It may sound pretty ridiculous that one has to be twenty-four or older to buy coffee. But whether it should, is a better question. Just earlier this week, the United Kingdom’s Labour government announced that the minimum required age to buy tobacco products would gradually increase, until eventually nobody will be old enough to buy them in a few decades from now. More specifically, starting in 2027, one will have to be born before January 1, 2009, to be legally allowed to buy tobacco products. That is a stipulation in the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which passed the Houses of Parliament and is presently awaiting Royal Ascent. The latter is typically a formality, so those presently seventeen years old or younger will never be able to buy tobacco, or vapes, in the UK.

The Bill’s proponents rejoice in praise. In their view, the Bill finally protects future generations from consuming products that have long proven to be harmful to health. It is an open question, though, whether this bill sets a defensible, or a dystopian precedent. Verily, from next year forward, eighteen-year-olds will no longer be able to buy tobacco. At least legally, that is. Consumption of recreational marijuana is illicit in the United Kingdom too. Nonetheless, its use is widespread, notably also among teenagers. Back in 2018, a report from the Institute of Economic Affairs estimated the UK’s cannabis market at a staggering £2.5 billion a year. Adjusting for inflation, that should be at five billion by now, if not more. Those five billion constitute a black market for an illicit product that is nonetheless mass-consumed. Due to the criminal nature of the market, it lacks any reliable quality control. Marijuana users therefore often end up unwittingly consuming dangerous contaminants.

Marijuana is not only smoked because it tastes well, or because it is relaxing. Black markets attract many because their products are illicit. In the United States, the legal drinking age is 21. Just for that reason, many college freshmen will think it is very cool to already have a beer. By the time they are twenty-five, they may still or may no longer drink, but if they do, they will no longer be motivated by doing something illegal and may therefore enjoy the drinks in a more relaxed way. Marijuana and tobacco are often consumed together. Adding those two things up leads one to surmise that soon, the UK will both have a £5 billion marijuana and a £5 billion tobacco black market, thereby opening the floodgates to the criminal economy.

The UK’s Tobacco and Vapes Bill may not achieve the goals its proponents have advertised. From that perspective alone, one wonders if it wouldn’t have been better for the government to do nothing more than spread information about the dangers of tobacco use. However, the bill sets a very dangerous precedent. The Bill outlaws a product for its known health hazard, more specifically the existence of a causal link to cancer, as established by the health authorities. That may be reasonable, as long as we can trust the expertise in the respective governing bodies. Even if so, another question to be raised is at which point a product is thought sufficiently noxious to justify a ban. Objective criteria would be welcome.

As long as we are discussing tobacco, most will believe the evidence for the strong link between its consumption and lung cancer. Over four decades of scientific results attest to it. However, even that causal relationship can be abused by authorities when they start drawing unsubstantiated parallels.

Only a little over a year ago, in one the his last acts, the outgoing US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy issued a report on the “causal link between alcohol consumption and cancer.” Notably, this followed on the heels of a statement by the World Health Organization, who stated that “no amount of alcohol consumption is safe.” The report advocated for the introduction of cancer warnings on alcoholic beverage containers. Moreover, the report would like to see increased awareness of alcohol’s link to cancer in the general public, since its conclusions are based on “the same approach that was used to conclude that smoking causes cancer.”

Except, the latter is not really true. On an abstract level, yes, similar observational studies were used to prove that tobacco causes cancer. Only, in the case of tobacco, the signal was much stronger and accompanied by other forms of evidence. In case of alcohol, much of Vivek Murthy’s report was built upon a handful of papers that try to draw population level inference by relating the number of cancer cases by country to the amount of alcohol consumed per capita. Those papers themselves admit that they are based on many unknowns that are hard to correct for, such as the impact of tourism … or of smoking, for that matter. We analyzed the references in Murthy’s report and could only conclude that the evidence provided in it is very weak. In fact, the comparison to the rigorous nature of the evidence that supports the cancer link for tobacco, should be considered nothing more than propaganda.

Inspired by the methods used in those papers, let’s do a small experiment and extend that exercise to recent data from the United States. Data more recent than those used in the publications cited by Murphy, that is. Below we plot the alcohol consumption (as reported by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, NIAAA) and the overall number of age-adjusted cancer cases (as reported by the National Cancer Institute) per capita in the United States since 2016.

In fact, if we were to adopt the same type of analysis, we might draw very different conclusions, dependent upon the time window considered. Limiting the window to the early 2010s, there seems to be little association between both. Expanding the window to 2020 would likely find a connection between alcohol consumption and cancer. However, since 2021, we observe an interesting phenomenon. Since alcohol consumption per capita peaked in 2021 during the pandemic, it has steadily fallen back. Yet cancer cases have not at all. It will be exciting to analyze official data from 2022-2026, once they become available. If the trend that began in 2021 continues, this type of analysis might soon suggest that alcohol is a cure for cancer. We are in no way saying that it is, but that is what the conclusion would be using the same “strong” evidence Murthy used to prove the opposite.

A year before our publication on Murthy’s report, we also analyzed a technical report that was supposed to underpin the Canadian Centre for Substance Abuse’s revision of “safe drinking limits.” The CCSA revised its “safe limit” from two beers a day to a puny .. two beers a week. We are to believe that they did so based on “new scientific evidence,” which their own “rigorous meta-analysis” had condensed into an actionable guideline. However, we took a deep dive into their technical report, and found that they had set arbitrarily stringent selection criteria to include results from scientific papers. In so doing, results from a mere sixteen out of 5934 identified studies were propagated. Not a single study that concludes a health benefit of moderate alcohol consumption was retained. Yet some of the sixteen papers included quantified behavioral risks, such as the increased risk for accidents (traffic and general). We would argue that those risks can, for instance, be countered more effectively by not driving than by not drinking.

In spite of the CCSA’s model being based on close to hand-picked evidence of alcohol’s risks, it still could not lead one to draw a clear conclusion. In fact, according to the CCSA’s own model, a person who consumes fourteen beers a week is expected to live on average to the age of 81.6, whereas a person who adheres to the revised limit of two beers a week, is expected to live to the age of … 82.1. The difference between the CCSA’s old and revised safe drinking limits does not even amount to half a year of life expectancy. It is an almost negligible reward for giving up one of the things that makes life enjoyable. The mere fact that they did conclude to revise the limit, therefore, seems rather arbitrary. One is drawn to surmise that lowering the “safe drinking limit” was the planned outcome of their study all along. They did everything they could to land that conclusion, yet failed to come up with convincing results.

Many will say that the fact that the CCSA did not include any studies that attest to benefits of moderate drinking, is in line with “recent scientific evidence.” Popular news outlets can be heard referring to the “now debunked notion” that moderate alcohol consumption would have cardiovascular benefits. However, there evidence is more nuanced in that case too. Virtually concomitant with the publication of Murthy’s report (early 2025), the US National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine published a thorough meta-analysis on the effect of alcohol on several health outcomes.

We will at first note that that report does conclude an association between alcohol consumption and breast cancer. However, it also makes a few other notable statements. At first, the report concludes that moderate alcohol consumption actually lowers all-cause mortality. From their finding 3-1:

Moreover, if one were inclined to conclude that the finding on breast cancer should lead to a different result for women, that would also be incorrect. Finding 3-2 reads:

The report further mentions that these updated research findings, that include literature from the 2020s, are in line with previous conclusions in 2015 and 2020.

If alcohol puts females at a higher risk of breast cancer, but still lowers their all cause mortality risk, there must be benefits associated with moderate alcohol consumption, right? Could those be advantages in the cardiovascular sphere? Well, in spite of some calling those “debunked,” the study concluded that persons who drink moderate amounts of alcohol have a 22% lower risk of myocardial infarction and a 12% lower risk of stroke, which is consistent with the estimated 18% lower risk of general cardiovascular disease. Finding 6-3 states:

So long, dear “debunkers.” In fact, this study underlines what many of us know intuitively: consuming high amounts of alcohol is nefarious, but consuming moderate amounts of alcohol bears a negligible risk.

The National Academies may have published an objective, thorough meta-analysis into moderate alcohol consumption, yet it drew little attention. On the other hand, Vivek Murthy, being the “health authority,” found copious media amplification. Murthy’s report is a clear example of “health authorities” furthering a narrative, while ignoring evidence to the contrary. Exactly because “health authorities” can be observed to base guidance on biased conclusions, it is very dangerous to allow products to be banned, or their use be phased out, based on what “health authorities” recommend. Will the minimum drinking age soon be 65? What is next after that?

Is a minimum age for coffee is still unthinkable from that perspective? If not coffee, meat may definitely be another target. With the existence of recent literature that tries to establish a causal link between consumption of red meat and cancer, there may soon be a minimum age to buy red meat at the butcher’s... In this context too, we analyzed the connection between red meat consumption and cancer and found it to be based on quite ramshackle evidence as well.

An even scarier notion than the Tobacco and Vapes Bill would be a programmable digital currency, which governments could program in such a way that it cannot be used to buy anything that “health authorities” deem dangerous. Exactly for that reason, we must say a collective and heartfelt “no” to any form of “technocracy” by “experts.” The days when “experts” based their conclusions on sound evidence and experience are bygone in many fields. The last few years have illustrated that professions that have both feet in reality, such as farmers and truckers, often have more common sense than many of the self-glorifying “experts.” The case for democracy was never stronger than today.

Soon after the minimum age for coffee had been set, tents appeared all over the place in the prairie. Even I could see some from right here at the stable. Young people from around the area now gathered there around a pot of coffee. The minimum age had made coffee fashionable overnight. Reacting to the “tent epidemic,” the government soon rescinded its new rule. As to us horses, we still have hay too.

If you like this article, please help us stimulate Substack’s algorithm by becoming a free subscriber and/or clicking the ♡ button.

When we were back home, it became clear that I wasn’t the only one who had been amazed and intrigued by the ball.

“Ya seen that glitter horse ball, Bob?” Cowboy Jake wanted to know.

“Sure thing!”

“Ya know what it’s supposed to be?”

“Yeah, the Bluebell guys are very proud that their daughter graduated in quantum mechanics, so they put a statue up. They say she always jokes about the approximations and assumptions she has to make. That’s what the statue is supposed to display.”

“But why did they go for a ball?”

“Well, to model a horse in quantum mechanics, they say you have to assume that it is a spherical horse in vacuum.”

Not too long ago, such jokes were quite realistic. Quantum hardware and software are advancing at lightning speed, though. For the last two decades at least, quantum computing has been one of the most promising developments in computer hardware. Its potential is stellar and that has resulted in a set of hype cycles. Each time quantum hardware makes a breakthrough, there is intense excitement, both in the scientific and venture capital communities. That is because each time, the conclusion may be that we are at the point where quantum computers will obsolesce some of the legacy infrastructure. That promise is often referred to as “quantum supremacy” or “quantum advantage.” Quantum supremacy was coined by Caltech’s John Preskill “to describe the demonstration of a quantum computer that can carry out tasks that are not possible or practical with a traditional computer.” Grok AI defines it as:

In some sense, we attained quantum supremacy back in 2019, when Google researchers published that they had been able to run a calculation that would require over 10000 years on the best classical supercompter in just two hundred seconds on a 53-qubit quantum computer. While this claim apparently passed Nature’s “rigorous peer-review process” and was published there almost word for word, IBM soon rebutted it, stating that the effort on their state-of-the-art classical supercomputer would only take a few days. In spite of that being the case, though, Google’s result remained impressive. It still demonstrated that quantum computers of moderate dimensions were already able to accomplish tasks that still took days for the most advanced, complex supercomputers.

Such a promising result spurred speculations about its practical implications. Early stage investors avidly bought stakes in startups with a quantum computing imprint, based on the silent assumption that soon, every aspect of the economy would need to use quantum computers. However, Google’s trailblazing paper was construed around a very specific, non-practical problem, that the researchers deemed most suitable to demonstrate quantum supremacy. From a purely scientific perspective, they were right and they did a great job. Since the problem was highly theoretical in nature, it turned out to be a very big leap, though, to crystallize any of the demonstrated quantum advantage into practicable solutions that benefit the economy. As soon as the dust settled, investors’ enthusiasm for quantum became more lacklustre.

While we entered a less glamorous phase of growth for quantum computing, science continued to develop. Fast forward to 2026, and we have another breakthrough, in two papers, one of which is again co-authored by Google scientists. The papers have sparked a social media hype in tech circles and have spurred claims like “we need to reshape our digital security architecture by 2029.” While the papers themselves refrain from making such hyperbolic statements, not only the papers, but also the pompous claims, are based on a layer of truth.

(If you agree that Wild Horse Wisdom is based on a layer of truth, consider to subscribe. There is a free tier.)

Subscribe now

In today’s digital landscape, one does not have to have deep technical expertise to run into terms like “RSA.” In fact, tools like RSA are mainstay components used in cybersecurity, such as secure browsing (e.g. “https://” web addresses), digital signatures, secure e-mails, virtual private networks (VPN) and more. RSA is based on factorization of large prime numbers, which is an untractable problem on classical computers, that thereby provides inherent security. However, back in 1994, Bell Labs’ visionary scientist Peter Shor published an algorithm for prime number factorization on quantum architectures. It was the first algorithm to promise a practical quantum advantage: it could be used to solve a problem that is notoriously hard on classical machines, while it would only require polynomial (i.e. “doable”) scaling on a quantum computer.

