Posts Tagged ‘Heather Heying’

Bret Weinstein Talks Elon Musk On Dave Rubin: Fighting Censorship And The Lone Wolf Problem

Saturday, December 9th, 2023

This is a very interesting clip of Dave Rubin interviewing the always-interesting Bret Weinstein on a variety of intertwined topics.

The main focus of this segment is a mystery: Why did Musk block Weinstein on Twitter right after spending a fair amount of time agreeing with him on the need to fight censorship, but they touch on a whole lot of interesting ideas in the process.

  • DR:

    That’s why I talk about Elon as much as I do on the show. Because I don’t I think if you would have said to Elon 10 years ago: “You’d own Twitter, you’d be in this free speech fight, you’d have, you know, the ADL calling you an anti-semite,” like the list of craziness that everyone now knows. I think he’d say “What are you talking about? That’s completely insane. I’m trying to get us to Mars. I’m building this cool car, blah blah blah.” But he, I think, is sort of the avatar for what you’re talking about there, the brave person that doesn’t know exactly what they’re going towards, something like that. But then he’s like “I better buy this freaking Twitter thing because I see all the danger.”

  • BW:

    I think you’re right about Elon. I don’t know for sure that you are, but I think you’re right about what he’s trying to do, and how he ended up there, and how it would surprise him. I had a meeting with him. I flew to San Francisco, and I had a meeting with him, and he said it had been a very good meeting, and he wanted to meet again. A series of events unfolded over the course of the next 24 hours. My Twitter account got commandeered. Maybe that was organic, maybe it wasn’t. I don’t think—I know Elon had nothing to do with it. But anyway, I reached out to him, and tried to alert him to this, because I was concerned that he and I had private communications, and he didn’t, want you know… I don’t think there was anything compromising in them, but he didn’t want them in the world, and he needed to know that this…and he ended up, uh, blocking me after having this meeting, and I remain blocked.

    Curious.

  • BW:

    Now, the reason I raise it is because there’s a defect in all of those players that I mentioned who have all been shoved onto the same team, right? They have some incredible strengths, and I have to tell you um there’s been a lot of pain inflicted on us for standing up. But the camaraderie, the discovery of people, people who were up to the challenge, their coming together as a coalition, has been extremely rewarding and dwarfs any suffering that might have come along with this.

  • DR: “Yeah, it sounds kind of corny, but I mean that those three days or whatever it was we had at ARC [Alliance for Responsible Citizenship] to see everybody together again, and all be, like, we’re still alive we’re still here it’s powerful.”
  • BW: “The problem is, that all of those people who have the characteristics that I listed, that are courageous, that are insightful, and that have integrity, they tend they have a lot of Lone wolfess in them. Which means that they have a defect they’re terrible at confederating.”
  • BW: “I see him as very strategically clever, but I don’t think he’s any good at confederating, either. And my little story where he blocked me, it’s like, look, hey Elon, there aren’t that many people out here trying to advance the ball who have something um meaningful to contribute to the team. We have to stop tripping over each other.”
  • BW: “What happened was…I believe that Dark Horse [podcast] that [wife] Heather [Heying] and I [do] have faced a whole bunch of suppression that that has not yet shown up anywhere.”
  • BW: “We are demonetized to this day. YouTube demonetized us. I believe they were going to throw us off. Joe Rogan held an emergency podcast, and you know YouTube hasn’t messed with us since. But they didn’t remonetize. More than half our income in a one fell swoop. And we know that decision happened in the C-suite at Google.”
  • Weinstein believes that the real push to demonetize and silence him came when he started to examine alternatives to the consensus Flu Manchu narrative.

    When we started to take it out of the realm of “Here’s a bunch of stuff you can’t understand and leave it to the virologists and the epidemiologists and the public health authorities” and the answer was “No, actually you can understand it and some of what you’re being told isn’t right.” Right when we started to do that and then we started to interact with people like Robert Malone and Peter McCullough, Pierre Kory, and then those people went on to affect a huge audience, largely on Joe Rogan’s program. That changed the narrative, and so I think something has meddled with us in a particular, in a unique way, because frankly there weren’t that many people who could bridge the scientific to public.

  • Rubin brings the subject back to Musk. BW: “You talked to Elon about the things he was discovering inside of the crime scene that he bought. And one of the things that he discovered was that there were lots of mechanisms that caused things to be deboosted that weren’t labeled as such. And so he kept finding more and more levels and I was trying to convey to him, ‘Look, I think you will find something special when you figure out what happened to us.'”
  • When Musk blocked him over these, he said “Stop spamming me!”
  • DR: “What you’re really saying, in essence, is that you were a little too ahead of something in the game at which the speed is played that he may not want to be involved in that just yet.”
  • BW: “On Dark Horse we have the phrase ‘Zero is a special number.’ What that means is if you can turn a single social media platform, a single newspaper, or a single university so that it functions towards its stated goal, you actually stand a chance of fixing the, system because if there’s one social media platform on which you’re treated like an adult and you can exchange ideas freely and discuss them back and forth, nobody’s going to want to be on the ones in which you’re treated like a child.” I would like to think he’s right here, but I see an awful lot of people on the left acting as though the only good thing about the pre-Musk Twitter was the ability to banish users for WrongThink.
  • It’s an interesting conversation with a lot to chew on. Just why is their such a strong nexus between Social Justice and wanting to force conformity on Coronavirus?

