Lift Up Your Hearts!

This post began with a simple meme that made me laugh.  Then I thought about it.

(I didn't make this up. I took it from Elon Musk on X, and who knows where he got it?)

The problem did not start with Joe Biden. It didn't start with Donald Trump. It didn't start with George Bush or Barack Obama. I don't know how far back the corruption goes. I don't even know what it is. The Deep State? The Administrative State? Bret Weinstein calls it Goliath. Others call it the Blob. A Christian might recognize it as Satan. It's not a person, though a large number of highly influential people are deeply involved; it's not a committee; it's not even an organization you can put your finger on, though plenty of committees and organizations are in it up to their necks. It's a force, and it has been driving our country at least since the Lyndon Johnson era, and probably before that.

The person who holds the office of president certainly matters—consider what has happened in just the last three and a half years—but not as much as one might think. There's something that has been driving our country steadily in the wrong direction for decades. It is unelected, responsible to no one, and doesn't care if it corrupts Republicans or Democrats as long as they do what they're supposed to do. Some people are more amenable to control than others, but no one is clean. This may sound like a conspiracy theory, but the evidence is convincing. I've been observing our culture for more than half a century, and this hypothesis is a curve that best fits the data points. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

We face a formidable foe. I don't know who they are, but I know they've been running the country behind the scenes for the past three years—it sure couldn't have been President Biden. Based on what has happened on her watch, which she has not repudiated, I'm 100% convinced that even if Kamala Harris is not complicit, she would, as president, continue to be led along the same disastrous path.

I don't know if Donald Trump has much of a chance; he tried in his first administration, with some success but some notable failure, too, especially in the COVID-19 debacle. I think he has become smarter and wiser from his experience. There's a lot about the man I don't like, but at least he, J. D. Vance, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, and many other brave souls recognize what we are up against and are determined to fight against it. Yes, I do recognize that the people I just named, who are so enthusiastically working with President Trump, came from the Democratic Party. That's a good part of where I find encouragement: people of all parties are beginning to understand the situation and take action.

With two doctors in the family, and plenty of friends in the medical world, I have it on good authority that neurosurgeons, as a group, are a particularly nasty set of people. In general, I'm told, they are brash, egotistical, and opinionated to the point of extreme rudeness. Not the kind of people I would like for neighbors. Or friends. But if that's true, I strongly suspect that those personality traits are exactly what is needed for the kind of work they are called upon to do. If you're going to operate on people's brains, you need to believe you are the best for the job, and demand the best from everyone in the operating theater. You need supreme confidence in your opinions, your skills, your decisions, your equipment, and your coworkers. How else would you dare to touch a human brain? Would you want someone operating on your brain to be indecisive? To make his cuts without being certain that he is doing the right thing?

Jordan Peterson has wrestled with trying to figure out Donald Trump—he's a psychologist; that's what they do—and has suggested that the traits that turn people off may be exactly what he needs to succeed in his David versus Goliath mission. They had better be, because for now, he leads the greatest earthly hope we have.

Florida's state surgeon general, Joseph Ladapo, just went up another notch in my book. He is now recommending that Florida's cities that add fluoride to their water supply reconsider that practice.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not against fluoride as an aid to dental health. And once upon a time I was pleased to have fluoridated water, considering it to be a sign of a progressive city. I now believe I was wrong. (I have been wrong on occasion. Once upon a time I even thought it was a good idea to get the COVID-19 vaccine, a decision which I now regret.)

Maybe there was a point in time when it was a good idea to mass-medicate the population, but looking back, I don't think so. In any case, there are now so many other ways to obtain fluoride for dental purposes that it seems ridiculous to impose it on all the city's water customers. I'm not against fluoride, per se, but I am 100% against government-mandated ingestion of fluoride. Let those who want it avail themselves of the many options available, but let our water be pure and safe! Here's hoping we can convince our city to follow the surgeon general's recommendation.