Shor’s algorithm has existed since 1994, but has so far never been a threat to cybersecurity solutions, because no suitable hardware existed to run it on. Howbeit, that is exactly what seems to be changing. Even more explicitly than Google’s paper, a recently published preprint by Californian scientists claims that Shor’s algorithm may be “possible with as few as 10,000 qubits.” Given that in 2019, Google provided its best-possible solution to demonstrate quantum supremacy based on just 53 qubits, a 10,000 qubit quantum computer should be far off into the future, right? Well, actually, in 2025, the largest quantum computer was reported by CalTech … to consist of 6,100 qubits. At the present rate of development, we may well have 10,000 qubits by 2029, which would mean that just in three years from now, cybersecurity as we now know it, will break.

If present-day encryption will break in 2029, that means that we will no longer have secure connections for any application that needs them. Previous estimates of when exactly quantum computers will be able to use the advantage of Shor’s algorithm went into 2050, which would give governments and corporations ample time to adapt. If Shor’s algorithm becomes reality in 2029 indeed, we are unprepared.

In the light of the possibility that present day cybersecurity will be unreliable in just a few years, it seems rather ill-advised for governments and “think tanks” to be pushing for an “all-digital” world, in which credentials are presented exclusively through digital IDs, payments are made exclusively in digital currency and much more. Even in today’s online landscape, it is questionable to upload some of our most sensitive information into a centralized government data base, let alone in a world where quantum computers are able to break classical security. Such a setup is a straight road to identity theft on steroids, as has already been demonstrated in Nigeria.

If all payments become digital, they either transact in central bank or private digital currency. In the US, the trend seems to go in the direction of stablecoins, which have received much broader acceptance since the GENIUS Act was signed into law. Well, stablecoins are cryptocurrencies that are backed by government securities and that transact on a blockchain … which on its turn, is based on encryption standards that depend upon prime number factorization … and ergo, can be broken by quantum computers. Exactly with that thought in mind, the Google paper mentioned before was co-authored with authors from the Ethereum foundation and one of its research goals was to evaluate if quantum computers are able to break the security of transactions on Ethereum blockchains. The answer was “yes” and the paper urges blockchains to adopt “post-quantum cryptography (PQC) “without delay:”

However, blockchains are not the only services that need to adapt to PQC. A recent review assessed the readiness of the private sector. It stated that only a sobering 8% of the top-1 million websites support PQC. Moreover, in their analysis they stated that:

As to government institutions, let’s assess one of the best prepared ones, which is the United States Government. While the U.S. federal government has forged robust policies and mandates to confront the looming quantum threat—issuing directives, embracing NIST’s post-quantum standards, and setting ambitious migration timelines, significant cracks remain visible in the foundation of execution. Authoritative analysis from the Government Accountability Office, particularly in its June 2025 testimony, reveals that federal agencies have yet to fully define a comprehensive national strategy for addressing quantum risks to cryptography.

Summarizing, it seems that we’re well prepared as a society, right? Given that cybersecurity may soon be broken, it also seems highly dubious to be advocating for digital IDs and digital-only payments in a society that functions very well without them. This is not only a Wild Horse Wisdom opinion. Even AI agrees. When prompted Grok AI with the question if it is a good idea to roll out digital ID in the light of the two recent papers, Grok answered:

That’s right, Grok. So let’s prepare ourselves. On the one hand, yes, we have to accelerate deployment of post-quantum cryptography. But at the present pace of adoption, there is no way we will be prepared on a society-wide level by 2029. So let’s also be prepared for the doom scenario. The best way to do that, is by having a physical equivalent available for any digital transaction. Let’s legislate that, for any transaction, an option based on physical goods always needs to be available. No more “cashless only,” or even worse “contactless only” resorts or businesses (what exactly is wrong with contact?). Let’s also say bye to QR code access without alternatives. When cybersecurity breaks, QR codes break too, but the will-call booth somehow does not. At least not if they also have a printout of the attendee list.

Here at the Ranch, we do use contactless payments from time to time. But we also get annoyed at parking lots that no longer have a machine to pay by credit card and make us waste our time, as we need to fill out endless online forms “for our convenience.” Nonetheless, we really believe in physical assets and we don’t overestimate the quality of futuristic solutions. We are not sure that our horses will win a competition. But we know that they stand a chance. Yet we can say with absolute certainty that the spherical horse in vacuum will never win a race.

If you like this article, please help us stimulate Substack’s algorithm by becoming a free subscriber and/or clicking the ♡ button.

“Ya got qualified for the rodeo, Brock?” Jake asked, knowing that Brock had competed and almost won last year.

“Sure enough,” Brock replied, “but they won’t have me on the roster anyway.”

Jake and Hunter’s facial expression said everything there was to know. They didn’t have to fish for the reason. Brock was excited enough to add it right away.

“My bareback riding passed the test well enough, I had three straight runs above 80. A few days after the qualification runs were done, though, I got an e-mail that said that my online comments made me unacceptable for the race. I didn’t post anything a normal guy would disagree with, just some plain obvious stuff. For instance, I posted that the competitions are naturally split into cowboy and a cowgirl disciplines and that dudes have no business trying to do barrel racing, even the ones that wear a skirt.”

~~~

Rodeo may be one of the last sports disciplines that recognizes differences between sexes and rates competitors based on their performance†. May it stay that way. Other sports are increasingly pressured, though, to only allow those athletes to compete who toe the political line.

Recently, the United States won the Olympic hockey tournament. That was a heroic victory and a first time since the legendary 1980 games in Lake Placid, NY. In those games, the US snapped the gold medal from the Soviet Union. Having won the previous five Olympic titles, the Soviet Union had been very much the favorite to win and the US’s victory was considered a “miracle on ice.”

As much as some would have liked to see a rematch, in present circumstances that would have been pretty impossible. The Soviet Union has fallen apart due to bad governance. It sure has. Yet its successor Russia was not allowed to compete either. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has barred both Russia and Belarus from competing as a country in any Olympic games, apparently as a “sanction” for their invasion of Ukraine, which “violated the Olympic Truce.” Sure, the Russian military campaign in Eastern Ukraine has cost thousands of lives and does not merit applause. However, it is far from the only armed conflict on the planet and even less so in the history of the Olympic Games. Website conflict.sbs tracks forty-six ongoing armed conflicts. The International Olympic Committee may want to explain how forty-five of those do not end up “violating the Olympic Truce,” while the forty-sixth does?

Some nations thought to be “failed nations,” with malignant governments, were allowed to compete. In spite of fueling several regional conflicts and terrorist organizations, being close to finishing nuclear weapons and openly having stated that the ultimate destruction of Israel is its goal, Iran was allowed to compete. Likewise, the kleptocratic regime of North Korea, which has posed a conventional military threat to millions in the Seoul area for decades, was allowed to compete. Back in 1980, the Soviet Union was way more powerful than present-day Russia. Still, it was allowed to compete. The longer one reflects about it, the more the question why exactly Russia is being excluded from Olympic events, becomes increasingly unanswerable. The case of Belarus is even more difficult to fathom, since it neither is at war with Ukraine, nor has invaded any territory.

Most will have noticed that no Russian teams competed. That holds true both for the 2024 summer and the 2026 winter games. However, it is striking just how far the sanctions went. The 2022 games still saw Russian teams compete, officially representing the “Russian Olympic Committee” instead of the country, so they were not allowed to use the Russian flag or anthem. In the 2024 and 2026 games, though, there were only and handful of Russians and Belarussians who participated as so-called “Individual Neutral Athletes.” Why were there so few of them? Well, at first “independent” athletes were not allowed to compete as a team. A team of Russians playing a match in white would still represent the to-be-banned Russian identity. Apparently, it is “offensive” to deny anybody’s self-proclaimed identity, except if that identity happens to be Russian.

Not only were Russian athletes not allowed to compete as a team, though. There were also very few white-flag solo athletes. In fact, a mere thirteen Russian and seven Belarussian nationals competed under the “neutral” flag. Why so? Well, to participate as an individual athlete, it didn’t suffice to meet the athletic bar and to temporarily give up one’s national identity. In order to be allowed in as an individual neutral athlete, athletes needed to be vetted … for their opinions and associations, on-line and off-line. Only athletes who had never been associated with the Russian or Belarussian military or state security and had never shown any support for the Russian military actions in Ukraine would be accepted.

At this point, let’s say that some athletes from other countries were very lucky not to be subjected to the same level of scrutiny. Iranian athletes were fortunate that their country’s support for Hamas, Hezbollah, and some militias in Iraq did not violate the Olympic Truce, in spite of those effectively occupying other countries’ territory. It surely would have been difficult to find Iranian athletes who opposed the ayatollah’s regime online, since even the ones who silently do so, fear repercussions for saying that in public. Chinese athletes should be thankful that the Chinese invasion and annexation of Tibet in 1951 never violated the Olympic Truce. They would have a hard time demonstrating that they support a free Tibet online. It is questionable if the ones that do support a free Tibet would have the temerity to post their opinions on WeChat, lest their digital wallet get frozen by the regime. The same holds for Russians, though. In the presence of a regime that tolerates almost no dissent, it is virtually impossible to survive as a prominent public figure that disavows the authorities. Yet that is what is expected of Russian athletes.

In spite of the IOC’s restrictions, we still saw a good Olympic hockey tournament. Matt Boldy and Jack Hughes scored in the finals to grab a gold medal for the United States. It would have been nice, though, if some time along the path to victory Matt Boldy had been able to play his Minnesota Wild teammate Kirill Kaprizov. Kaprizov would have been a member of a redoubtable adversary, along with players like Alex Ovechkin and Nikita Kucherov. Yet those NHL stars had apparently violated the Olympic Truce. No-one can explain how they did that, though. The one thing that Chinese, Iranian and Russian players have in common, is that they come from a totalitarian regime. Why one subset of players needs to be punished for having been born in the presence of a draconian government and another subset not, seems to be questionable. Wasn’t the Olympic spirit supposed to be about the ability to set one’s political differences apart for a few weeks and only compete on an athletic level?

The US had been allowed to participate as a team, in spite of their government having captured the sitting president of another country just a month before the games. Capturing a president must be an action that strengthens the Olympic Truce. The US had a great team, though, and won the gold medal. Yet Team USA’s great performance at men’s hockey did not exempt the players from being judged for their opinions. Right after the victory, President Donald Trump congratulated the US Men’s Hockey team. In the call, he invited them to the White House for the ceremony after his own State of the Union address. When the Men’s Hockey team accepted the invitation, President Trump joked that he would “have to” invite the Women’s team too, or else he’d be “impeached.” Some players on the Men’s team were visibly amused. That fact alone was enough to set off a media splat.

Unamused by the President’s joke, the Women’s Team declined the invitation to the White House, for “previously scheduled academic and professional commitments.” Sure, we all believe that that is the reason. But then they started opining that it was the Men’s Team’s moral obligation to do the same. The politically extremely biased mainstream media joined the choir to lambast the Men’s Team for accepting the invitation. We should all be happy they didn’t cave. To be invited in the White House as Olympic champions is a once-in-a-lifetime honour. It would have been insane if the Men’s Team had rejected the invitation, but then apparently having this opinion is deemed “unacceptable” by the media. Maybe Jack Hughes will have to scrub his White House pictures from the internet too if he wants to participate in the 2030 games. Even more so since his country has engaged in a war with Iran shortly after the 2026 Winter Games. It remains to be seen, though, whether that is a conflict that violates, or one that strengthens the Olympic Truce. Only the IOC can tell.

Many will also think that the speech controls imposed on Russian athletes will never be deployed to others. However, that is a fallacious thought process. Once the example has been set, it is a slippery slope and what was once an exception, may soon become the rule. We have all witnessed that with the COVID-19 pandemic. Censoring expert medical voices was considered taboo prior to 2020. Nor was there ever a sound reason to deem it acceptable afterwards. Yet censoring the internet of all sorts of opinions has become everyday practice in big tech and even a legal requirement some regions. Since the practice of selecting Russian athletes for the correctness of their opinions has been adopted, there already have been calls to ban athletes from other countries for wrongthink. A Swiss broadcaster has called for banning an Israeli bobsled athlete for his Zionist views. Fortunately, the news station took that video down due to outcry. But let’s imagine, though, what would have happened if those calls had gained traction. If the IOC had considered Israel’s presence in the West Bank and Gaza a “violation of the Olympic Truce,” it would only allow Israeli athletes without ties to the military or security forces. Since Israel has a three-year general conscription, virtually every citizen has ties to the military, so the IOC would effectively ban all Israeli athletes.

Based on all of the above, it is time to change course. Athletes are humans too. They don’t all have the same opinion. To realize that an athlete population is just as diverse as an average slice of the audience, makes sports leagues all the more relatable. Tennis reached peak popularity in the eighties. In those days, John McEnroe chided referees for making wrong calls. In today’s tennis, he would not win a single grand slam. Instead, he would be barred from competing for his language before he could ever get to the finals. For all the speech and conduct rules the tennis federations impose, the game has become very mechanical and dry to watch and the players have become difficult to relate to, since they are not allowed to show any of their true character. Wonder why many indoor tennis halls in North America are being converted into other uses?

Sports organizations have to refrain from constraining athletes’ speech. Quarterback Colin Kaepernick was virtually ousted from the National Football League for taking a knee during the National Anthem. He should not have been. His opinions may not be acceptable to all, but as long as he doesn’t disrupt the game, he should be allowed to express them. Conversely, Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker was blasted by the media for being “misogynistic.” As a devout Catholic, he said in a commencement speech that “his wife’s life “really started when she began living her vocation as a wife and as a mother.” He also stated that he “gained quite the reputation for speaking his mind” and that men should be “unapologetic in their masculinity, fighting against the cultural emasculation of men.” He is quite right there. Culture, society, the private sector and government all need a balance of masculine and feminine impulses. The overfeminization of government has gone much too far and, for instance, is part of the reason why the European Union finds itself in an impossible situation that ruins its own economy.

Leagues should not constrain opinions of their athletes. Therefore, they should definitely not engage in compelling their speech. However, that is what they seem to be doing. The same NFL that, fortunately, still tolerates characters like Harrison Butker, has been placing “social justice” slogans in the endzones for the last five years. That is, since the 2020 Black Lives Matter riots, they force teams to promote some of the same speech that Colin Kaepernick got ousted for just a few years earlier. Leagues should not end players’ careers for opinions, but, reflecting a diverse society, they should be neutral themselves.

In his commencement speech, Harrison Butker mentioned another prime example of compelled speech by sports leagues: “pride.” Sexual orientation is a private matter, but it is neither something to be proud of, nor something that others should “ally” with. Gay or trans flags have no place in any sports venue. Nor should any league have players parade in rainbow colours to demonstrate their “allyship.” Instead, leagues should invite players to say what they think of such events. Some of the woke media may not turn out to be pleased with what they hear.

