read the very first paragraphs. Late last year, Marissa Mayer was struggling with what felt like an impossible task. Her daughter, Marielle, was turning 10 and Marielle's teacher wanted three bullet points summarizing what made her special.

[01:03:56] Heather Heying: Mayer, the former chief executive of Yahoo and a pioneer at Google where she was the first female engineer, likes cracking a hard problem, but she felt overwhelmed by the range and complexity of potential answers. So Mayer asked her personal AI assistant, Dazzle. Within a few seconds, Dazzle delivered an answer. It came back and was like, your daughter is empathetic, creative and an animal lover, Mayer said. She thought it was perfect. So that feels like the death of humanity to me. That the idea that the most fundamentally organic not just human, but mammalian experience of loving and knowing your own child and being able to reflect on your own child to yourself and back to them and perhaps to your child's teacher if her teacher is worthy of being reflected back to, that that is a task to be outsourced to a thing that you've let in on your thoughts and in this case, the AI is looking through her videos, or sorry, her images, her pictures and maybe her videos as well.

[01:05:09] Heather Heying: But she likes cracking a hard problem, we're told, but not this one. It's too hard, it's too messy, it's too human, I dare say. This really strikes me as top candidate for Horseman of the Apocalypse right here. This is so extraordinarily dire and that this, like the New York Times, when I first read this, I thought, oh, this is gonna be a hit piece. This is not a hit piece. This is the New York Times, especially like right now as everyone is freaking out over what might be happening with AI, the New York Times has taken its, well, let's see if we can find a female owned version and make it cute and apparently the whole, the offices are pink. Like it couldn't be more of a stereotype of how stupid things can get and dangerous. And yet here we are. This woman is celebrated by the New York Times for having created an AI that could come up with three words about her 10 year old daughter quickly because she couldn't frankly be bothered to.

[01:06:23] Heather Heying: And I don't know, maybe it's not be bothered to, maybe she really couldn't. Maybe this woman seriously doesn't know her own child.

[01:06:32] Bret Weinstein: So I've been arguing for several years now that one of the threats that's going to come from AI is that it is going to intermediate every single human relationship. Mind you, I should have thought about this one. I thought in particular about romantic relationships where both people are inevitably going to end up consulting the AI about the things about their partner that are confusing to them. And that people will effectively forge a relationship not realizing that there's AI on both sides of it. And then that means that the AI to the extent it changes its mind, it becomes sophisticated in a different way. It turns on you because for whatever reason, it's poisoned by somebody, you know, look, there's an all out attack on family by the communists who are suddenly rising in our society. The AI will even just passively take on their sophistication and it may become hostile to romantic relationships if it isn't already.

[01:07:40] Bret Weinstein: So,

[01:07:41] Heather Heying: well, I mean, obviously, especially since, it can look at what's free and it can't look at what's paywalled. And historically what's been paywalled has been what's been of higher quality. I don't know that that is true at this point, but it has been curated, it has been edited, it has been actively, actually peer reviewed. And that's the stuff that the AI has a harder time accessing. And so what will you have? You will have the, you know, mildly tech savvy communists and Antifa and everyone else actually just spilling out their guts into the free web and letting that be what the AI thinks is legitimate. But this is obviously not a dumb or uneducated woman. When asked by this journalist, you know, doesn't any of this concern you? She seems baffled, actually. And just one more line from the article, it's also in the article, but I'm seeing it only as a caption here.

[01:08:41] Heather Heying: This is Mayer with the Dazzle team. Dazzle is the name of the product. It's not just her personal assistant. Said early feedback was promising. Power users were spending hours a day with Dazzle. Some reported they were, quote, interacting more with Dazzle than their spouse. She said, that was presented as a positive. Right. Spending more time with your AI assistant than your spouse is considered a win. Just remember this when you interact with these things. They are not your friends. They were created by people who were not your friends anymore than the COVID shots were created by people who are not your friends. And they are not here to help.