In this I do envy our Swiss family, whose city water comes out of the tap as it comes out of the ground: no fluoride, no chlorine, just great-tasting, pure water.

UPDATE: I wrote to our mayor and our city commissioners, and received a response from the city manager, with whom I have already clashed on the issue of recycling. It was not encouraging. He hastens to reassure me that "you will be happy to know that the levels in our water [are] far lower than the level of fluoride in the study that concerned the Surgeon General," and "we are guided by the science." Well, no, that does not make me particularly happy. Any level of added fluoride is at best outdated, as fluoride for dental purposes is readily available in many forms for those who want it. Medicating the population, en masse and often against their will, is not an acceptable function of government.

Plus, the phrase "we are guided by the science" automatically raises red flags, as all too often it translates to, "we are guided by the pronouncements of whatever authorities we choose to follow," with little regard for how the process of science actually works. This is the same city manager who, when I asked where the materials that the city collects for recycling actually end up, showed no interest in what happens to it once the city passes it on to another agency.

I guess there's more work to be done. I hate politics, but the least I can do is speak up, so they can't insist that they must be right because no one is objecting.

I certainly should have known better.

For several years I worked in a research lab at a major university medical center. True, I only did the computer work (I have exactly one published paper to my name from those days), but even back in the 1970's it was obvious that the peer-reviewed papers/government grant system was, if not totally broken, at least rigged.

Moreover, I spent much of my life learning that "the system" was not to be trusted in many fields. I think it began when my mother, following the customs and recommendations of both society and the medical experts, fed her newborn infants a mixture of diluted evaporated milk and Karo corn syrup, instead of breastfeeding.

But it didn't really hit me until I had children of my own, and observed again and again that the best course of action seemed to be to do exactly the opposite of what the experts recommended and society accepted without question. From birth and childrearing practices to educational decisions to nutritional and medical choices, life taught me that "going with the flow" was often a very bad plan.

So why, why, why did I willingly, even eagerly, accept the COVID shots? Two reasons.

One, working in medical research had provided opportunities to perhaps make a difference in the world, and one of these was being a test subject for the development of the Haemophilus Influenza B vaccine. Porter and I have been blood donors for decades. Our DNA is part of a medical research database. In other words, we've always tried to be good citizens on the medical front.

I like to think that was a good thing. But it predisposed me to being willing to try the COVID shot for the good of the world. Plus, the pressure was great back then that COVID-19 was deadly for the elderly, and our children were worried about their parents.

Still, I feel really stupid for trusting the medical establishment that this was "safe and effective and the only way to keep from killing grandmothers." I knew better. I knew, and even proclaimed at the time, that when the government and medical authorities make such broad statements they are lying. They must be, if only because nothing—especially nothing so novel—can be known to be safe without long-term trials.

By far the biggest factor, however, in our decision to get the shots was blackmail. We have family living overseas, and the only way we could visit them was to submit to the jab. Grandchildren change so fast, even in the course of a year. Even stateside family was largely cut off. We missed a big family reunion, and a nephew's wedding, and barely made the wedding of another nephew. Florida relaxed its restrictions relatively early on, but several long-planned events could not have happened without our vaccination cards, thanks to the restrictions imposed by other states. It was much worse for other people; at least we didn't miss any funerals, or lose our jobs.

Knowing what I know now, would I have willingly closed the door that the magic compliance card opened? I certainly hope so, but I can't honestly say I'd have made the sacrifice.

Nonetheless, I feel stupid, betrayed, and very, very angry.

We're all probably going to die when a more dangerous pandemic hits, because the trust is gone. At least the boy who cried wolf only got himself killed.

Consider this: The election of President Trump may be all that stands between us and nuclear war.

Does that sound crazy to you?

Okay, here's something crazier: President Biden just authorized the Ukraine to attack deep into Russian territory using American missiles.

This, like encouraging the Ukraine to join NATO, crosses another "red line" for Russia. From the BBC article linked above:

In September President Putin warned that if this were allowed to happen, Moscow would view it as the "direct participation" of Nato countries in the Ukraine war.