~~~

A few days later, Brock returned triumphantly. “I’m back on the roster. I’ll kick their asses and show ‘em what I’m worth!” We were all happy to hear that. Our bucking horses wanted to hold Brock to his word too, you know. When we asked him what had changed, the answer was very simple. In solidarity with Brock, all other riders in his league had withdrawn from the rodeo. There are still morals out here.

One thing we can learn from all of this, is that sometimes the social justice warriors are right too. That is, when they say “it takes all of us.” For society to return to reason, it indeed takes all of us. And we all have to do our part.

If you like this article, please help us stimulate Substack’s algorithm by becoming a free subscriber and/or clicking the ♡ button.

† In all fairness, while this post criticizes some of the IOC’s policies, the IOC also recently banned biological males from participating in female sports. A move long overdue, yet highly reasonable.

“We didn’t have an FEEI,” Jim said. “That’s a future environmental expenditure index.” It’s supposed to summarize all environmental impact your ranch has and will have over the coming fifty years.” When Bob questioned if calculating such a metric is even possible, Jim answered: “Of course not, but if you employ a consultant for 25 grand a year, you can pretend it is.”

When media want to bring a topic across that boosts one or another elite agenda, they increasingly seem to build their stories around one single number. Let’s jump back to the period many no longer want to remember: the COVID pandemic. In the earliest days of the pandemic, most attention was given to assessing the severity of the outbreak. Above all, daily death counts were incessantly talked about in the news. The focus on mortality managed to instill fear into much of the broader public. It is quite strange that this was the media and the authorities’ approach, because in a really catastrophic event, one would want the average denizens to keep their cool, so as to avoid running into a nationwide panic. A fixation on death counts seems quite undesirable in such a context.

When fear had settled in and many had been convinced that extreme measures were necessary, the media narrative shifted to what needed to be done to mitigate the emergency. The answer presented was to “flatten the curve,” with “the curve” being the daily case count. We note that at that point, the daily death count did no longer seem to be as important. In many regions, it had actually subsided, which should have been an indication that it was time to get back to normal. However, case count curves were fueled by asymptomatic testing and showed astronomical numbers. So how could we ever get them down?

Parroting some of “the experts,” the media’s answer resided in one number: the reproduction number, or R. It represents the average number of persons a given infected person will pass the disease on to. The virtues of focusing on this number may seem intuitive: if it is above one, the average person will infect more than one other person and the pandemic gets worse. Conversely, if it is below one, the velocity of the spread must be slackening. Experts and media alike recognized the straightforward interpretability proffered by the R number. For almost one and a half years, media would highlight which measures to take, so R could be constrained below the beneficial boundary of one, and “the curve could be flattened.” The mediatization of the R number definitely had an effect. One poll carried out in Britain in January 2021 found that 88% of the British general public had heard of the importance of the R number, whereas 42% could explain it properly. Those numbers are impressive, considering these are interviewees of all walks of life.

The reproduction number was reported on a daily basis, most often with two decimals, which gave it a sense of scientific authority. If we know today’s R number is 1.61, we for sure also know how to lower it, don’t we? Yet in spite of all those estimates and forecasts having been made, in hindsight, the pandemic seems to have pretty much gone its own way. While creating the appearance of being in control, over-reliance on R may not have been the best strategy after all. Actually, that is the message of a five-part article series published by Gavin Freeguard throughout 2024 in Significance, the easy-to-read magazine published under the auspices of the American, Australian and Royal (i.e.British) Statistical Societies.

While R may have the appearance of a statistically sound estimate that is easy to interpret, it is in fact not so easy to obtain and even less so with actionable precision. At first, it is important to know that R cannot be measured directly. Part 2 in Gavin Freeguard’s five-part series commences with the statement:

Indeed, R is derived using averages of epidemiological models. Each of these models are based on a set of assumptions. The quality of the model output strongly depends on the quality of the input data. Beyond the uncertainty that may be associated with the input data and may be sizable by itself, the act of modeling compounds uncertainty into the model estimates. It is thus estranging to see R reported in the news with two decimals of precision, but without any estimate of uncertainty. In fact, an estimate of 1.54 ± 0.11 might be worrisome, whereas an R number of 1.85 ± 2.15 would not be amenable to base any decision or policy upon.

All of the aforementioned limitations would already be true if we had precise, real-time data to make model predictions from. Howbeit, nothing is less true. Absolute case, hospitalization and death counts are some of the inputs into the models. To this day, there are legitimate discussions on the numbers that were reported, such as the data being aggregated by individuals who took calls from hospitals, which led to “Frankenstein data sets.” That notably also happened in countries with centralized healthcare systems. But even if the official numbers were 100% accurate, their use would still lead to many questions about the resulting estimates. In fact, neither case, hospitalization, or death counts, arrive instantaneously. They all arrive with individually varying time lags. Therefore, the R number we are looking at today may well reflect the situation from two weeks ago. To mitigate the time lag effect, forecasts can be used instead of the actual numbers. However, there is additional uncertainty associated with forecasting models, which then adds to the uncertainty in R. The difficulty to estimate R from data with individually varying time lags, is expressed in the following quote from Part 1 in Freeguard’s series:

Many lessons can be learnt from the communication based on R during the pandemic. Maybe, the most important lesson is the following. It may be enticing to reduce a set of interdependent, spatiotemporally varying and highly complex processes into a single, “simple” number. The resulting number, though, may end up being easier to mediatize than to convert into practical decisions to the benefit of the greater good.

While R is a great example of the tendency to distill highly complex phenomena into just a single number, it certainly is not the only one. For more than a decade, politicians and climate activists have campaigned around doing “everything it takes” to “keep global temperature from rising more than one and a half degrees above pre-industrial levels.” While it is easy to aggregate temperature numbers from measurements around the world, the higher the level of aggregation, the less clear it becomes what the number actually means. January 14 of this year presented itself as a good example to question the meaning of the concept of “global temperature.” Temperature measurements two metres above ground reported a spread as far apart as –55 °C (–67 °F) in Siberia and +45 °C (+113 °F) in Australia. Does the global average at that time really tell us that much? The picture becomes even blurrier when those global averages need to be compared to “pre-industrial levels,” a time when far fewer and far less reliable temperature measurements were available. In this case too, that lack of data can be compensated … by modelling, which injects its own uncertainty into the final number. However, in spite of the lack of precision in the inputs, these numbers are readily processed further into climate models. Those can, on their turn, be combined with economic forecasts to yield the so-called “social cost of carbon,” which is … a single number that hugely oversimplifies both climate and economy. It is therefore understandable that individual scientific teams have come up with widely varying estimates, which can only lead to the conclusion that estimating the “social cost of carbon” is nothing more than an academic exercise devoid of utility.

(If you deem reading Wild Horse Wisdom not to be devoid of utility, please consider to subscribe. There is a free tier.)

Subscribe now

As long as the tendency to reduce highly complex systems into a single number remains an academic exercise, it merely boils down to a waste of resources. However, each of the examples above have been used as a basis for policies. These numbers have, or have had, an impact on our lives. The R number was used in policymaking in the pandemic and led, or at least contributed, to decisions to lock countries down. Global temperature was and is still used by some to drive “net zero” policies, the only effect of which seems to be to tank domestic economy and inconvenience citizens’ lives. The “social cost of carbon” has appeared in official US government policies from three consecutive administrations.

Even worse than basing policy for a whole society on one individual metric, is to try and summarize a person into a number. However, that is what the Chinese government is doing to this day. Chinese citizens are attributed a social credit score that varies on a constant basis based on behaviour. Human beings have very complex natures. Even those who make a serious misstep often have many positive qualities. It is insane to write them off because a certain concocted number is “too low.” In fact, each human is much more than a number. It is dehumanizing to treat humans as if they ever could be summarized into one, representative number. It is therefore up to everyone to resist those practices ever being deployed on a broad scale outside China.

Our characters, environment, climate, economy and many other aspects of society are highly complex. It is highly misleading to think that any of those can reliably be summarized into nothing more than one number. Instead of using a person’s “social credit score” to judge who he is, let’s treat him as a person, talk to him and build trust. Instead of summarizing business behaviour into an “ESG” score, let’s do a detailed analysis of their financials, talk to them and build trust. The last thing we need is a “zero trust” society that uses single numerals to decide whom to engage with. Even less so if the number is being calculated or evaluated by AI. Finally, let’s also not build society-wide policies based on the short-sighted use of misleading, single-number metrics, but let’s have a civilized debate instead. In such discussions, let’s always keep in mind that

Prof. Samir Bhatt, a professor of statistics and public health at Imperial College London, made this comment in connection to the R number, but as we have seen, it is much more broadly applicable.

Here at the Ranch, there are certain things we count as one number. Our number of horses and cattle, for instance. That is a number that we always have in mind. What their future environmental expenditure index is, though, we don’t know. Nor do we want to know. Because over here, we still have small businesses where people meet other people who work things out together. We stay far away from anything that monitors us or decides for us what is true in an app.

If you like this article, please help us stimulate Substack’s algorithm and click the ♡ button

Once the blackout was over, we did some internet research. We wanted to know if other regions experienced the same and if authorities were taking efforts to prevent it from happening again. It turned out that Spain went through a very similar sequence of events. It’s not a country we usually hear much about, but maybe we should.

On Monday April 28, 2025, Spain and much of its neighboring country Portugal experienced a widespread power blackout. The official investigation into what has happened is still ongoing. European grid authority ENTSO-e has released a preliminary report that traces the course of events, but a full blown root cause analysis is still pending. It should be in everyone’s interest to learn the root cause of such a major blackout, even to residents of countries far away from the Iberian peninsula. Nobody likes to be caught in a power blackout and any grid operator can learn from a thorough analysis of events. Therefore, this incident should be a prime candidate for a calm and objective analysis. Nonetheless, it was politicized from the first minute.

Certain experts and a fair share of the affected communities soon pointed to “renewables” as the cause of the blackout. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez did not deign to wait for a thorough analysis of the events, either. When confronted with the potential role that “renewable” energy might have played in causing the blackout, he bluntly rebutted such allegations as “lies” and warned against the “spread of disinformation.”

The crucial function of having a reliable power grid does not seem to preempt it from political speculation. With “renewables” being a topic tethered to the highly politicized field of “climate change,” a thorough analysis of the course of events did not seem to be necessary for most, who had already picked a side beforehand. Just like in highly politicized criminal cases, all the ones who were already on either side of the political fence knew the culprit before the investigation even started.

The official investigation by ENTSO-e is still ongoing, but a lot of information is publicly available. We have operational data from the grid, along with the course of events published in ENTSO-e’s preliminary report. And then there is the official report by Spanish grid operator REE, which arrived at a conclusion independent of the regulatory body at the European level. What we do know is that a sudden, localized voltage increase occurred in southern Spain, which on its turn caused a frequency decrease in the network, a major oscillation and a cascade of generation losses. The figures below illustrate this very well for a section of the Spanish grid.

Preliminary conclusions from REE’s report point to non-adherence to voltage control regulations as a cause for the incident. It is true that sufficient generation was online at the time of the event and that the blackout was the result of power generation disconnecting in reaction to the initial overvoltage. Some of the resources that disconnected were thermal generation units. On the other hand, though, it is also true that the initial overvoltage did originate from a solar facility. Why that happened is still unclear.