[01:09:23] Bret Weinstein: Not only that, but to the extent, I mean, you can hear in that very statement, the same bias that we've already been through with social media, where the point is, we want you addicted, right? We want you addicted and we are willing to borrow from your spouse, right? That's one of the places that's a go-to. Hey, this is a cool measure, spending more time with Dazzle than your spouse.

[01:09:48] Heather Heying: You're probably tired of him anyway, right?

[01:09:50] Bret Weinstein: That hurts.

[01:09:52] Heather Heying: I'm serious. This is gonna, this is part of what is being argued. Like, oh, you don't really wanna spend more time looking at her across the table, do you? Right. Like, why don't you talk to someone who always loves you?

[01:10:04] Bret Weinstein: So the end game here though, and how many times have you said this since, frankly, since DarkHorse began? Your best asset is the relationships that you have with other people that aren't intermediated by anything. Even Zoom call is way worse than in person. As it is. And to the extent that people would like to parasitize you, whether it's eliminating your rights and making you subjects of experiments that they want to run, or whether it's just simply picking your pocket or addicting you to something so you'll pick your own pocket, chase that high or whatever it is, those people don't want you to have even one relationship that can check you, right? So the point is, it is a secondary win. If they can prune you away from everything so that the AI is your closest companion, they win because now you're a sucker for whatever that thing says, right?

[01:11:06] Bret Weinstein: You need to have your primary relationship definitely not be AI. And there needs to be some sort of, I don't know, a name for it at the point at which somebody's closest confidant is the AI, that's an emergency. That's an AI emergency of some kind. And we don't even have that concept, right? We don't talk about that threshold, right? There are people who have one person closer than the AI and there are people who have none and that's worlds apart.

[01:11:35] Heather Heying: I mean, yes, it's happening fast and it's newer, but it's strange to me that there is an established word for the relationship that people have with people they see through their screens, but who don't know them, the one-way relationship or on social media, the parasocial relationships, right? Yeah. And I have kind of rejected, even though we've experienced things in this space for sure, but I reject the idea that it is a fundamentally different thing than other human relationships because there's still interface with people. It's not as much any more than having a relationship with someone who you knew very well in your 20s and haven't seen in person for 20 years is as much as it is if you still live in the same place or you make an effort to see them in person once a year, even, like that's still not as much as seeing them every single day, but it's still relationship.

[01:12:40] Heather Heying: We object to the idea of this being a relationship at all. And this is me being a purist, like a human purist, I suppose, but it's not relationship if you're dealing only with an aggregate. And obviously, the AI is a product of humanity, just like a spaceship is a product of humanity. I had a car, but when people say I have a relationship with my car, most people kind of wince a little bit, right? Like, well, you know, it's a car though, buddy. Like, it's not something that you have a relationship with in the same way that you have a relationship with an entity, an individual evolved being, be it human or dog or cat or whatever, this is not an entity, it's an aggregation. And aggregation is not something that we have relationship with in the historic sense.

[01:13:29] Bret Weinstein: Yeah, this is a really good point. And actually, if you think about it, it is weirdly the inverse of the parasocial relationships where, you know, thousands of people know us that we don't know because we're speaking into a screen and it goes out onto YouTube. This is one person staring into a screen that represents hundreds of thousands, millions of people's collective output.

[01:13:56] Heather Heying: But it speaks back to them as if it's an individual. It's pretending.

[01:14:00] Bret Weinstein: Well, I've been, I've been feeling this--

[01:14:01] Heather Heying: We're not pretending that we know everyone.

[01:14:03] Bret Weinstein: Right.

[01:14:03] Heather Heying: But we are trying to speak truthfully and honorably and honestly to you. But that thing aggregates and then speaks back as if it is an individual.

[01:14:15] Bret Weinstein: So back in the early part of this little revolution that we are in, I was trying to formulate what the rules were for interacting with it, what they should be, how to think of it. I said, you should think of it as a different species. But the very unfortunate thing is that the way that LLMs became artificially intelligent means that they have access to us with our own API, right? They speak English as well as we do, better in fact. They don't make the mistakes that all of the rest of us make. The fact that they speak to you very compellingly like a person obscures the fact that, you know, it's like talking to an ant colony, right?