"This would mean that Nato countries… are fighting with Russia," he continued.

The following month, the Kremlin leader announced imminent changes to the Russian nuclear doctrine, the document setting out the preconditions under which Moscow might decide to use a nuclear weapon.

This was widely interpreted as another less-than-subtle hint to America and Europe not to allow Ukraine to strike Russian territory with long-range missiles.

This is 'way beyond "poking the bear."

It almost makes me believe those who say there are many in our government (with both D's and R's after their names) who want us to go to war with Russia. Who want us to go to war with Iran. Who are actively pushing us into these wars.

That is no garden-variety crazy. That is pathologically insane.

I've said from the beginning of the 2022 escalation of America's involvement in the fight between Russia and the Ukraine that we seem intent on leaving President Putin no way to save face, to back off without being utterly defeated, which strikes me as stupid on any number of fronts. Who in his right mind could possibly want to set off World War III? Seriously. Why do we continue to push Russia into an ever and ever tighter corner? Desperate people—and desperate countries—do desperate things. This is no situation of "we think maybe Iraq has weapons of mass destruction." We know Russia has them, and we should not be leaving nuclear, chemical, and/or biological warfare as their only options.

Even if we could keep a confrontation to conventional warfare, do you think the American military is adequately prepared for such a fight, likely on several fronts? I have no such confidence. Certainly the American public is not ready. Military standards, recruitment, and satisfaction in the ranks are all suffering. If FEMA couldn't find enough generators to help out Appalachia after Hurricane Helene because we gave them to the Ukraine, what about all our military equipment that went that direction? Sure, we can rebuild with newer and better equipment, but That. Takes. Time. Time we may not have. And money we certainly do not have.

Do you really want to bring back conscription? Maybe if you haven't lived through the Vietnam Era you can't understand the devastation that the draft brought to individuals, families, communities, and the entire country. If you think we are broken and divided and hurting now....

"Bodily autonomy" has proved to be a powerful rallying cry on both sides of the aisle, with Democrats using it primarily to mean the right to have an abortion, and Republicans using it primarily to mean the right to not have a COVID shot. Everyone agrees that the government's authority over our bodies and those of our minor children should be extremely limited. Everyone except those who favor conscription, that is. 

Even that doesn't matter if the nukes start flying.

I'm praying that President Putin will remember that in a couple of months we'll have a new president, and be restrained in his response. New administrations can often be an excuse, welcomed on both sides, to break impasses—as when the hostages held by Iran for more than a year were finally released as soon as Ronald Reagan took office.

I suppose it's possible that this apparently unhinged action on the part of President Biden is actually a move calcuated to put incoming President Trump in a better negotiating position with the Russians. If so, I'd still call it more crazy than clever. But I'll be praying that it works.

Let's honor our veterans—those who stand "between their loved home and the war's desolation"—by making our military into an occupation that attracts the best and the brightest, offers opportunities for education and advancement and a good future for those who need a hand up, provides well for their families, prioritizes their physical and mental health when they return home, and above all has the policies and direction to be a place where our service men and women can serve with honor and integrity.

That's the least we can do, and the alternative is a military draft. I lived through times of conscription, and don't ever want to see those horrors again.

I feel as if I could sleep for a week.  And not write another word for a month.  Neither is going to happen.

I won't deny that I'm relieved by many of the election results so far. Perhaps the most unexpected was the fate of Florida's most controversial proposed state constitutional amendments, one having to do with marijuana and the other with abortion. From all that I heard, they seemed certain to pass. But apparently enough voters, even if they agreed with the overall sentiments of the amendments, realized that both were over-reaching and dangerous. I'm not going to argue either point here; I'm just very pleasantly surprised. Florida's constitution is far too easy to amend, and I'm glad we escaped this. The same issues are likely to come up again as legislation, which is where they should be addressed.