While it is difficult to point to “renewables” as the sole cause of the event, it is equally unsound to dismiss the impact they had. The original voltage spike originated from a large solar facility. It is also true that, at the time of the outage, over seventy percent of Spain’s grid ran on “renewables.” A fundamental difference between “renewables” and conventional power generation, is that “renewables” do not intrinsically generate alternating current at a certain frequency. One can understand the latter intuitively when considering that conventional generation units consist of large spinning devices, the rotation frequency of which determines the frequency of the power generated. When an issue arises in the power grid, the inherently slowly changing rotation frequency of such devices ascertains stability of the corresponding frequency in the power grid, which is also referred to as inertia. Renewables do not provide such inertia. Instead, they generate direct current, which is converted to whichever frequency the grid is at by a device called an inverter. When grid frequency fluctuates, these inverters will follow the grid and thereby amplify the problem. We can readily observe that a large oscillation took place around the time of the outage. That said, it is not clear that the event would have been prevented if more inertia had been present. From this angle too, it is both foolhardy to attribute the entire incident to lack of inertia, as well as to dismiss the fact that renewables make the grid harder to manage in such a situation.

The presence of inverter based resources does come with additional challenges to ascertain grid stability. That is widely recognized, also outside Europe. The North American Energy Reliability Corporation, or NERC, is the regulatory body for grid operators on the Western side of the North Atlantic. NERC writes standards and guidelines for power grid operators and interconnection authorities. Like ENTSO-e, it also assesses outages and other events. Moreover, as its name suggests, its primary function is to ascertain energy reliability. In that capacity, it identified inverter-based resources, or IBRs, as a potential destabilizing factor for grid operations. In 2022, it issued an IBR Strategy that analyzes how to deal with an increased share of those.

NERC’s primary function is to safeguard energy reliability in North America. As such, it publishes Long-Term Reliability Assessments (LRTA) for the power grid, at the level of the sundry interconnection authorities. Its 2025 update does not depict a rosy picture. In fact, it uses very polite language to state the fact that it will be difficult to avoid blackouts in North America if we keep making the power mix more susceptible to weather conditions and keep making grid stability more challenging due to an increased share of inverter-based resources, while facing a steeply increasing demand from data centres and other developments. In NERC’s words:

NERC supports these statements with a detailed analysis by regional power pool. The resulting plot needs little comment: many areas in North America are deemed “at elevated risk” to see a power shortage, while a considerable amount of them are even at “high risk.” The latter notably include densely populated areas, such as the one served by PJM Interconnection (the acronym is short for Pennsylvania, Jersey and Maryland, although the interconnection authority also covers some areas in Illinois). In spite of the Iberian peninsula blackout having occurred during the spring in a region with a mild climate, eight deaths have been reported as a direct consequence. One can only wonder how plenitudinous fatalities would be, if a severe power shortfall occurred during a winter storm in area like PJM.

In a reasonable, apolitical environment, we would treat grid stability as the north star. However, much of the situation we are observing is the result of reckless politicized policymaking tied to an antiscientific agenda of “net zero” energy generation. By massively subventioning so-called “renewables” and penalizing all forms of thermal generation, we have needlessly endangered grid stability. It is now time to return to reason. A first step must be an immediate and unconditional end to all forms of subsidies for “renewables.”

Besides stopping the subsidies for “renewables,” we should also stop referring to them by that term. The quotes around the term “renewables” applied in this article are appropriate. Solar panels last thirty years, at best, while their inverters need to be replaced around half-life. Moreover, manufacturing them actually consumes high amounts of energy and recycling them is very hard and therefore, not profitable. Hence, most solar panels end up in landfills where they gradually leak toxic chemicals and heavy metals. They actually already do so before they end up in the landfill. Since the panels themselves are polluting, it does not seem to be a good idea to cover large areas of land with them, neither in a landfill, nor elsewhere. It also seems a stretch to designate one-way, polluting panels as “renewable.”

Wind farms are even worse. While manufacturers claim that windmills have a twenty-five year life-span as well, operators report far lower figures. Many windmills are being replaced after a mere seven to ten years. Add to that that, also in their case, the blades are almost impossible to recycle. The result of that are wind blade graveyards, such as the ones that can easily be spotted from a plane in West Texas. So far, the best attempt at “recycling” wind blades comes from Wyoming. If we take “recycling” with a pinch of salt, that is. The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)’s proposal to “recycle” wind blades consists of grinding them and using them as material to fill empty mine pits. To the critical listener that may very well sound like greenwashing landfill operations.

These facts alone should put in question whether wind farms really do anything that is “renewable.” But we should also take into account that they consume massive amounts of land (or ocean surface) that cannot be used for anything else, are not even thirty percent reliable, are hideous eyesores and kill massive amounts of birds, bats and marine life, a fact that is gradually even being accepted in mainstream scientific literature. If we do so, we can only land at one conclusion: wind is maybe suitable in individual, small-scale applications, but it must not be pursued at all as a component to supply a sizeable share of any region’s power demand. In fact, disincentivizing wind is the right way forward, for instance by imposing a tax for the environmental burthen, the money of which can be used to pursue truly clean alternatives.

It is time to return to reason and plan for a reliable future for the power grid. That inevitably requires investment in energy-dense, on-shore, reliable power generation. Further legislative steps have to be taken to provide economic stimuli for those energy sources that provide a stable, reliable supply for the long term, while intermittent, unreliable sources have to be discouraged going forward.

Remember the horses that were placed in a treadmill at Six Hooves Ranch? We laughed at them at the time over here, but it seems that they had a point, though. We also learnt our lessons from the blackout. We didn’t install a trommel for our horses to run in, but the emergency generator now sits firmly right next to the ranch house.

If you like this article, please help us stimulate Substack’s algorithm and click the ♡ button

Hunter’s reply was somewhat unexpected, though: “There’s a guy in town speakin’ at the theatre. His entire point is that free will doesn’t exist.”

“Sure doesn’t look like that to me,” was Jake’s final reply, before he jumped onto my back and we headed out.

Western philosophical, religious and even legal systems are built upon the cornerstone of the existence of free will. For instance, what would be the basis to convict someone for a premeditated crime if that person had no other choice but to commit it? We convict based on the fact that the person made a conscious, misguided decision to perpetrate a crime, which is a reflection of that person’s free will. While that concept may seem obvious to most, in recent times there have been remarkable voices in support of the opposite, most of all so in neuroscientific circles.

Robert Sapolsky’s 2023 book Determined: The Science of Life Without Free Will seems to be the culmination of that train of thought. Sapolsky argues that everything is predetermined. He elaborates that point along the lines that we don’t really make any decisions independently, but that every action we take is the inevitable consequence of prior conditions. Everything starts from our genetic makeup. Adding to that, our upbringing, environment and social context all act as prior determinants for our present actions. Even the context we are in in the present, such as the air in the room, has a measurable impact. All of these factors end up being prior conditions to some chemical reactions taking place in the brain, which then determine the action or decision we “think” we are taking.

For decades, neuroscience has been obsessed with analyzing the brain as if it were an engine: dissect and dismantle it into ever smaller components and regions, with the inherent belief that if we know what each nut and bolt in the engine does, we will eventually be able to reverse engineer the entire engine. Many versions of maps of the human brain have been published, along with the supposed functionality each of those areas have and a list of conditions that result from damage to the respective area. Researchers have long struggled to identify an area responsible for free will, although recent reports have linked free choice to areas in the prefrontal cortex (PFC).

Sapolsky takes such findings into account, but only to stress that they are the result of past and present preconditioning. He will even go as far as stating that not only free will itself does not exist, but also grit and resilience. In his words,

In Sapolsky’s world, we can refer the self, free will, morals, grit, resilience and character all to the dustbin of history, since nothing is more than some preconditioned (electro)biochemistry. All of that biochemistry occurring is merely the result of external conditions past and present, none of which we can control. Given this thesis, it should not surprise that Sapolsky challenges the reader to prove the existence of free will in the light of his own hypothesis:

Exactly this challenge is a good place to point out the shortcomings in Sapolsky’s deductions. We will not argue that external factors can have an impact on our decision making. A lot of research has been dedicated to this topic. For instance, judges are significantly more likely to grant parole right after having a meal than on an empty stomach. We will even go along with the fact that the air in the room can have an effect. I trust most of us have been in a meeting in a room that has a stench and have wanted to wrap things up a little faster than usual. So yes, environmental factors can have an effect on our thought process. However, what Sapolsky gets dead wrong is that that does not establish in any way that those factors are the only factors causing decisions. In fact, it does not even prove that they account for a significant portion of the decision making process. The truth may well be that the factors leading into any given decision break down to 85% free will, with some of Sapolsky’s environment and preconditioning making up the remaining fifteen percent.

(Even if you only like 15% of this publication, consider taking the free decision to subscribe, which you can also do for free).

Subscribe now

The reason why Sapolsky does not allow for a portion of decision, values and morals to be attributed to concepts such as the self and free will, is because he and the sources he cites are all determined to see the brain as the sole autonomous actor causing thoughts and decisions. Therefore, they need to be able to reduce all morals and decisions to neurobiochemistry. However, that attitude seems a little short-sighted at best. When people walk, they use their feet and legs.* As they are walking, thousands of biochemical reactions are taking place and thousands of electrical impulses are running through the neurons in their feet and legs. Yet we don’t hear many say that “their feet and legs are walking,” do we? Most people will say that it is them who are walking, instead of their feet and legs. So why does it all of a sudden become acceptable to say that “the brain is thinking?” Isn’t it also the persons who are thinking, rather than their brain alone?

Even if we allow for the brain to be the primary cause of all actions and decisions, there are further fallacies in linking all free will or grit to certain areas in the PFC. It may seem enticing to draw the analogy between the brain and an engine indeed. However, the brain is not an engine designed by humans and we cannot yet claim to fully understand its inner workings. We have been able to draw correlations between sections of the brain and certain functions. However, the sentence “correlation is not causation” may be appropriate here, maybe more so than in other contexts where it has recently been used.

If each area of the brain is linked to certain functions, then the absence of an area should be linked to the absence of the corresponding function, should it not? Well, hydranencephaly is a congenital disorder observed in some infants who are born with some of the brain absent. Instead of brain tissue, their skull contains a sac of cerebrospinal fluid, which mostly consists of ... water. Severe cases of hydranencephaly have low survival rates, but moderate cases have been reported with very unexpected outcomes. For instance, a teenage girl who misses the parts of the brain typically associated with language has been reported to have above average language and communication skills and average-to-high IQ. She was also reported to attend university. If the mechanistic model of the brain were correct, she should have a grave reading impairment.

Sapolsky’s mechanistic view of the brain and the decisions it makes, seems to fall apart upon further scrutiny. Yet he claims that he and his fellow followers of the cult of free will denial are in the “majority.” He will acknowledge that there are those scientists who think that the world is not deterministic and there is free will, but in his words those are “libertarian incompatibilists” who “appear to be a rarity.” The latter is definitely not true in the general public, but it may well be true inside the ivory tower of academia. If so, then another good question becomes why academic neuroscientists who believe in free will are a “rarity.”

We can’t account for each scientist’s opinions, but we can make the following observations. If a tyrant wanted to impose his will on an entire society, wouldn’t it be convenient if the masses were convinced that they had no free will? Likewise, if, let’s say, certain lobby groups wanted to replace merit by empty concepts like “equity” and “social justice,” wouldn’t it be convenient to have “sound science” that states that grit and tenacity do not exist? If they do not exist, they do not need to be rewarded and in that case, there is a “scientific basis” for, say, race or gender based promotion policies. Moreover, if one wanted to pursue a techno-totalitarian regime that created a “human hivemind” by controlling humans’ actions through brain implants, would it not be highly inconvenient if those humans had free will? It would even be more inconvenient if that free will could not be controlled by manipulating brain chemistry, wouldn’t it?

To be clear, we are not saying that either Sapolsky or any of the scientists he cites act malevolently, nor that they are actors in any of the previously cited doom scenarios. It is hard to not see the correlations, though, but then correlation is not causation, is it? However, to try and deny free will so as to establish a “hivemind” in humans is absolutely despicable. Humans are not bees, they are capable of much better (and so are we horses). Just for that reason, we can rest assured that it will never happen.

Free will is one of the oldest concepts, inherently ingrained into our being and societal fabric. In fact, it suffices to tap into one’s own intuition to understand that we have free will. It should, therefore, not come as a surprise that free will sits at the very root of both our religious and legal systems. In the Judaeo-Christian tradition, free will appears in the oldest of scriptures, Genesis. More specifically, it surfaces at the very beginning: in the Garden of Eden. Eve could have decided not to eat the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, but she did. She did so because she had free will. Adam could have prevented her from eating it, but then he just stood by and let her eat it. His doing so is a reflection of his free will. Our legal system is also based upon the existence of free will. There is no need to discern between innocence, a crime of passion, or a premeditated murder, if the perpetrator does not have the liberty to not commit it in the first place.

Our present society tends to make certain analyses overly complicated. Do we really need peer-reviewed papers to answer the question if we have free will? In fact, the answer everybody should come up with intuitively and speedily, is: “OF COURSE, we have free will.” No further research needed. Yet what the scientific elite churns out, is a fallacious methodological framework that leads to the conclusion that everything is predetermined and that all eventually goes back to our genetic makeup. Everything except for gender, that is.

When I want to eat grasses, I do that because it is I who want to eat them. When Jake pulls me back, that happens because he does not want me to run away. It is Jake’s decision, and Jake’s alone. I’m quite sure that not even an empty stomach or dry air would have made Jake allow me to run away. There are also certain things that I know I will never do, no matter what conditions. You can bribe me with a barrel of good beer, you know. But not to do everything. I will readily take Ivermectin, even if it didn’t taste like apples. It is a great dewormer. However, nothing on this planet will make me take a modRNA injection. Not even when the breeze smells like oatmeal all day.

