BRET: I hesitate to say it, but I'd impeach him. I would. I just think the behavior... HEATHER: You think Vance is independent? BRET: No. But you gotta start somewhere, you know? We've got a guy playing nuclear games, bankrupting us on our credit card, totally failing to deal with the crisis of immigration that he ran on, starting new wars that don't appear to be in our interest. So I don't know what it is, you know?

Positive change? Bret Weinstein would impeach Trump. In a recent DarkHorse Locals Q&A, @BretWeinstein was asked what positive change he'd like to see before the end of the year. His answer: "I hesitate to say it, but I'd impeach him."

If the camera can lie in real time, the tape is no longer evidence. Bret Weinstein told Julian Dorey a firm called Toka is pitching access to internet-connected CCTV, shut it down, rewrite the feed, no fingerprint the owner can see. Maybe the brochure is smoke. The product category is the problem. A court that treats video as a witness just inherited a witness that can be owned. Convict the innocent. Clear the guilty. Call it safety. When power can edit the street, jurisprudence is a costume.

Bret Weinstein began to see the world in a whole new light during Covid. Lockdowns, mandates, and censorship revealed “how the machine actually works.” And once you’ve seen it, you can’t go back. See his full address at Polyface Farms’ 2026 Retreat below:

This presentation is pivotal, but not in a good way. It would appear the fix is in. Dissident doctors, scientists and journalists pulled the curtain all the way back during Covid, each at spectacular personal cost. Meanwhile, those in power destroyed their credibility. It would be natural for the dissidents to lead any true Covid investigation. But power has other plans. If power is to survive an exploration of the Covid catastrophe, it must prevent the vindication of the dissidents. Instead power will promote its friends to scold them *and* the dissidents equally, so we can have an empty catharsis and get back to business as usual—without any meaningful change. This is the process that ensures no one is held accountable. I call it the Middle Ground Scramble. The important slide is at 25:00. Make no mistake, #Drastic# is there only to give the slide gravitas. Your new heroines are nominated at the top of the screen. They are the rocks. And Bill Gurley, it seems, is the Siren.

Thank you for (finally) addressing my actual argument, @michaelshermer. Unfortunately, your response is more like an example of my thesis (advancing fallacious arguments to resolve cognitive dissonance) than it is a refutation of any premise. I proposed the existence of a powerful force (PF) that appears to act with impunity within the U.S. You demand that I name names, and you suggest I would be laughed out of the Grand Jury chamber if I refused. What a strange leap. I’m making a logical argument for seeking to identify perpetrators. You want to impose a legal standard from the stage when *the state* has not only identified suspects, but believes it has a strong enough case to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. You’re a smart man. You know that doesn’t make sense. Many crimes are evident before perpetrators can be identified, let alone prosecuted. That’s why we have investigations. Obviously.

Bret is atheist adjacent and Joel is a creationist, yet the agree on this: WEINSTEIN: I've been thinking that there's something actually incorrect about the religious stories, the way we're passing them down, that has us misunderstanding the problems. And I'm very interested in fixing that puzzle if it's fixable, because I don't think we can afford to misunderstand these problems. We have to address them, because they're going to be fatal. So they come down to issues of free will, the question of evil, and the question of dominion. This is the third one on that list. And the idea that we have dominion over the earth, because of the way it's interpreted, I think is a very destructive idea. SALATIN: Couldn't agree more. When those conquistadors came in and murdered civilizations and exploited the resources in the name of God and the queen, the crusades — the fact is that a lot has been done wrong in the name of God, or any religion for that matter. And certainly not just God. Name your divinity. Plenty has gone wrong in that. And so it is a right understanding, I think, of our role as stewards, as caretakers of something ultimately that is not ours. That is kind of a starting point across religions, across all beliefs. That is where you start. You don't start with "I'm in control." You start with "I'm a seeker and a learner. Teach me what I need to do to help." That's a very different thing than saying, "I'm going to come in and do this, this, and this, and it's going to do this, this, and this for me."

Bret Weinstein: the official explanation for the towers isn't physics. It's sophistry. "The argument that is being made is not a physics argument. It is not an engineering argument. It is not an architecture argument. It is a personal, emotional, motivational argument. The argument that is being delivered is, 'Here is why I am not motivated to do anything else about 9/11, because I believe a story, and it involves heat shielding on steel, melting points, sagging points, yada, yada, yada. I believe a bunch of stuff, and the worst you can say about me is that somewhere in what I believe there's a logical error. So what?' They're providing a mechanism for getting off the hook, because being on the hook is not good, and anybody who's been in this fight a long time knows it's not good. The costs are astronomical. So you're dealing with a human phenomenon, and you're dealing with, well, frankly, it has a name. It's called sophistry. Sophistry is the art of making very high-quality arguments for things that aren't true. That's what sophistry is." Bret Weinstein on the subject of The World Trade Center and 9/11

"You can't fool a domain expert. What you do instead is you get them to fool themselves." Bret Weinstein at the Turning the Tide 9/11 Conference, speaking the evening of September 10th. WEINSTEIN: "I think we have a dynamic in the community of people that takes the question of conspiracy seriously, where we know the stories backwards and forwards. We know the evidence that makes it impossible to believe the official narrative, and we are stuck again and again in conversations that just don't function normally. You say something about what's obviously true, and it just does not have the impact on the person you're talking to that it should. And so I want to talk about why that is and what effect it has on our own psychology and our own ability to make progress going forward." @BretWeinstein, PhD, “Forensic Science and Conspiracy: How to Be Rigorous When Deception Is Built In”

"Grief is the downside of love, and we mean that very, very literally. You love something and then it becomes enmeshed in who you are. And at the point that you lose that something, untangling it is not a simple process. Tears are basically your brain going offline to do difficult work." Bret Weinstein shares his thoughts on grief in Episode 341 of The Evolutionary Lens, "Lives Well Lived:"