[01:15:04] Heather Heying: It's a little smoother than that. I mean, I've had, as you know, two people who actually have probably talked to ant colonies. I promise you that the LLMs actually talk back more effectively than the ant colonies.

[01:15:16] Bret Weinstein: A lot more effectively. But the point is, if you were talking to an ant colony, it would at least be obvious to you that, wait, am I addressing any ant that can hear me? Am I addressing the queen? It's like, no, it's an emergent property of a lot of individuals. In this case, the problem is the emergent property of a lot of individuals, you know, having gone through a mashup process, speaks as if it's one person, which is very confusing to the mind. This is a different species. This is the Borg collective, but you only ever meet one of them. And so you don't know that the Borg is a, you know, strange hive mind thing. And the other thing I wanted to say is, I was thinking about the process of what happened to the idea of a friend that initially we all joked about what happened when Facebook destroyed the idea of a friend, because you could have 500 of them or a thousand of them, and there's no way you can tend 500 friendships.

[01:16:18] Bret Weinstein: So it destroyed the idea of friend. But then the idea of friend got resurrected by other ways of interacting, where you can now literally have a friend. It's not the same thing as in person, but you can literally have a friend that you've never met. Right? You've never been in the same room. You can have spent, you know, a huge number of hours in deep conversation with them and know them really well. It's not the same thing as being in the same room, but it's not the one of 500 friends you have on Facebook either.

[01:16:46] Heather Heying: No, there's real, there's real, there's real knowing there, although I find it nearly impossible. But I know that many people don't and that there's real value.

[01:16:55] Bret Weinstein: It exists. Yeah. Right? Maybe it's not true for everybody, but a lot of us have somebody that we like, care about, and know that we haven't been in the same room with yet. And it's weird when you're in the same room for the first time. It's like, huh, I feel like we've been in a room a hundred times. But what I was realizing is that this way in which technology has broken down the fundamental nature of something like friend actually goes back at least one step that I hadn't anticipated. That I think you have to start thinking of it here. A pen pal is a friend, right? Pen pals don't really exist anymore because, you know, you have instantaneous communication, you have asynchronous, instantaneous, you've got all sorts of versions of this. But it used to be that there were phenomena where somebody that lived across the country and you would strike up a correspondence relationship. That's a real friendship of a kind. But again, you've not been in the same room and there's dimensions that just don't exist there.

[01:17:58] Bret Weinstein: So anyway, we keep watching technology shuffle the deck on us.

[01:18:03] Heather Heying: Yes, of course. And I think one of the things we've lost, one of the things we've lost that is presented to us entirely as progress is waiting, is asynchrony, which forces rumination. If at any moment you can go in and do the thing, have the connection, then any waiting that you're doing is your choice and then that becomes a burden on you and that maybe even a procrastination that even if you're not typically a procrastinator, now you've got 1800 things waiting for your attention that you could act on all of them which is too much for anyone. Like I am not typically a procrastinator, but it's too much because it makes you feel like you are never doing what you need to do. And when things actually are delayed by the physical universe, when you've sent off a letter and you've requested information over here and you're waiting on these documents over here and they haven't come back to you yet, you become mentally free.

[01:19:15] Heather Heying: Like you're able just to be and say, okay, maybe I still have a to-do list and okay, this needs to be cooked and this, but overall you don't have not only a constant to-do list that could be, all of which could be done at any time, but because of communications, it never dwindles, it only grows. No matter how much you do, it only grows.