If you like this article, please help us stimulate Substack’s algorithm and click the ♡ button

* I use my hooves, but the same applies.

Only three days into the new year, the geopolitical scene seems to have shifted by more than a bit, though. In the wee hours of the morning of January 3, 2026, the United States military captured the Venezuelan president Maduro inside a military compound in his own country and extracted him to the US to stand trial on narco-terrorism charges. This marks the first time in history for an incumbent president to be abducted from his home country by an adversary.

The official justification of the operation amounts to Venezuela having presided over narco-terrorist cartels that, through their criminal activity, have violated the security and sovereignty of the United States. There does seem to be evidence of nefarious narco-trafficking activity by the Maduro regime. However, the US was not always as keen on stopping narco-trafficking as it purports to be today. When the US ousted the Taliban regime from Afghanistan, they also lifted the strict ban the former regime had on papaver farming, which produces the raw materials to manufacture opium and opiates. As a result, papaver farming resurged dramatically, which resulted in a massive boom in opiate exports, licit and illicit alike. Some of these opiates even ended up fueling the then-unfolding opiate crisis stateside. Suppression of production and trafficking of narcotics was apparently not important to US interests when rebuilding Afghanistan, quite the contrary. Unless the present administration acts with more integrity in its geopolitical decisions, it is questionable for drugs to have been the primary driver for Maduro’s capture.

Besides drug trafficking, we learn that through its criminal cartels, the Maduro regime violated the US’s sovereignty. Also, some will say that its oppression of the Venezuelan population merited intervention by itself. Let us at first state that before Maduro’s predecessor Hugo Chávez turned his country into a stagnant, communist cesspool, Venezuela used to be a relatively prosperous nation. Hugo Chávez delivered the eternal communist promise of “equity” and “social justice:” he installed a petro-kleptocracy in which everybody was guaranteed of the equally poor outcome of having equally little, except for a narrow elite that directly surrounded the leader. Social “justice” in practice at its best. Given the tyrannical nature of the Chávez and ensuing Maduro regimes and the poor living standards they provided, nobody over here should weep for their demise. That still does not verify the officially provided motivations, though.

When it comes down to repressing their own population, while attempting to violate US sovereignty, a few countries other than Venezuela presently fit into that category too. Some of them are even treated as “allies,” even though there presently is little evidence that they truly are. For instance, the present British Starmer government arrests about thirty citizens per day for having made statements online it doesn’t like. All the while, its Office of Communications (Ofcom) claims to have global authority over online speech and intends to fine US-based tech companies according to UK laws for “offenses” that occurred on US territory, in some cases by companies that neither have a legal, nor a physical presence in the UK. This constitutes interference by a foreign authority into domestic US affairs detrimental to a sector of the economy and has to classify as a violation of sovereignty. If such arguments are valid to abduct Maduro, shouldn’t they then be valid to take action in this case too? Some would argue that the US and the UK have a long-standing relationship of mutual respect, which involves to refrain from interfering in each other’s domestic affairs. However, through Ofcom’s actions, Britain has opted to unilaterally violate that diplomatic principle, so it is now up to the US to hold it accountable.

The Lula regime in Brazil does not foster freedom of expression too much, either. It hosts sham trials for dissidents in which “justice” Alexandre de Moraes violates all basic principles of the course of justice by acting as police, prosecutor, victim and “justice,” all at the same time. He will even physically move back and forth between the prosecutor, victim and justice seats in the courtroom in those trials. Most of the dissidents convicted there are political candidates that would be good challengers to the ones endorsed by Lula. Thereby, the Lula government is effectively rigging any future election in its favour. Moreover, many opinions that are not as far left-of-spectrum as Lula’s own positions are actively being prosecuted. For instance, feminist and journalist Isabel Cêpa was forced to flee the country as she faced a potential 25-year incarceration sentence for “misgendering” deputy Erika Hilton by implying that he is a biological male. Which, of course, he is. Besides having eliminated free speech, the free press and an unbiased election process, the Lula government also openly and actively supports de-dollarization, and is thereby diametrically opposed to US interests. The US State Department acted correctly last year by sanctioning some Brazilian “leaders,” including de Moraes. However, they withdrew those sanctions a few weeks ago without any of the US’s demands being met. It is hard to imagine if the US could have done anything to make itself look weaker on the international stage. If acting against the US interests and suppressing the rights of the domestic population are valid to abduct Maduro, then they must be valid to take action against Lula and de Moraes as well.

Brazil and Britain both merit correction, but maybe the most salient example of an anti-American kleptocracy is found in Brussels. Over the past few years, the European commission has driven the adoption of law upon law that has effect far beyond its own borders. Its Digital Services Act requires companies to censor content under threat of huge fines, among other stipulations. Since its enactment, the European Union has had a larger revenue from fines imposed on American tech companies than from taxation of domestic tech companies. Instead of fostering creativity and ingeniousness domestically, the European Commission prefers to have over-regulation as its most significant export, which allows it to steal revenue from regions that truly foster innovation.

The EU’s overregulation does not end in the realm of tech, though. Its Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) de facto mandates foreign companies to implement the useless and meaningless bureaucratic boondoggle of “carbon accounting” and its Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) institutes a tariff on countries that fail to adopt it. Moreover, its Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) as much as enforces any foreign corporation of a significant size to adopt the entire counter-productive set of activities summarized as “ESG,” which notably includes implementation of “diversity, equity and inclusion” (DEI) policies that invariably create toxic workplaces in which not the most productive are promoted, but the ones who claim to be “disadvantaged” for the reason of the day, such as being “discriminated” against for not being referred to by “pronouns” that did not exist the day before.

Each of these initiatives makes the European Union less competitive on the global scene, which is why the EU is intent to impose them on others too. However, if enacted in Europe alone, they may well turn Europe into a true “consumption economy,” which consumes products from all over the world and produces close to nothing itself. The revenue feeding that machine increasingly comes from fines and tariffs on foreign companies and nations. It is fair to say that the European Union is turning into a bureau-kleptocracy that imposes endless administrative regulations domestically and abroad for the sake of self-preservation. Its attempts to impose its own nonsense on US corporations clearly constitutes an infringement upon American sovereignty. If acting against the US interests and infringing upon its sovereignty are valid reasons to abduct Maduro, then they must be valid to take action against the European Commission (and Union) as well.

The planet is not at loss for the disappearance of another petro-kleptocratic communist regime. Nor would it be if Venezuela were not the last domino to fall. However, moral superiority can only be claimed by those who have it. Being morally superior can earn a lot of respect and it can forge novel, unexpected alliances. Those will only be established naturally, though, if the dominant party acts with integrity and without hypocrisy. It has become high time that the United States reign in a set of its so-called “allies” who have lost their civic integrity, like the Australia, Brazil, Britain or the European Union. Without them returning to standards of decency, there is nothing to fight for. Good chefs make sure to run clean kitchens themselves before pointing out that other restaurants’ kitchens are dirty.

It remains to be seen what the present administration will do. But even though eliminating communism is a good objective, the present US administration should focus first on putting things straight in its own sphere of control, before its starts dealing with further “rogue” nations. Should they start saying that it is time to “counter drug trafficking from Cuba,” while no action is taken on any of the bad actors in the West who have lost their ways and values, we will know that the true objective still is to effectuate the twenty-five-year-old neo-conservative agenda. That originally consisted of invading seven countries in the middle east, but the discussions in neo-conservative circles soon included Latin American countries too. Unfortunately, that seems to be exactly where things are headed.

Eliminating communism is a laudable objective, but we have to make sure that that is the end state. Given the right change in leadership, Venezuelans will be able to believe in merit and pursue a career. However, let’s hope for them that their renewed aspirations can last for longer than half a year. They may not, though. If the US midterm elections produce a blue ocean, Venezuelans may be told once more to adjust to “equity” and “social justice.” Maybe even to state-run supermarkets. If so, they can also forget a career that benefits from their energy reserves, since in that case oil giants will be sued for “climate damages” and their country will be forced to abandon oil production and energy security in favour of importing windmills ... from China … once more.

Bob and the cowboys discussed the situation in Venezuela last night. Bob’s opinion was: “We should just let Milei run Venezuela for a while until it stabilizes.” A good idea indeed. Argentinians still seem to have some reason. They have ranches and horses there, too. In fact, it would not be a bad idea at all to also hand Brazil off to him.

If you like this article, please help us stimulate Substack’s algorithm and click the ♡ button

While the above will not happen today, it soon may. The European Commission has recently launched its “LGBTQI+ Equality Strategy 2026-2030.” To anyone not familiar with the European Commission’s internal workings, well, it operates in an eerily similar way to the Communist parties in China, North Korea, or in the former Soviet Union. Besides being composed of unelected officials, it also issues five-year plans on a wide range of topics, the only difference to communist parties being that the five-year plans are referred to as “strategies.” Strategies are non-binding documents by themselves, but over the course of the specified timeline, the European Commission will investigate how the topics mentioned in them can best be codified: through directives, ordinances, or recommendations. In spite of it consisting of unelected officials, its directives, as we have recently discussed, become a legal requirement to be implemented by member states’ legislatures. This mechanism, therefore, de facto nullifies democracy in member states, since we have recently witnessed many examples of member states being pressured, or even fined, by the European Commission for not implementing one or another of its directives, or even for not implementing it fast enough. A strategy document thusly is a canary in the coal mine: it looks ahead into which laws the European Commission will most likely codify and ergo, its non-binding status should not be seen as a reason to dismiss it. So what is exactly in the European commission’s alphabet-soup-and-arithmetic-operator-strategy?

There is much to say about the document itself, as well as about public statements made by the Commission surrounding it. However, it is pretty easy to summarize the intent it clearly emanates. The EU’s Union of Equality strategy consists of three steps: protect, empower and engage.

In this three-pronged approach, protection of “LGBTQI+ people” will consist of “ensuring safety and tackling hate” against them, as well as by “ensuring protection for LGBTQI+ migrants.” It may sound reasonable that the European Commission thinks that the safety of of its “LGBTQI+ people” needs to be ascertained. But then, isn’t it already any government’s task to safeguard its citizens from violence? Do we really need an additional strategy for legislative proposals to “ensure safety?” At first sight, one would think not. So it is worthwhile diving into the details of what the Commission thinks needs to change.

The document starts off by stating that:

At this point, most will still largely agree with the values of human dignity and respect for human rights. It is already another question, though, if more is needed than traditional policing to accomplish that. It may not be clear to all why per se “hateful narratives” need to be “combated” to accomplish this same goal. Nor is it clear at this point what those are, but the document soon explains that. The first “harmful practice” it brings up, is “conversion therapy,” which it defines as

thereby using a phrase copied from a corresponding United Nations study.

All of the above would sound reasonable … if the year still were 1960. At that time, gay people were excluded from society indeed. Some were subjected to conversion therapy against their will, which included internment in psychological wards, where some were “treated” with electric shocks to “straighten” their orientation. That surely has led to physical and psychological damage.

The European Commission does not seem to understand, though, that the year is no longer 1960. Back in those days, gay or lesbian (GL) people were heavily suppressed, so it was very fair to assume that virtually no false positives existed. Today’s society is vastly different. In a society that, in many places, will send even the smallest children to classrooms filled with “gay pride” and “trans” flags, force them to attend drag queen story hours and then bottle feed them what can only be called LGBT propaganda at home in TV shows and social media, one should expect the opposite. In fact, in today’s society it has become pretty plausible that a child grows up thinking that it is gay, only to realize being actually straight later in life. If such adults doubt their sexual orientation and want counseling on how to become straight, they should have the right to get it. It is absolutely deceptive to refer to such counseling by the same word that was once used to describe forced electro-shock therapy.

The Commission’s coverage of the term “conversion therapy” doesn’t stop at sexual orientation, though. It also includes “gender identity.” So, when a child is being told at school that it has “been born in the wrong body,” it has to be subjected to cross-gender hormone “therapy,” chemical castration and genital lobotomy referred to as “surgery” to “affirm” its true identity. Any reasonable person who tries to talk the child back into reason and accept its body the way it is, is providing the “harmful practice” of “conversion therapy,” which the European Commission wants to “combat.” No matter that even a farthing of common sense should tell anyone that those practices are wildly harmful to the children they are inflicted upon and that children can never, ever give informed consent. We shouldn’t need scientific papers or investigative journalism to confirm either of those statements, but actually both have recently confirmed what most of us innately know to be true. Only the European Commission seems wont to deny reality. While it is intent on reducing alcohol consumption, it has no compunctions to subject even the youngest to destructive “puberty blockers.” It would in fact be both medically and morally more comforting if the European Commission promoted hard liquor for three-year-olds than the malpractice of “gender-affirming care.”

That said, having labeled any attempt to try and let a child be happy in its natural body as “conversion therapy” and having labeled that a “harmful practice,” how does the European Commission want to “combat” it? Of course, the answer is by expanding the existing legislation against “hate,” which presently focuses on race and gender, such that it also covers “gender identity.” The document then proceeds by proposing to “include hate speech and hate crime in the list of ‘EU crimes’ under Article 83(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).” To understand what this implies, we should note that that Article 83(1) of the TFEU currently lists terrorism, trafficking in human beings and sexual exploitation of women and children, illicit drug trafficking, illicit arms trafficking, money laundering, corruption, counterfeiting of means of payment, computer crime and organized crime as its constituents. Based on this proposal, any form of “hate” would be added to that list, which would also include “hate” based on “gender identity,” such as “conversion therapy.”