As for the presidential race, I'm cautiously optimistic. And especially grateful for the Amish, who got 'way out of their comfort zones and voted, and for the people of western North Carolina, who quite literally went through hell and high water to exercise their rightful franchise.

Most of all, it is time to remember, as we should after every presidential election, that approximately half of our fellow-countrymen—our neighbors, co-workers, friends, and families—are genuinely saddened, frightened, and maybe deeply depressed by the results. This is not some football game; it is our country, our world, and our future. Celebrating a well-earned victory is appropriate; exulting in the streets, or otherwise gloating—anywhere other than among similarly-minded friends—is unkind. Whatever one may believe the essential battle for the health of America may be, it can only be won in human hearts; kindness and sympathy for those who are feeling disenfranchised might be a great place to begin.

I love the Amish people. It was an Amish Supreme Court decision (Wisconsin v. Yoder) that became the backbone of home education today. Our family has deep personal ties to a court case that brought the Amish of Western Pennsylvania into downtown Pittsburgh to show their support in a situation that threatened their own way of life. The Amish are a very private people who just want to be left alone to live their traditional lives, but they will rise up and make themselves heard when their very existence is at stake. Several of our grandchildren were born in Amish Country. I'm not Amish, and I don't even know personally any Amish people, but I admire them greatly.

The following video is from Nick Johnson, about whom I know nothing else; it showed up as one of those YouTube suggestions after I watched something else. I found it delightful on many levels, from the scenery, to the simple, innocent, and very shrewd wisdom of the Amish people, to their solid values, to their delightful accents. (Did you know that their language is still understandable by modern-day speakers of Swiss German?) There's also an interview with Amos Miller, who is at the forefront of the fight for food freedom in Pennsylvania; we have some of his great meat in our freezer even now.

If you've ever met an Amish buggy on the road, you'll know how surprising this image is.

Traditionally, the Amish do not participate in civic matters. They do not vote. But this year, they see an opportunity to speak up for their way of life, the very existence of their farming and small business based culture, which is being crushed by heavy-handed governmental regulations that favor large corporations. They are voting this year, and in large numbers. For a look into a beautiful part of American culture that we rarely see, enjoy this 30-minute video.

Amos Miller is excited about the team that is gathering around Donald Trump.

They know the importance of farmers, they know the importance of food freedom, and I'm hoping that Trump will get that same perspective so we the farmers can do our duty that we've liked to do for many years. Farmers are going out of business like flies. We have lost probably 50% of our farmers within the last 20 years. We like to be farmers, we love to be farmers, but the rules and regulations that have been forced upon us for the last 30 years are terrible. We can't make a living, the food system is monopolized, the corporations want to run the government—so we're looking for someone to push government back, so we can be the true farmers that we love to be. Our culture loves to be farmers. The work ethic is still here; that can be lost in a very short period of time if we can't be farmers.

Yogi Berra was right. And so was whoever said "It's not over till the gravitationally-challenged, socially-important, assigned-female-at-birth person sings." Or you can look back a few millennia to Aesop and his chickens.

As long as there have been elections, people have been trying to anticipate the results.

I find polls moderately interesting, even the disturbing but legal election betting markets, but I try to be neither elated nor depressed by them. I'm going to refer you to my Poll Results post from early August. Better yet, I'll reprint it below. Complacency is a dangerous enemy. So is believing that the ends justify the means.

Here's a question I'd like to ask of political pollsters:

What is the ideal position for a political candidate in the polls, at various times before an election?

Clearly, to be leading in the polls on Election Day (or whatever passes for Election Day in these days of early voting and mail-in ballots) is a good thing. But what about earlier? To be doing well at any point feels great, and can boost support due to the "to him who has, more will be given" effect. People like to be on the winning team, and tend to flee people they feel can't win.

I think there's more to it than that. The following excerpt is from Robert A. Heinlein's Citizen of the Galaxy; it has haunted me since I first read it in elementary school.

Weemsby stood up and looked happy. "In my own person, I vote one share. By proxies delivered to me and now with the Secretary I vote—" Thorby did not listen; he was looking for his hat.