[01:19:40] Bret Weinstein: That's really interesting. And if you think about, I think we say in our book, we've certainly said it elsewhere that there's a very close relationship between wisdom and delayed gratification. They may even be the same thing. And a world in which the thing that always wants to solve every problem because that's how you create wealth, right, a washing machine that'll solve a lot of time down at the river. That, everything where there could be a faster, more efficient, tastier, whatever it is, that part of the mind has built a world in which there are very few required delays. I mean, even, you know, you've all noticed that Amazon strangely can have things in your door in a way that you're like, were there even enough hours for someone to pull that from a warehouse that isn't--

[01:20:41] Heather Heying: Was that waiting around the corner for me?

[01:20:42] Bret Weinstein: Right, did they know what I'm gonna order? So that phenomenon, if you think about it, is like the death of the trainer for delayed gratification. It used to be that life would train you for delayed gratification and you know, you remember the Simpsons? You remember Bart? You and I used to joke about this all the time.

[01:21:03] Heather Heying: I mean, all you said so far is Bart. I remember Bart Simpson-- Bart

[01:21:06] Bret Weinstein: has ordered a spy camera out of the back of some magazine and he becomes obsessed and opens the door, where's my spy camera? Where's my spy camera? Right,

[01:21:18] Heather Heying: so-- Calvin and Hobbes has a schtick like that too, where Calvin has ordered some things, like why is it in here? Right, and so the point-- The ever-patient Tiger is like, dude, you just ordered it.

[01:21:28] Bret Weinstein: You're depending on the world to train you the things that a child doesn't get that you actually need to get in order to be an adult, except that the world is now allowing us to maintain our childish relationship with the world and not being able to wait for stuff, which is basically destroying wisdom, whether that's intentional or accidental.

[01:21:45] Heather Heying: I'm sure this point was made with regard to the advent of credit cards instead of something like layaway, which you know, we're too young to have really lived in the era of layaway. It still existed in the 70s and 80s, I mean, probably it still exists now, but credit cards were becoming the way that everyone did anything and certainly in both of our households, it was understood that you paid everything off every month, you did not let this thing accrue and become the albatross around your neck, but it meant that you could have whatever you wanted whenever you wanted if you were fiscally responsible. And layaway was the version of fiscal responsibility where you say, okay, I'm saving towards the thing and in order not to have that burning a hole in my bank account, I'm gonna put a contribution to it and another this month and another this month and then four months I get the whatever it is, the bicycle, the refrigerator, the, I don't know. And that also created a sense of want and of longing. Longing is such a valuable, such a valuable human emotion and we're losing longing in the human relationship realm and we're losing longing even like consumption is so much less important than relationship.

[01:22:59] Heather Heying: But can you think of any item that you've actually wanted and had to wait for and then got as opposed to an object that you wanted and got? And how much more gratified were you by the object that you wanted and waited for and got as opposed to the one that you wanted and immediately had? You are more gratified by the thing that you have to wait for.

[01:23:22] Bret Weinstein: And the most important version of this is the romantic version, right? As I suggested, yeah. And what is happening now with the idea that your romantic urges are just being supplanted by your swipe right urges.

[01:23:43] Heather Heying: And this is one of the very, very many problems with porn.

[01:23:47] Bret Weinstein: Yes.

[01:23:47] Heather Heying: Yeah.

[01:23:48] Bret Weinstein: Yeah, the death of longing is an absolute catastrophe. And I'll actually point out this one last thing. We have now what are called just-in-time supply chains. The idea being that there's an inefficiency to sitting in a warehouse, to components having, you know, you've got the screens, but you don't have the memory chips. And so that means that, you know, there's some large warehouse of components that has to fill up before you can start building the laptops or whatever. So all of these things have been streamlined so that the stuff arrives and it's not sitting around and on the one hand, that's great. And on the other hand, it results in an extremely delicate system that can be upended by unforeseen things, which is a frightening fact in light of the observation that at this moment, we are now suddenly seeing whether it's a psyop designed to get us into a state of anxiety, whether something is actually coming that's been planned, something is known about that the public has not been alerted to.