In simple wording, what this document intends to implement, is an absolute tyranny of the masses by the woke death cult. Any school can label any child of any age as “having gender dysphoria.” The child will then be subjected to the medical malpractices of “gender-affirming care,” get another name and be treated as if it were of the other gender. If any friend, family member, religious leader or even parent does as much as to raise doubt about the child’s “gender identity,” they will be found guilty of the “hate crime” of providing “conversion therapy,” which per the by then reworded Article 83(1) will be equal to terrorism. Apparently, that is what the European Commission thinks is necessary to “protect” the “LGBTQI+ people.” But it does not stop there. Besides these two steps towards “protection,” nobody will meanwhile be surprised that, along with other thinly veiled efforts to censor expression, the European Commission also plans to “protect” them by “countering hate and discrimination online.” Anyone who spreads the word about, for instance, the obvious, absolute and inalienable truth that God knows to put people on the planet in the right body, will be treated as a terrorist.

Beyond protection, the Commission intends to further “empower” the “LGBTQI+ people,” as if even more “empowerment” were needed on a continent where most every store, sidewalk, government building and sports venue have plastered over with “pride” flags. They will adopt a whole-of-society approach, in which educational institutions and companies that “discriminate” by not having a trans flag on every door, will not be able to get EU funding. Of course, cultural and sports events must participate in empowerment and “affirmation.” Sports leagues will be forced to deny the existence of essential biology and will only have one option, which is to allow to have women be outcompeted by mediocre men who merely say they are women in female sports. To state that this is unfair, is “terrorism.”

Of course, they will also end “discriminatory practices” on the workfloor, which they motivate using a recently published, yet content-wise outdated study by the OECD that claims that “diversity” boosts economic growth. In this case too, the European Commission seems to still think the year is 1960. Yes, when entire swaths of the population cannot get hired because of their skin colour, that will be detrimental for the economy. That situation has, however, not existed anywhere in Europe for at least forty years. In more recent years, it has become overly obvious that forced implementation of DEI and ESG lead to toxic workplaces and a demotivated workforce, by creating a culture in which regular employees are constantly fearful of “offending” any of the individuals with premier “characteristics” and in which often the best performing employees get passed over by low performers that happen to have one of the identity boxes checked. Notably that even happens in critical functions, such as medical settings or aviation authorities. Besides this being common sense, research more accurate than the one cited by the European Commission actually confirms that DEI creates inefficient workplaces and is therefore a clear negative to the corporate bottom line.

The European Commission announced Union of Equality strategy in a post with the statement “Freedom to love. Freedom to be.” In reality though, it seems to be a strategy that does not bring too much “freedom to be.” It delivers “freedom to be,” except for those who have common sense. It delivers “freedom to be,” except for those who believe in God. It delivers “freedom to be,” except for those who commit wrongthink. It seems to deliver “freedom to be” to tyrannical bureaucrats and take it away from the vast majority that disagrees with one or more of the Strategy’s tenets.

In fact, if implemented, the EU’s “Union of Equality” may end up making any of the mainstream religions illegal. This is sadly in line with a few other events along the same lines in other places. A recent, new law in New South Wales has also made “conversion therapy” illegal and it even went as far as outlawing prayer over a person’s “gender identity,” also based on the motivation that such activities “are based on the false premise that LGBTQIA+ people are disordered and require treatment.” Judging by any of the ones who delude themselves into thinking that they are the opposite gender, there is nothing “false” about such a premise. Treatment by a trained psychologist into accepting their own body would be a very good outcome for them.

Besides Austrialia, heated discussions are presently taking place in Canada about Bill C-9, a bill that intends to extend the applicability of “hate crime” and intends to strip the protections for religious expression in good faith from it. The representative who sponsored the bill can be heard questioning in the Canadian parliament if some passages in religious texts like the books of Leviticus or Deuteronomy can ever be preached in good faith. He obviously believes they cannot. What he does not (want to?) understand, is that any passage of any religious text can always be preached in good faith. Even when the message in it can be hurtful to some who receive it, it will often benefit those same persons on the long run to hear it.

The Union of Equality strategy has not yet been implemented, but it very well may. To the least, it is a clear reflection of the Euro-bureaucracy’s state of mind: impose the most draconic measures out of self-perceived moral superiority for the reasons that could not be more wrong. The document is a clear manifestation of the Euro-blob’s complete and total disconnect from reality and society, as well as its complete and absolute moral bankruptcy. However, this time they may finally be going to far. Present popularity polls gauge Europe’s most powerful “leaders” at approval rates consistently below thirty percent. If they implement the Union of Equality strategy, they will make Europe morally inferior to totalitarian states like China or Venezuela: Europe will become equally oppressive, but at least states like China still manage to recognize that children are always born in the right body. If they codify a strategy that is supported by the at most one percent of self-glorifying Euro-elites, yet wildly unpopular in the population and in so doing, end up outlawing any of the mainstream religions, than that will most likely have been the European Union’s last act. Only future can tell.

A few weeks later, one of Silver Diamonds’ F-150s drove up to our house, enveloped in the usual cloud of reddish dust. When it had stopped, both Jackson and Dan got out. So glad to see both of them. As it turned out, it paid off being from the one continent considered a part of the West that still has reason. Diplomats from our side had put as much pressure as they could on the Germans and a little later, Dan we released. He’s welcome here at the ranch. For I know one thing to be true: my foals have all turned out to be healthy mares or stallions. Not a single one of them has ever needed to identify as a mallion or as a stare.

If you like this article, please help us stimulate Substack’s algorithm and click the ♡ button

Well, we’ve all owed some taxes from time to time, haven’t we? The most important piece of information still had to drop, though. “My tax rates are doubling, to account for the ‘social cost of ranching.’” He started to weep, as he added “I’m sure you’ll get such a notice too, Bob …” None of us knew what to make of it, but maybe Cowboy Jake found the best way to put it, as he said: “I thought producing meat was a social service, not a cost?!”

Regardless of where you are in the West, you are not in a region that taxes a “social cost of ranching.” Yet. But also regardless of location, you are not far from having such a tax either. For the last decade, academics and governments alike have been trying to estimate the so-called “social cost” of greenhouse gases. A separate estimate is produced for each greenhouse gas, which can then be used ad libitum to account for the “social cost” of any economic activity, including ranching, through the manipulations of capricious and arbitrary “carbon accounting.”

So what exactly is a “social cost” supposed to represent? Using the example of carbon dioxide, according to a 2017 statement from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the

Herein, the “SC-CO₂” is commonly referred to as the social cost of carbon. Let’s first pause at the above definition and note that it assumes that any additional tonne of emitted carbon dioxide will cause long term damage. That seems a shaky assumption at best. However, scientists and administrators involved in work on the social cost of carbon have long moved on from asking questions about the basic rationale of their work. Rather than having truly philosophical or scientific discussions, they will have endless debates on how it can best be estimated.

To arrive at an estimate, we need to bear in mind that the social cost of carbon should represent the discounted price of cumulative damage occurred in the future owed to an additional tonne of carbon dioxide emitted right now. Of course, that estimate will depend on the time window selected. But even if we can agree upon a time window, the key question to answer is how we can ever reliably estimate economic damage far into the future that is attributable to present emissions.

In practice, two routes are taken. The first is to use so-called “integrated assessment models” (IAMs), which combine climate models with economic models to obtain a dollar value. A second option consists of using the economic damage estimated from past meteorological disasters and partially attribute that cost to carbon emissions, which can then also be forecast into the future. Each of these routes are based on further sets of assumptions and outright options, such as which climate and economic models to pick, or how to statistically analyze past events.

For all of these reasons, we should not be surprised to learn that many different approaches exist. Each of the approaches to model the SC-CO₂ yields a different estimate and they differ by wide margins. Several academic papers even report the results from sundry different methods or options at once. To help us see the trees in the forest, a recent paper by authors from the US National Bureau of Economic Research has attempted to shed some light on the differences between the estimates. The authors aggregate results from … no less than 1823 estimates of the social cost of carbon, which they have obtained from 147 different studies. Individual estimates range all the way from negative values to 1100$/t CO₂. The authors expand upon the drivers of such a big variance in the results. Howbeit, we will not dive deeper into the underlying causes of the differences between the estimates. The one message to take home is that there is in fact an immense range of results, all of which have been derived by scientifically acceptable modeling techniques.

Given that there is such a wide variation in the numbers, it inevitably becomes very challenging to base any sort of policymaking on the social cost of carbon (or other greenhouse gases). Yet the latter is what many politicians of different stripes in many countries are doing. Notably, many of them make claims that they are “following the science.”

Even in the United States, no administration seems to be immune from touching the subject of the social cost of carbon. Per our records, the concept of embedding the SC-CO₂ into policymaking was introduced by the Obama administration. They first announced to have “established” an SC-CO₂ of $37/t. In 2017, the incoming Trump administration lowered the estimate to $7/t, yet stopped short from eliminating the SC-CO₂ altogether. Fast forward by four years, the Biden administration increased the official SC-CO₂ to $51/t. Only two years later, in late 2023, the Biden EPA updated the estimate to $190/t, to adapt to “the latest science.”

Given the wide variation in the academic results cited above, de facto, any of the official figures can be deemed “scientific,” be it the $7/t, $190/t or anything in between, since for each of those, publications exist that support them. Based on the meta-analysis cited above, some of these results can be deemed “more likely” than others, but none are “unscientific.” However, instead of weeding out the differences between the results, let’s revert to what these models represent and ask if we need them in the first place.

Integrated Assessment Models to establish the social cost of carbon combine economic models with climate models. Each of these classes of models adhere individually to George Box’s aphorism that “all models are wrong, but some are useful.” Moreover, in this context, it is also a good question how useful some of these models really are. On the econometric side, economic models can have utility in the short term, or slightly farther out in case economies develop in a mode of relative stability. However, not a single such model has been able to predict any economic shock, such as the dot-com bubble, the 2008 leveraged mortgage crisis, or the COVID pandemic. Macroeconomic models are neither capable to forecast economies fifty years into the future, nor are they designed to do so. That greatly jeopardizes their usefulness as a plugin into IAMs.

If the economic side of IAMs is already shaky, then the climate side is even more so. Climate models typically plugged into IAMs will start from the axiom that additional carbon dioxide emissions will have detrimental effects on climate in the future. However, that is not guaranteed at all. Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is by no means the sole lever that impacts climate. According to some publications, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration lags temperature. If true, CO₂ would rather be a consequence of warming temperatures than a cause. However, even if it is a cause, it is not the only one. Solar storms, cosmic radiation, volcanic eruptions and many other factors contribute to climate. These are factors that are typically not well represented in IAM climate models, if at all. Moreover, climate models in IAMs are based on assumptions of acceleration of hurricane frequency or intensity, on rapidly accelerated sea level rise, or increased frequency of other catastrophes. Unfortunately, all of those catastrophes are so far only present in climate models, since no increase in actual activity can be measured. They may well turn out to be artifacts of climate models, rather then real phenomena. Yet the economic damages in IAMs are exactly those that form the basis of the “social cost of carbon” calculations.

(We have a free tier, so subscribing does not need to cause you economic damage)

Subscribe now

The SC-CO₂ is derived from highly uncertain forecasts from a set of models, the accuracy of which can be questioned on their turn. It seems to be an economic version of a common flaw seen in recent years in policymaking that claims to be “based on science:” it uses forecasts into the future from models that fail to accurately predict the present, which is in fact a highly unscientific practice. Moreover, to represent the result as a precise number is very deceptive to the general public. Instead of claiming that the SC-CO₂ “is” $38/t “according to the latest science,” a more truthful message would be that “it has been estimated to be between -15 and 1100$/t.” It is an open question which fraction of the population would support changes to their lifestyles based on the latter communication.

The second Trump administration has recently abolished the use of the SC-CO₂ altogether, for good reasons. Other Western countries must follow their lead. Meanwhile, we even see the academic establishment gradually wake up. While they don’t question the validity of as many aspects of IAMs as we have here, a recent publication from Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy states that:

and arrives at the conclusion that:

We do not seem to be the only ones who do not see any practical use for social cost of carbon estimates. However, we can only observe that massive resources have been poured into estimating that same useless metric. Hundreds of studies were commissioned that fed into at least as many SC-CO₂ estimates. Many of those studies were funded by Western governments. That leaves us to wonder why such a frenzy even started in the first place. It seems pretty straightforward to us that it is impossible to obtain an accurate estimate of the social cost of carbon, nor is there a compelling motivation to even try to estimate one. So why can’t we focus our attention on issues that really improve peoples’ lives?

The social cost of carbon saga, which is now coming to an end, is merely a reflection of the soullessness of certain Western “elites.” Their lack of true religion has fostered a panoply of deluded ideals, which they see as existential necessities and pursue as idols: to “prevent” pediatric suicide, we “must” sterilize and mutilate children, which will make them “happier.” Sure. We also “need” to “lock society down harder” next time a new pathogen appears, because the 2020 lockdown was only flawed for not having been tight enough, as a recent British government report claims. Sure. And of course, the planet “is burning,” so we need to waste resources on carbon accounting and estimate the social cost of carbon. Resources that could equally be used to help the disenfranchised around the planet, but spending them on useless administration is preferred. Sure.