"The tally being complete, I declare—" the Secretary began.

"No!"

Leda was on her feet. "I'm here myself. This is my first meeting and I'm going to vote!"

Her stepfather said hastily, "That's all right, Leda—mustn't interrupt." He turned to the Secretary. "It doesn't affect the result."

"But it does! I cast one thousand eight hundred and eighty votes for Thor, Rudbek of Rudbek!"

Weemsby stared. "Leda Weemsby!"

She retorted crisply, "My legal name is Leda Rudbek."

Bruder was shouting, "Illegal! The vote has been recorded. It's too—"

"Oh, nonsense!" shouted Leda. "I'm here and I'm voting. Anyhow, I cancelled that proxy—I registered it in the post office in this very building and saw it delivered and signed for at the 'principal offices of this corporation'—that's the right phrase, isn't it, Judge?—ten minutes before the meeting was called to order. If you don't believe me, send down for it. But what of it?—I'm here. Touch me." Then she turned and smiled at Thorby.

Thorby tried to smile back, and whispered savagely to Garsch, "Why did you keep this a secret?"

"And let 'Honest John' find out that he had to beg, borrow, or buy some more votes? He might have won. She kept him happy, just as I told her to."

A really commanding lead can discourage competitors from pouring money and effort into a losing cause. But somewhere in between that kind of lead and the bottom of the heap there's a point—I'm going to call it the Garsch Point—where a lead is dangerous. Two terrible things can come into play:

• A candidate's own supporters can become complacent, let down their guard, and like the overconfident hare, risk losing to the lagging but persistent tortoise.
• A zealous opponent, who would rather win honestly, may be tempted to resort to nefarious means of helping himself to victory. After all, when you're fighting infidels, it's okay to lie, cheat, steal, and even kill, right? Well, no, it's not. But the temptation can be great if you think the contest is critical and you might get away with it.

Beware the Garsch Point. It's okay to be happy to be leading in the polls, but it ought to be less a time for celebrating than a time for doubling down on honest and honorable effort. And maybe for not letting your enemy know your full strength.

 

Are you nervous about what might happen on and after Election Day? Do you fear the coming year? Do you awaken in the middle of the night from nightmares in which you find yourself surrounded by bonfires and people chanting, "Remember, remember the Fifth of November"?

Have I got a deal for you.

Actually, it's Amazon that has the deal. C. S. Lewis's George MacDonald: An Anthology is currently on sale for $1.99.

It's impossible to overstate the influence MacDonald had on Lewis, and this collection of 365 excerpts from his writings is a great introduction.

I HIGHLY recommend it, whatever your political leanings.  (For more on George MacDonald, see my post "All Is Gift - A Legacy from C. S. Lewis.")

Here are a few quotes from an Epoch Times article called "Small Actions to Save the World."

A consensus seems to be emerging. Civilization as we knew it only a few years ago appears to be decaying. ... You probably agree and would like to do something about it. But what?

The expectations and connotations of the word change have flipped. Whatever it is, you can predict that the change will be toward something worse, more degraded, more debased, and so on.

Being surrounded by that reality casts a kind of pall over daily events and choices and affects how we look at the world. It determines whether we expect the dawn or the darkness, and this outlook tends to be self-fulfilling in one way or another.

If we don’t speak out in small ways ... the decline will surely continue without any pushback. If there is going to be pushback, someone has to do it.

At the same time, I started to appreciate anew the institutions that are upholding values consistent with the good life: good service, decorum in manners and dress, attention to quality, genuine commitment to excellence, and so on. When you run into examples of this, it is something you can do to point it out and praise it.

Above all,

Rather than giving into the attitude of decline and fully expecting the darkness of night to be the next step, we can proceed through life with a determination to make sure that it does not happen. We can all do something, even if it’s very small, but those actions might make a big difference.