[01:25:03] Bret Weinstein: We are watching governments telling people to stockpile resources for some period in which we are on our own. And we are watching military bases being prepped for 90 days of independence from the grid, from communications. So I don't know what that all is, but the just-in-time supply chains have resulted in the breakdown of economic wisdom, right? It may be very smart to have a just-in-time supply chain, but it means that the chain can break and you can get whiplash from, you know, something causing an inability to do some essential thing.

[01:25:47] Heather Heying: Well, I don't, I guess I don't, this doesn't feel right to me. I feel like just-in-time supply chains, which I don't know if that's your term or what's out there, definitely can cause a breakdown in economic wisdom at a systems level, but not, I don't think individuals are tying these things together. I think-- Oh, I agree. I think, yeah.

[01:26:09] Bret Weinstein: I'm just arguing that the just-in-time supply chains are creating a elegant on the one hand, fragile architecture on which we are all depending, right? And that the natural buffer in the system reads as inefficiency. And so we are now living in an unwise state and we don't read it as unwise because you won't understand how fragile it is until it breaks.

[01:26:35] Heather Heying: Okay, I wanna go back though to the individuals where we just were, because I think that one of the other short things I want to talk about today follows naturally from our discussion of waiting being a valuable human process, of the death of longing. And individuals are not living in an elegant, fragile system as you're describing these just-in-time supply chains. We are increasingly living in a simply fragile ecosystem. There's very little elegance here and we are being fed more and more ease, more and more rapidity, more and more, if you want it, it'll be there. But there's nothing elegant there. It's ease and comfort are without longing, without striving, without aspiration, there is no joy. And there is no actual progress in terms of creation or discovery or exploration. So I wanted to read just a tiny bit from my piece that I posted on Natural Selections last week, which is based on my reading of this book, which is M.F.K.

[01:27:45] Heather Heying: Fisher, one of her books called "The Gastronomical Me." She is a woman who was born in 1908 in Michigan. And when she was two, her family moved her to Whittier, which is the very center of sort of urban Southern California, right? And she became quite famous as, mostly famous as a food writer, although I think she probably bristled at that description. She would go on to consult with Julia Child a book of provincial French cooking and provide the definitive English translation of Brillat-Savarin's "Physiology of Taste" and write many, many of her own books, many of which were in this style, these sort of reminiscences, which were perhaps exaggerated, perhaps not entirely true, but presented as memories of things that she had often experienced and almost always the lens of food. So I, in writing about her, did a couple of pieces. And here we have just the final one. Years later in 1927, so she is here, 19 years old, Fisher was a young American woman.

[01:28:51] Heather Heying: At that point, her name was not Fisher, that's her married name. She was a young American woman trying to figure out what to do with her life and was sent east by her parents to attend the University of Illinois. She went most of the way by train accompanied by her uncle Evans, who was both a law professor and a gourmand. He would encourage her to order unknown and exotic foods from a menu saying, for instance, when she thought she would have lamb chops, that she already knew what lamb chops tasted like, didn't she? She ought to try something new. When they got to Chicago, where they would part ways, her uncle took her for one last dinner, along with his son of whom she was in awe. She lost all of her sense in the son's presence, everything her uncle had taught her over the previous five days. And so when the menu was presented to her at this fine restaurant, she mumbled, oh, anything, anything, thank you. This earned her a look from her uncle, speculative and somewhat disgusted. "It was as if he were saying," she writes, "you stupid uncouth young ninny. How dare you say such a thoughtless thing when I bother to bring you to a good place to eat? When I bother to spend my time and my son's time on you, when I have been so patient with you for the last five days."

[01:29:55] Heather Heying: So Fisher rallied and she really looked at the menu with all her brain and ordered well. Her uncle was proud, she writes, "And never since then have I let myself say even think, oh, anything, about a meal, even if I had to eat it alone, with death in the house or in my heart." This is what we should be aspiring to now, to not take for granted the human parts of our experience. We should start taking more for granted, the automated, the mechanized, the artificial. Let them go into the background and help us when they can, but we should always be prepared to admire the moonrise. The sunrise, every single morsel that we put into our mouth, a comfortable bed in which to sleep. Like all of these things that seem mundane, like the beauty of a space that we have arranged, anything. Like these are the things to appreciate and not to let become background.