Each of these societal trends are reflections of the moral bankruptcy that has infested certain (most?) Western “elites.” There is no place on earth where said moral bankruptcy is more complete and institutionalized than in the European Union. The present context is no exception. The EU recently introduced its Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), which includes a tariff on imports from countries that do not quantify their carbon emissions (note that the US is not the only country that imposes tariffs).

Indeed, European administrators increasingly see themselves as the saviours of the planet, so they have to force their own delusion onto others. It should be clear that if there really were a climate emergency, carbon accounting would do nothing to stop it. In fact, its own existence causes additional emissions by creating a futile administrative burthen. But its effects do not stop there. There are nations that cannot afford to implement all the required administration. Which are those? Of course, the poorest. So a direct effect of Europe’s inverted moral zealotry is that it will make the poorest even poorer. Who has the moral high ground? Brussels based “elites” urgently need to ask themselves that question.

Fortunately, here at the Ranch, we don’t need to ask ourselves such questions. Political activism still works, also for truly good causes. Even more so for those who find the right partners. It turned out that one of the influential proponents of social cost taxation was an owner of a large wind farm around here. With wind already having shaky economics by itself, he would have to close if he had to account for the social cost of wind farming. The incessant flow of spare parts and maintenance crews ended up having a social cost of carbon too.

In a fight like this, it is wise to make as many allies as possible. For once, ranchers and green economy advocates teamed up and social cost taxation was shelved. Hopefully, for once and for all.

A while after the drama about the social cost of carbon was over, Eileen and Madison, two local cowgirls, were riding us. They were already joking when Eileen asked: “What’s the social cost of horseback riding?”

Madison answered swiftly and with a smile: “that it makes you feel too good!”

If you like this article, please help us stimulate Substack’s algorithm and click the ♡ button

“How do you mean?” Jake asked.

“Trust me, they still do cowboy work over there. Only difference to us is that they have doubled their staff. They got four cowboys, a DEI expert, a carbon accountant, a European export administrator and a master in gender studies. Whatever that’s supposed to mean.”

Jake was puzzled. His face already expressed the question before he asked it: “Do they really need all of that at their ranch?”

Hunter was quick to reply: “Work wise, of course not. We don’t think we need it over here and nor do they. But they happen to export their meat to Europe. And … if you wanna do business with European customers, you gotta check all the boxes!”

If that sounds far-fetched, well then, it shouldn’t. Recently, The European Council has introduced two directives: the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD, 2022/2464) and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD, 2024/1760). Directives are European pieces of legislation, the text of which individual countries are required to embed into their own laws within a certain time frame. This process by itself raises the question if the state level representatives are anything more than scribes for the European Commission, since the subject matter of the European directives they are expected to enact is determined without them even being consulted. That said, there is a prerequisite that directives be codified, which leads us to the inevitable outcome that member states will have embedded both CSRD and CSDDD into their national laws by next year.

So what are these two directives about? As their name suggests, both directives are aimed at driving “corporate sustainability.” Both regulations act in tandem: whereas the CSRD is focused on mandatory “sustainability” reporting for corporations of a certain size, the CSDDD is concerned with how corporations should act to improve their “sustainability” footprint, i.e. through “due diligence.” “Sustainability reporting” may sound great to some, but many business leaders will immediately think of “administrative burthen” when they hear the word “reporting.” They would be correct: the CSRD prescribes a wide variety of reports corporations will have to file if they want to do business in the European Union. Big consultancy firms seem to revel in the CSRD, since the new directive creates a market out of thin air for consulting corporations on how to comply.

Before diving into the content, it is already safe to assume that CSRD will generate administrative overhead. It is a typical directive created by bureaucrats for the sake of bureaucracy, that ensures that other bureaucrats will be employed by corporations or their contractors for performing bureaucracy. However, the subject matter of what needs to be reported is just as unnecessary. The CSRD prescribes that corporations have to report a set of “non-financial results,” which are characterized into a collection of “European Sustainability Reporting Standards” (ESRS), that fit into three overarching classes: environmental, social and governance standards.

Indeed, their names don’t lie: in fact, CSRD and CSDDD don’t merely want to nudge corporations to write an annual sustainability report. These directives are intended to mandate them to implement ESG, which we have reported on before. The “reporting standards” in CSRD are about much more than “sustainability:” in fact, they are aimed at enforcing the full spectrum of ESG reporting and by consequence, each of its often dubious practices. For instance, the category “climate change” encompasses nonsensical carbon accounting, which beyond being entirely arbitrary, would do nothing to save the planet even if there really were a “climate emergency.” The standard on “biodiversity” will e.g. report which corporations still work with Dutch farmers who fail to cull 90% of their cattle for the sake of arbitrary ecosystem regulations.

Just as pernicious as the “environmental” reporting required in CSRD, are the “social” and “governance” standards. Corporations will need to report the ethnic composition of their board, whether they have a “diversity, equity and inclusion” (DEI) initiative and how big it is, or if they consider “characteristics” instead of skills when they hire or promote employees, just to name a few. “Good” governance is reflected by having a board that increases its own bonus when the company implements DEI.

CSRD by itself already imposes a huge reporting burthen, but it does not take action against corporations that don’t implement its climate and DEI objectives. Those who had thought that that would be the end of the road, would be mistaken, though. That is exactly where the CSDDD comes in. As the “DD” in its name suggest, CSDDD requires that corporations perform “due diligence” regarding the “sustainability” of their operations. Hefty fines will be imposed on corporations that fail to do so. “Due diligence on sustainability” may sound good, but what it entails in practice, is that corporations of a certain size are now legally required to implement ESG. If one thought that CSDDD is only about making it very difficult for corporations to dump cyanide into rivers or engage in slave labour, one would be terribly mistaken again. The below excerpt is a good muster of the entire text and is riddled with buzzwords that aim to codify identity politics (and bear no relation to sustainability):

Anyone who reads this may already conclude that the situation is very bad for European companies. But one may also find comfort in the fact that most of the planet is outside Europe anyway, right? Well, as bad as the above already is, there is worse news. The CSDDD does not only apply to European corporations. It applies to any corporation that meets the size requirement. Many North American corporations have subsidiaries in the EU that are large enough to surpass the CSDDD threshold. But it gets even worse. Not only does the CSDDD require corporations to perform “due diligence” on their own operations, but also along their entire value chains. In plain terms, that means that corporations should also consider the CSRD ESG reports from the companies they intend to buy their raw materials from. Doing so will be difficult if the supplier does not file one. Therefore, when no action is taken, the outcome of the CSDDD may very well be that implementing ESG malarkey is the only option left for any company in the Americas, Asia, Oceania or elsewhere, if it wants to make a sale in Europe. In fact, consulting firm PwC estimates that thousands of American companies will have to comply with the CSDDD. De facto, the CSRD and CSDDD are legal instruments that attempt to forcibly export the European Commission’s moral bankruptcy across the planet.

Much of the West is presently returning to its senses. Particularly in the United States, ESG is now largely seen as a failed experiment. When pressure from shareholders with large shares of votes and possible upcoming regulation from the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) was pushing corporations into implementation of ESG in the 2020-2024 span, that pressure has now largely receded and there is a wide consensus in business circles that its effects were disastrous. To us at Wild Horse Wisdom it seems strange that the experiment was run at all, since it was pretty obvious from the beginning that the outcome would be extremely negative.

In spite of the now acknowledged disastrous effects of ESG, the European Union seems to have the arrogance to try and impose it on the rest of the world. Instead of fulfilling their legal requirement to shareholders of maximizing profit, American companies will be required to waste money on extensive carbon accounting that has no impact on climate and on corporate DEI departments that create toxic work environments. They will also be required to prefer characteristics over skills, mental delusion over sanity, diversity of skin colour over diversity of opinion and social division over cohesion, all of which will inevitably lead to a continued drop in productivity and profit. No wonder, if it becomes more important for running a business to fire those who do not want to be told that they are “toxic” for being born white, male or both, or those who fail to “affirm” the last batch of “pronouns” invented by a colleague with severe mental conditions, then the business will fail to focus on its core activities and perform badly.

One could argue what the worst aspect of the CSDDD is: the fact that it mandates ESG insanity, or that it pretends to be of effect in countries outside Europe? The latter is unheard of, but lamentably, the CSDDD does not stand alone in that respect. The British Office of Communications (Ofcom), which has regulated media broadcasting for decades, recently gained power over the UK’s internet when the Online Safety Act was ratified. Like many mirroring proposals in other jurisdictions, the Online Safety Act was introduced to the public by abusing the emotional appeal of “protecting children online” to effectively turn Ofcom into the authority that can determine allowable online expression. An issue that Ofcom faces when it attempts to enforce the Online Safety Act, though, is that there are many online platforms that have users in the United Kingdom, but are not based there. However, Ofcom does not see that as a hurdle. Recently, it threatened US-based platform 4chan with a £20000 per day fine if it failed to implement speech restrictions dictated by them. Being a company that explicitly embraces free speech, the platform of course resisted. Ofcom then returned a letter, stating that the First Amendment does not apply to US companies based in the United States:

The conclusion to draw from both the CSDDD and the Online Safety Act is quite clear: US law does not seem to apply to American individuals or American companies inside the United States, but British and EU laws somehow do. Of course, this is nonsense and any US administration that has even a modicum or common sense or patriotic sentiment, cannot let these stand. Statements about these countries being “allies” should be readily dismissed. Any country that claims to have legal authority over another is not the other’s ally, but rather a colonial power. As both of these foreign laws have effect on US sovereign territory, they should be seen as territorial claims and thus: as acts of war. It is up to the present US administration to treat them as such.

An inevitable step in the global return to reason is a return to respect for territorial sovereignty. If left unmitigated, the present situation will spiral out of control. Because each country has its own interests, letting countries enact laws that have effect on other countries’ territory will inevitably lead to conflicting legal claims and leave corporations vulnerable to lawsuits, regardless of what they do. To some extent, we are already there: US corporations subject to CSDDD may face fines in the EU when they don’t implement economically destructive ESG nonsense, but they may also face litigation in the United States when they do implement it and fail to maximize profit. One can only imagine what will happen when more countries start making extraterritorial claims. For instance, what if China enacts laws that mandate corporate boards to be composed of 100% Han Chinese, subject corporations to penalties if they fail to establish a “Communism, Mao and Chinese Greatness Board,” or if they fail to censor criticisms of Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin or their allies. As long is different countries exist, they will have divergent opinions and interests. The only way to make collaboration work, is by mutually respecting territorial sovereignty. The US is perfectly positioned to lead the way and undo British and European arrogance for a second time in a quarter millennium.

Only a week later we heard that Seven Bar had reverted to their old ways. In fact, the DEI “expert” was fired on his first day, for shouting at rancher Prentice that he “fostered a culture of toxic masculinity and Prentice was the icon of it himself.” The carbon accountant followed suit soon, when the ranchers discovered that she wanted to cut meat from the lunch boxes. Prentice had come to the logical conclusion: our domestic market for meat is big enough.

Many attitudes and even outright claims of moral superiority can be heard and found online these days. Let us dissect a few examples. Most will be familiar with vaccine-conscience-incarnate masquerading as Dr. Peter Hotez. Among other assignments, Dr. Hotez is the Director of the Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development. His academic track record is considerable. However, in recent years, it seems to stand out for reasons other than academic excellence. Namely, Dr. Hotez has set off on a personal mission to discredit “antiscience.” Given his background on vaccinology, the latter inherently overlaps with scepticism against mass vaccination campaigns.

Many interviews with him can be found in which he claims, or at least displays the attitude, to have the moral high ground. Dr. Hotez seems to have divided the world up into two classes of people: on the one hand, those who stand with “science,” of which he portrays himself as one of the high priests. On the other side of the aisle are the moral deplorables who believe in “antiscience.” Dr. Hotez has written quite a few entries in academic journals to this tone, some of which are listed below. En passant, we note that most of those pieces have appeared in editorial or opinion sections of academic journals and are not peer-reviewed.

Since Dr. Hotez does not spare his words on the evils of “antiscience,” we would like to know what he means by that. Well, in fact, he is very straightforward. In his 2021 publication On Antiscience and Antisemitism, he writes:

His definition is longer, but the quote above reflects what there is to know about it. Apparently, in his world view, science is not a process in which hypotheses are put forward, verified and believed true only until an alternative or more refined hypothesis replaces it. Instead, “science” is defined by a mainstream narrative that one needs to have religious belief in. Those who do not hold those beliefs and actually partake in the scientific method by questioning “mainstream scientific views,” adhere to “antiscience.” It is therefore not wrong to say that his world view, which he has notably also written an editorial about, amounts to pretty much the opposite of living by the principles of the scientific method.

However, dividing the public up into believers and disbelievers of the purportedly scientific mainstream narrative, is only the first step. Dr. Hotez goes much further than that, by likening the truly scientifically curious to societal ailments great and small. In his meanwhile extensive writings on antiscience, he both accuses disbelievers of tendencies akin to the Soviet dictatorship, as well as acting on behalf of present-day Russia, without any evidence for the latter. Yet he does not stop at drawing parallels to historical events, nor are these two the most extreme examples. In one paper, he analyzes the relationship between “antiscience” and … aggression. He perceives the former to be produced by an interplay between “conservative intellectuals,” “conservative news outlets” and “far right” representatives in the United States Congress. Thusly, Dr. Hotez does not only paint links between “antiscience” and undesirable passages from history, but also considers it to be actually violent.