Once you start paying attention to the signs of those who are trying to improve the world rather than tear it down, you will find them everywhere. Sometimes, a little voicing of support is all that is necessary to make sure it continues. Reward the good and stand up against the bad: Everyone can do this in small ways.

Yes, we need much bigger changes to save the world. Above all else, we need a new respect for freedom and rights, and that requires dramatic political change. But we cannot count on that, and, in addition, big changes are downstream from the small ones. There are features of life we do control, and here is where everyone can be part of the change.

This post is written from a Christian perspective, but much of it could be appropriate for anyone.

How do we pray for an election?  Is it right to pray for our people to win?  If God thinks we need to have the other guys in office, who are we to presume otherwise?  That's a much bigger question than just about an election, and much better people than I have wrestled with it over the ages. The best I can do is paraphrase they way I remember C. S. Lewis dealing with it: If you can work for a candidate's success, if you can contribute to his campaign, if you can vote for him—it's certainly something appropriate to pray for.

Nonetheless, as much as I want Donald Trump to return to the Oval Office, I was for a long time reluctant to pray for his victory.  After all, what if I'm wrong?  What if America actual needs Kamala Harris as our leader?  I'm not omniscient, much less perfectly wise.  What if I do that, and God answers my prayer—and I regret it?  Certainly it sometimes happens that he gives us what we beg for—and then makes good come out of what could have been better.  But again, better folks have written on all these questions.

It was taking another look at Christ's prayer in the Garden of Gesthemane that made sense of it for me.  "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death." ... "Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me.  Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done." ... And being in agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground. [My condensation]

Jesus knew well beforehand that his Father's plans for him included an agonizing death.  He knew it well and had already told his disciples that it was necessary for the accomplishment of what he had come to earth to accomplish. But he was terrified, and didn't hesitate to pray for some way out of it.  If Jesus Christ can pray desperately to avoid something he sees no good way out of, I guess I can pray for election results.  The trick comes in how he always ended these prayers: with "Not my will, but yours be done."

So this is, roughly, how I pray for this election.

• That it would be free and fair,
• That the candidates and causes I care about will be victorious, and most especially that
• God will work out his will in and through the election—let's be real here; he knows better than I do.

And one more thing: Win or lose, that we face the next four years with the same attitude I witnessed in New York City, less than two weeks after the 2016 election that put Donald Trump in office the first time.  As I wrote previously, 

Coming so soon after the election, it was delightful to find everyone so polite, considerate, and going out of their way to be friendly and helpful.  Even a multi-racial discussion about the election itself, which we overheard in a local restaurant, was calm, reasoned, and willing to give others the benefit of the doubt. Willing to give Donald Trump a chance.

We need more of that, whoever wins this election.

It's easy to focus on the dark side as we approach this election, which is why I ardently hope that you will take half an hour to listen to what Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin have to say in the following video. It occurred during the pre-show activities of the Rescue the Republic Rally, and illustrates the positive side of this remarkable movement, which supports President Trump but is much bigger, broader, and better than a single person or election. If you catch me humming Patrick Doyle's "Non Nobis, Domine" from Henry V, this might explain why.

Peterson: One of the things to walk away from this event with is renewed conviction that you have something to do that's your responsibility and your adventure, and that's crucially important and that if you don't do it then you leave a hole in the world that won't be filled by anyone else. And so one of the things I hope that makes the movement that we're all trying to produce here potentially different from the typical top-down globalist utopian solutions is that it's your responsibility and your adventure and if we do that properly—and you Americans have done a fantastic job of that for 200 years—then you can renew your country and the whole world.

Rubin: One of the things that I'm most excited about and I suspect every single one of you is most excited about for being here is that this alliance of people, politically, could have never happened five years ago: the idea that Russell Brand and RFK and Tulsi—and I see a lot of MAGA hats out there—this thing that is happening right now it absolutely transcends politics. We're coming together over health, over caring deeply about this country, our founding documents, our founding fathers, all of the beautiful monuments that are here right now. What do you make of this realignment that we're seeing right now? Because it really has the potential to save the country; I don't know that anything else can.