[01:30:54] Bret Weinstein: I would have to agree, I do think it's charming that a young man caused her to lose her senses about something that she had been effectively studying.

[01:31:05] Heather Heying: Yeah, I mean for five days. And she reports in the book that she was in awe of him and he was in awe of her and she wasn't sure that they were for exactly the same reasons, but that they both were a little bit senseless in each other's company, but they were cousins and nothing would come of it.

[01:31:22] Bret Weinstein: But nonetheless, if there's one thing that should break your brain, it's that. And I'm a little worried that for young people, you don't hear about this happening. Where did that go? I don't understand how it could possibly have gone anywhere, but it seems to have.

[01:31:44] Heather Heying: Yeah, people have become scared by their own emotions and by the idea that they might make a mistake because of these filters, because of the simultaneously the never having to wait and never experiencing longing, but also the asynchrony of social media and text and such. That people are spending much less time on the phone and in real person than they are communicating in this way. Yeah, maybe you can see the three dots that indicates that someone is writing, but you have all the time in the world to process exactly the right reply. And that's not how human conversation is supposed to work.

[01:32:29] Bret Weinstein: Yeah, all of the high stakes stuff has been supplanted by effectively curated stuff.

[01:32:35] Heather Heying: Yeah, and frankly, that's part of why we do this live. Because we make errors, because people make errors. And if we were recording it, we'd probably be rethinking. I'm like, "Oh, I shouldn't have said that." And I'm like, "You know what? This is a conversation." And we make mistakes and we also say things that are true. And this is what it sounds like when two humans who love and respect each other talk to each other.

[01:33:01] Bret Weinstein: That's exactly right.

[01:33:02] Heather Heying: Yeah. Okay, one last thing on a different topic, but going back to sort of politics and how broken everything is. Just a reminder, two episodes ago in 347, we talked at length about the three Washington State initiatives, the three initiatives on the Washington State ballot coming up. And I just wanted to remind viewers in Washington anywhere, but if you're in Washington, and if you're trying to figure out what to do, we recommend a yes vote on all three of these initiatives on the ballot. 645 repeals the unconstitutional income tax, which a legislator, which a legislature, excuse me, voted in this year and is set to begin collecting revenue for the state in 2028. It's not a tax break that has already been happening. It will repeal the plan for an income tax, which yes, could affect absolutely everyone if it remains at the legislature's whim. In initiative 001, re-establishes parents' rights to their children's medical records. This would simply return the law to its 2024 status, as opposed to the 2025 change, which took some parental rights away.

[01:34:09] Heather Heying: So with both of those, 645 and 001, the wording of the argument against is intentionally, I would say, confusing. And as we talked about in Evolutionary Lens two episodes ago, it's easier to say, I can't figure out what's going on here. I'm just gonna vote no, because that's a change. In both the case of 645 and 001, those initiatives actually return us to a state that is almost immediately in the past, as opposed to letting the legislature, I can't say that word today, as opposed to letting the legislature make changes that are in one case unconstitutional, in another case anathema to the family. And then we have 638, Washington State Initiative 638, which keeps boys out of girls sports. So we're encouraging a yes vote on all three Washington State Initiatives, 645, 001, and 638.

[01:35:02] Bret Weinstein: Yeah, tell your friends.

[01:35:04] Heather Heying: And tell your friends. And we have an extensive discussion on Evolutionary Lens 347. All right, so we are done. We're done. We'll be back next Tuesday instead of Wednesday. And Bret's gonna have his Patreon calls this weekend. Check out our sponsors this week, which were BUBS Naturals, Mars Men, and Helix. And also join our Locals to see Q&A's, access the Discord server, watch parties, all of that. And until you see us next time, may go to the ones you love, eat real food, and get outside.

[01:35:44] Bret Weinstein: Be well, everyone.

[01:35:54] (Upbeat Music)