    But I also wonder: Just how much of a remnant is there on the left in favor of free speech? Are are any significant advocates for it under the age of, say, 50?

    Anti-Woke Academics Announce New University of Austin

    Tuesday, November 9th, 2021

    Yesterday, a number of anti-woke intellectuals announced that they were starting a new university on Bari Weiss’ substack.

    Pano Kanelos:

    So much is broken in America. But higher education might be the most fractured institution of all.

    There is a gaping chasm between the promise and the reality of higher education. Yale’s motto is Lux et Veritas, light and truth. Harvard proclaims: Veritas. Young men and women of Stanford are told Die Luft der Freiheit weht: The wind of freedom blows.

    These are soaring words. But in these top schools, and in so many others, can we actually claim that the pursuit of truth—once the central purpose of a university—remains the highest virtue? Do we honestly believe that the crucial means to that end—freedom of inquiry and civil discourse—prevail when illiberalism has become a pervasive feature of campus life?

    The numbers tell the story as well as any anecdote you’ve read in the headlines or heard within your own circles. Nearly a quarter of American academics in the social sciences or humanities endorse ousting a colleague for having a wrong opinion about hot-button issues such as immigration or gender differences. Over a third of conservative academics and PhD students say they had been threatened with disciplinary action for their views. Four out of five American PhD students are willing to discriminate against right-leaning scholars, according to a report by the Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology.

    The picture among undergraduates is even bleaker. In Heterodox Academy’s 2020 Campus Expression Survey, 62% of sampled college students agreed that the climate on their campus prevented students from saying things they believe. Nearly 70% of students favor reporting professors if the professor says something students find offensive, according to a Challey Institute for Global Innovation survey. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education reports at least 491 disinvitation campaigns since 2000. Roughly half were successful.

    On our quads, faculty are being treated like thought criminals. Dorian Abbot, a University of Chicago scientist who has objected to aspects of affirmative action, was recently disinvited from delivering a prominent public lecture on planetary climate at MIT. Peter Boghossian, a philosophy professor at Portland State University, finally quit in September after years of harassment by faculty and administrators. Kathleen Stock, a professor at University of Sussex, just resigned after mobs threatened her over her research on sex and gender.

    We had thought such censoriousness was possible only under oppressive regimes in distant lands. But it turns out that fear can become endemic in a free society. It can become most acute in the one place—the university—that is supposed to defend “the right to think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.”

    The reality is that many universities no longer have an incentive to create an environment where intellectual dissent is protected and fashionable opinions are scrutinized. At our most prestigious schools, the primary incentive is to function as finishing school for the national and global elite. Amidst the brick and ivy, these students entertain ever-more-inaccessible theories while often just blocks away their neighbors figure out how to scratch out a living.

    The priority at most other institutions is simply to avoid financial collapse. They are in a desperate contest to attract a dwindling number of students, who are less and less capable of paying skyrocketing tuition. Over the last three decades, the cost of a degree from a four-year private college has nearly doubled; the cost of a degree from a public university has nearly tripled. The nation’s students owe $1.7 trillion in loans.

    And to what end? Nearly 40% of those who pursue a college degree do not attain one. We should let that sink in. Higher education fails 4 in 10 of its students. A system that so brazenly extracts so much from so many without delivering on its basic promises is overdue for a reckoning.

    The warped incentives of higher education—prestige or survival—mean that an increasing proportion of tuition dollars are spent on administration rather than instruction. Universities now aim to attract and retain students through client-driven “student experiences”—from trivial entertainment to emotional support to luxury amenities. In fact, many universities are doing extremely well at providing students with everything they need. Everything, that is, except intellectual grit.

    Snip.

    But we are done waiting. We are done waiting for the legacy universities to right themselves. And so we are building anew.

    I mean that quite literally.

    As I write this, I am sitting in my new office (boxes still waiting to be unpacked) in balmy Austin, Texas, where I moved three months ago from my previous post as president of St. John’s College in Annapolis.

    I am not alone.

    Our project began with a small gathering of those concerned about the state of higher education—Niall Ferguson, Bari Weiss, Heather Heying, Joe Lonsdale, Arthur Brooks, and I—and we have since been joined by many others, including the brave professors mentioned above, Kathleen Stock, Dorian Abbot and Peter Boghossian.

    We count among our numbers university presidents: Robert Zimmer, Larry Summers, John Nunes, and Gordon Gee, and leading academics, such as Steven Pinker, Deirdre McCloskey, Leon Kass, Jonathan Haidt, Glenn Loury, Joshua Katz, Vickie Sullivan, Geoffrey Stone, Bill McClay, and Tyler Cowen.