Peterson: Well, I’m very optimistic about it, and also I would say very surprised about it, in exactly the way you just described. I mean first of all we have this strange spectacle on the Republican side at the moment of a very influential group of people who are heading up the Republican movement, all of whom were essentially Democrats, and so that's remarkable. Now they're disaffected Democrats, and that even includes Trump to some large degree. It's certainly the case with Musk and Tulsi Gabbard and Robert F. Kennedy, and so that's a remarkable thing to see. And I also think the Trump administration, the Trump presidential campaign, has a real opportunity here. You know one of the things that has concerned Americans who are doubtful about Trump over the last few years, despite the fact that his presidency was marked by a remarkable peace—and thank God for that—was his capacity to put together a stellar team, and to be more than merely Trump himself—not that he isn't a force to be reckoned with—and now he has aligned with him these people who are truly remarkable.

Peterson: You have in this team that's generated itself around Trump very, very fervent advocates for free speech, and you know that's another thing that America has to offer the world in terms of model. Because of all the countries there are in the world—including my own country which is failing dismally on the Free Speech front, and the UK which is also in the same boat—there's nothing that you Americans have brought to the world that's more compelling and necessary than the primacy of freedom of thought and speech.

Peterson: Another thing that's very much worth concentrating on—this is something Musk has been trying to bring to the forefront of public attention; it’s going to become a vast issue—is that the birth rate across the United States and the West in general is cataclysmically low.  It's a terrible thing, and you know many, many young people are without intimate relationships, many without children, no multigenerational continuity, and no concentration on the family. And for the vast majority of people, especially sensible people, sensible, sane hopeful, forward-looking people, there isn't anything more vital and meaningful and necessary than their family. Dave was talking about the problems that beset us, and Musk has pointed this out too, there's a profoundly anti-human sentiment that drives the more pathological end, say of the green movement—and there's reasons to be environmentally concerned, don't get me wrong—but telling people that you shouldn't have children because it's bad for the planet—I can't think of anything more malevolent, almost nothing more malevolent than that. That's an appalling sentiment! And young people obviously are sufficiently demoralized so that they're not having relationships or children, and any society that doesn't put, let's say, mother and child first and foremost as something approximating a sacred image is doomed.

Peterson: I'll mention one more issue that I think is relevant too. There is one thing that the Left and the Right agree on. You know it's a strange thing, and the commonality here is not often pointed out, but you know the Left is very skeptical of big corporations—or at least used to be—and the right is very skeptical of big government, and it doesn't take a real genius to point out the fact that both sides are skeptical of BIG.

As I've been preaching for ages, the Republican Party needs to reorganize and rebrand itself as the party of human-scale life.

Peterson: The fundamental ground under our feet is as firm and rock-solid as it could possibly be, and if we could advance into the future with a faithful, courageous optimism, rather than a naive optimism, there's absolutely no limit to what we can do.

I have been following Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying's DarkHorse Podcast faithfully for over two years. They are life-long, quintessential West Coast academic liberals, who reluctantly but inevitably found themselves feeling betrayed by their own Democratic Party. (Part of the fun of following their show is watching the evolution of their views.) They would vote for Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. if they thought he had a fighting chance to win, but he doesn't, and himself became part of the Trump team. Here, Bret makes the case that Kennedy enthusiasts and other classical liberals need to vote for Donald Trump. The link takes you to a post from 2022 in which I introduced Bret and Heather; for those who are new to reading this blog and want to know who these people are whose opinions I deeply respect, that would be a good place to start. I have listened to Bret and Heather, and read their book, and followed Heather's Substack) long enough to realize how often their facts have been correct and their advice wise. Not always, for sure—but their track record is very impressive.

The relevant part of this video runs from about 00:21:01 (where it should start) to 1:40:25.

(Here's the YouTube link for those who can't see Rumble. The start and stop times are a bit different, but the link should start at the correct place.)