    We are also joined by journalists, artists, philanthropists, researchers, and public intellectuals, including Lex Fridman, Andrew Sullivan, Rob Henderson, Caitlin Flanagan, David Mamet, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sohrab Ahmari, Stacy Hock, Jonathan Rauch, and Nadine Strossen.

    It’s an interesting collection of people, running from conservatives to “mugged liberals,” all of which I think have objected to the epistemological closure of social justice.

    We are a dedicated crew that grows by the day. Our backgrounds and experiences are diverse; our political views differ. What unites us is a common dismay at the state of modern academia and a recognition that we can no longer wait for the cavalry. And so we must be the cavalry.

    It will surely seem retro—perhaps even countercultural—in an era of massive open online courses and distance learning to build an actual school in an actual building with as few screens as possible. But sometimes there is wisdom in things that have endured.

    Here’s the website for the new institution, which states the following principles:

    Universities devoted to the unfettered pursuit of truth are the cornerstone of a free and flourishing democratic society.

    For universities to serve their purpose, they must be fully committed to freedom of inquiry, freedom of conscience, and civil discourse.

    In order to maintain these principles, UATX will be fiercely independent—financially, intellectually, and politically.

    About funding:

    We’re completely rethinking how a university operates by developing a novel financial model. We will lower tuition by avoiding costly administrative excess and overreach. We will focus our resources intensively on academics, rather than amenities. We will align institutional incentives with student outcomes.

    The new university is located at 2112 Rio Grande Street in Austin, Texas. For those unfamiliar with Austin, that’s right in the West Campus area, AKA Fratville, immediately to the west of the University of Texas. Presumably they’ll be able to draw some students, talent, etc. from their location, not to mention a lot of nearby student amenities.

    It will be interesting to see how this experiment works out, but one university isn’t enough to stem the tide. All of American education needs a hard reboot, one where everyone pushing social justice down America’s throat lose both their jobs and funding.

    Which Of Our Institutions Are Captured and Corrupted?

    Wednesday, September 15th, 2021

    Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying discuss which of our institutions have been captured. Short answer: All of them.

    See also: Jerry Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy.

    Joe Rogan Interviews Bret Weinstein on Flu Manchu, Ivermectin, and Media Groupthink

    Saturday, September 11th, 2021

    Joe Rogan interviewed Bret Weinstein and his wife and fellow evolutionary biologist Heather Heying on a variety of topics.

    On the eternal Flu Manchu struggle:

    “Garrett Vandenbush said this is going to become a pandemic of variance, and he talked about immune escape.”

    They have failed to produce natural immunity, they have produced very narrow immunity…what he argued was that the fact of these vaccines being very narrowly targeted. These vaccines contain a single subunit of a single protein, and they’re being deployed in a way that is unusual they’re being deployed into an active pandemic. When we immunize against something like measles, the expectation is you will develop your full immunity with almost no chance of encountering measles. In this case, what we have are vaccines that are leaky, in which they do not provide full sterilizing immunity. They are narrow, and we are effectively creating an intense evolutionary pressure to cause the spike protein, of which this one subunit is what is contained the information [in] the vaccines. We are putting intense evolutionary pressure on it to change, so that the antibodies and other immune cell recognition mechanisms that are trained by the vaccines, are incapable of finding the pathogen. What it gets in this is what causes breakthrough cases, that the immunity that’s been created is evaded by the pathogen.

    The result: A radiant of variants for which the vaccines are less and less effective for providing immunity.

    “We the public need to recognize our interests are not being served by the public health apparatus. It is making errors that it doesn’t need to make, and that has implications for all of our individual health, and our collective well-being, that requires a rethink.”

    And here’s a discussion of the “horse dewormer” narrative:

    “We all need to be on team skeptic.”

    Heying: “That’s exactly right. We’re all being told ‘you’re on team blue,’ effectively ‘you’re on team mainstream, or you’re someone else, you’re persona non grata and you’re going to become a second class citizen.'”

    “Something is just not right about our way of doing journalism anymore.”

    Anthony Fauci was yesterday revealed to have clearly lied to congress when he told them we didn’t fund gain-of-function research in Wuhan. That was obvious when he said these things, but everyone assumed he had defined the terms in some way that would justify that claim. No, it was just a lie. So here we have somebody who you know lied to us about masks, has lied to us multiple times, and was also apparently a key to conducting funds in violation of our own ban on gain-of-function research. Conducting funds to the Wuhan Institute [of Virology], which may well have caused the pandemic. How is the person who is in the position to have circumvented a congressional ban on this kind of research, and possibly therefore have played a prominent role in producing the pandemic, how is he also in charge of keeping us safe? And why are we tolerating him lying to us?

    “Something is is very far off that this thing just keeps running, no matter what evidence of dishonesty emerges.”

    Rogan has interviewed Weinstein before, and their discussions are always interesting.