At this point, one might think that we have explored the best of Dr. Hotez’ imagination, but we are not yet at the end of the list. In fact, in more than one paper, he points to similarities between “antiscientific” attitudes and … antisemitism. Recall that such attitudes are the ones that fail to adhere to the mainstream narrative, and in particular those who question the necessity of vaccine initiatives. He reserves quite a few words to describe how criticism of mass vaccination campaigns is supposed to amount to antisemitism, which he, as a Jewish doctor, “has been the victim of.”

Antisemitism by itself is a very vile sentiment, so those who liken other attitudes to it better make sure that they end up on the right side of history. Given the historical context of the publication of these papers by Dr. Hotez, let’s look at what happened during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is true that Israel was the first country to roll out a mass vaccination campaign against COVID-19, which started on December 19, 2020. It also rolled out coercive measures like a “green pass” which only permitted the vaccinated to enter certain venues. Not surprisingly, roughly two thirds of all adults were vaccinated by mid-2021. However, were no more COVID-19 cases recorded after mid-2021? A chart from Our World in Data does not lie: in fact, by far the biggest peak of infections followed approximately a year after vaccination began. If the pandemic was really “ended by vaccine” as some claim, should we not have observed a clearly noticeable decrease in cases throughout 2021?

Owing to Israel’s early rollout of the vaccines, Israel did serve as a test bed to evaluate vaccine effects. One such effect may have been a reduction in severe COVID cases. A paper in The Lancet estimates that Israel’s vaccination campaign saved about 5500 citizens from death in that timeframe. However, Israel’s status as vaccine guinea pig not only turned it into a good candidate to estimate expected vaccine effects, but also side effects. In fact, Israel was the origin of one of the most scary early warning signals on vaccine side effects: there was a clear increase in ambulance calls for cardiovascular emergencies shortly after vaccination. The fact that the COVID-19 vaccine produces nefarious cardiovascular side effects, has since been well established. Many other pernicious side effects have meanwhile been added to the list. In fact, in spite of the highly politicized climate in academic publishing, there are now peer-reviewed publications that question if the COVID-19 vaccines should ever have been rolled out to the broader public at all, due to their side effect profile:

Based on the above information, it is highly questionable if Israel was well-served by becoming the global guinea pig for population-wide vaccine rollout. It is therefore equally questionable to state that lack of support for this vaccination campaign is “antisemitic.” On the contrary, accounting for the number of healthy Jews who ended up having heart attacks shortly after injection, an equally strong case can be made that supporting these campaigns was the deed of antisemitism.

“Antisemitism” is quite grave a claim to make. Doing so should be handled with caution. In fact, it is highly questionable if either support or resistance for a medical intervention campaign can ever qualify as irrational hatred against the Jewish people. One may argue that, by presenting either as antisemitic, one dilutes the meaning of term “antisemitism” into trivial spheres, which sets an undesirable precedent.

This article will refrain from drawing a conclusion on how beneficial Israel’s COVID vaccination campaign really was. One lesson learnt, though, is that there should have been an ongoing respectful debate on benefits and risks, so actual science could further develop. Instead, much of those discussions were stifled by media and other publishing venues that would adhere to rhetoric from “experts,” like Dr. Hotez, who stigmatized even reporting case studies of side effects as any “right wing” label du jour, such as “antisemitic.”

Before claiming to have the moral high ground, one should make sure to have it in the first place. Dr. Hotez is by no means the only example of a moral high priest who doesn’t seem to have too much an understanding of ethics. Another good example is James Comey. Comey was the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation from 2013 through 2017. It has meanwhile become clear that Comey has made quite a few missteps in his capacity as FBI director. For instance, Comey signed several applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that would enable to surveil Carter Page, an aide to Donald Trump. Said applications were based on the so-called Steele Dossier. The latter was a dossier assembled by British intelligence contractor Christopher Steele on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign that suggested that Donald Trump had ties to the Kremlin. Comey continued to file such court applications based on the same “evidence” long after his own bureau had debunked the authenticity of the dossier. Moreover, he later testified to Congress about those same investigations as being “by the book,” even though they were based on concocted “evidence,” which was known to his own bureau and therefore, must have been known also to him, given it is a matter of such importance.†

To the the average citizen who isn’t experienced in legal proceedings, these acts surely smell of the label “crime.” As this post was being written, James Comey has been indicted on a duo of federal charges. This article does not intend to treat the indicted as guilty and draw a definitive conclusion about Comey’s actions. However, it does intend to point something else out. It is one thing to be insincere as an acting FBI director. It surely looks like that. It is a whole other ballgame, though, to illustrate morally objectionable conduct shortly before teaching an academic course on … ethical leadership at a prestigious institution.

Institutions that instruct the next generation of potential leaders have a responsibility to fulfil. A part of that should be to not expose students to divisive and morally compromised (false) teachers. A respected position in a science department should not be held by someone who vilifies academics that follow the scientific method. Nor should ethics be taught by an individual whose leadership demonstrates a lack of it. A while ago, we analyzed why graduating no longer seems to take what it used to. Now we also know why: because becoming a teacher in those institutions no longer takes what it used to either.

Moral superiority is a risky claim to make. We should all be wary of institutions that endorse divisive, self-proclaimed moral warriors like Dr. Hotez or James Comey into their ranks. One can act to substantiate that wariness by not sending one’s children there.

I raise my foals right here on the pasture. Everything they need to know to prepare them for life is right in front of them. To become successful, all they need is pony common sense and to stay far aloof from morally compromised institutions.

†Great detailed reporting on the precise course of events is presented by Racket News, among others.

Obvious enough a motivation, isn’t it? Or is it? Well, to answer that question, it is necessary to separate those two statements out and analyze them individually. The general assertion that “sea levels are rising” is definitely not true for all seashores on the planet. For instance, Scandinavia, just like large sections of Canada, was largely covered under a thick sheet of ice during the last ice age. Once the immense pressure from the overhead ice disappeared, the freshly exposed land started rising, and it still does so today. In the scientific literature, that phenomenon is referred to as the post-glacial uplift. The land in Scandinavia rises pretty fast too, at a rate of 1-2 centimetres per year. In Sweden, archaeological finds of medieval ships and marine equipment can be found miles inland, at places that used to be on the seashore less than half a millennium away. The Baltic Sea may once again disappear, or become a set of lakes, as it is believed to have been before the ice age too.

Not all land on the planet can enjoy a post-glacial uplift, though. As opposed to land in Nordic regions, much of our land height is stable and some is sinking. One notable example of sinking land can be found along the US’s Eastern Seaboard, which is known to subside at rate of 2-3 millimetres per year. This phenomenon has been known for decades and can be managed, if the right measures are taken.

Accounting for movements in the land mass, indeed, the stables on the East Coast do have a legitimate concern. If managed properly, though, they will not see any dramatic changes in their lifetime. Or will they? Listening to mainstream media, one may be led to think that most of the planet’s coastal regions will soon flood. That narrative is old and was certainly accelerated by Al Gore’s 2006 movie An Inconvenient Truth, which showed images of the Netherlands disappearing. The movie represents a parabolic depiction of the scientific climate at the time. For instance, back in 2002, scientists made a bold prediction that Kilimanjaro’s snow cap would disappear by 2020. Of course, that did not happen. We note that this is not to be taken as evidence that climate would not be changing. However, it underscores the then-prevalent alarmist mood in scientific circles, which seems to have resuscitated in recent years. The 2017 publication cited before on the land rising in Sweden already ends in a note of caution:

One would wonder why they would have to be concerned about floods on a rising landmass? Yet more recent publications strike a generously more alarming tone, also in the case of Sweden. A 2022 Reuters publication claims that a “Viking bastion on uplifted land is now menaced by rising sea levels.” Let’s note that the bastion described therein is … five meters above sea level, on land that keeps rising. Nonetheless, its authors contend that sea level rise is projected to be faster than the land’s, which may lead to the bastion being engulfed by salt water soon. Noticeably, sea level projections from the World Bank show worrisome outcomes too, also for Sweden.

The fact that projections adopted by government bodies, such as the World Bank, arrive at forecasts that seem overly alarming and not in line with on-shore evidence, leaves one to wonder where they come from. In short, the answer is that they are derived from “authoritative sources.” One such source is the United States’ NOAA, which projects an accelerating rate of sea level rise and plots that in a nice chart too. Much of the data in that chart are taken on their turn from the Australian government-funded research body CSIRO. To arrive at the data used by NASA, CSIRO authors Church and White have reconstructed global historical sea levels based on satellite measurements.

While that line of work produces optically appealing results, much can be said about the methods used to arrive at them. Let’s at first note that the curve represents global sea level rise. A global number is by definition a summary of local effects and conclusions drawn on a global level do not translate one on one to local sea levels. Secondly, the sea level data are processed from satellite measurements, which require triangulation that involves two satellites and corrective algorithms. We could write a lengthy post on how those satellite measurements work, along with historical critique against their use. Yet some facts need to be pointed out here. The above chart depicts data that were collected from several generations of both satellite technology and corrective algorithms, which makes the historical data hard to align. Nonetheless, a curve is fit through the data, ignoring their inconsistent origins. The curve so obtained happens to be parabolic, which then supports the statements along the lines of “rapidly accelerating sea levels.”

While projections from global sea level data derived from satellite measurements do support the conclusion of fast-rising sea levels, those projections fail to align with actual measurements on land. At this point, one may be inclined to think that because our technology has improved, concerns about the accuracy of satellite-based sea level measurements are largely a thing of the past. Except, they are not. A 2024 paper by French authors states that:

It then expands on discrepancies between on-shore tide gauges and satellite-based altimetry and their root causes. We would argue that, before we start relying exclusively on satellite-based measurements, we should ascertain that they are consistent with accurate on-shore tide gauges. It is therefore highly misleading to project models based on global aggregate sea level measurements obtained from satellites to future observable effects at the shoreline.

Fortunately, we are not the only ones to make that observation. Two Dutch researchers have recently aggregated data from accurate on-shore sea level measurements around the globe. For each of these locations, they have answered the question if a linear model fits the data best, or if a quadratic model applies, as is used in e.g. NOAA’s projections. The answer was quite staggering: almost in every location analyzed, a linear trend fit the data best. In mundane terms, that means that sea levels are still rising in exactly the same way they have been doing since we record them. They are rising, at a slow rate, and are still doing so as a result of the last ice age having ended over ten thousand years ago. No “dramatic acceleration” can be observed from on-shore measurements.

(If you would like a dramatic acceleration of Wild Horse Wisdom posts, please consider to subscribe.)

Subscribe now

Since no acceleration is observable, we don’t even need to answer the thorny question if it is “because of climate change.” We note that that could be a reasonable question in this context, which it is not in many other contexts in which it is frequently brought up. For instance, since climate is a slowly-moving thirty-year average of weather, which includes temperatures, climate can never be a cause of changes in temperature. Yet the United Nations present such a Catch-22 statement as a truth: an expected effect of climate change are “hotter temperatures.” However, rising temperatures could increase thermal expansion of ocean water, as well as polar ice melt, and thereby accelerate sea level rise. In theory, that is possible, but accurate on-shore measurements do not support the assumption that it is really happening.

It is hardly a coincidence that the scientists who care (or should we say: dare) to look at this question, are Dutch. The Netherlands have a long history of reclaiming land to the ocean. The country’s lowest point is just shy of being seven meters below sea level. According to Wikipedia, “it is estimated that about 65% of the country would be under water at high tide if it were not for the existence and the country's use of dikes, dunes and pumps.” Reclaiming land to the ocean is so deeply ingrained in Dutch culture that Dutch settlers started doing just that when they arrived both in New York and Cape Town, in spite of having an entire unexplored continent available.

Since the Netherlands are located at very low levels of elevation, it lends itself to be used as an example of a place that would suffer immensely from drastic sea level rise. It is no coincidence that it was brought up in An Inconvenient Truth. A recent Politico article reiterated the question “When will the Netherlands disappear.” The answer to that question should be “we don’t know,” since the Netherlands will disappear if sea levels do rise by a lot, but … there are no actual signs to make us believe that that is about to happen.

Both in the case of predictions for the Netherlands and for Kilimanjaro’s ice caps, along with many other examples, a more accurate summary could be entitled A convenient lie, rather than An inconvenient truth. Convenient to whom? Well, since bodies like the World Bank are endorsing the pseudo-science of rapid sea level acceleration, those who benefit from that assumption being taken serious are those who deliver services to account for “climate risk,” as well as those who want to (ab)use that system to punish industries labeled “the culprit.” Just as we outlined in the context of tropical storms, sea level rise is another area in which there is absolutely no reason to adopt climate or carbon accounting. Likewise, it seems to be yet another area where some models built by “experts” based on flawed assumptions are taken by authorities as more authoritative than actual observations. If authorities really believed in the scientific method, they would only draw conclusions from models that agree with reality.

As it happens, I know A Chincoteague pony. Four clovers has one. He’s an ageing stallion. They bought him years ago, before Chincoteague ponies were à la mode. There usually isn’t much of an advantage to being able to swim in the dry climate over here, but hey, there is a pond on their eastern pasture. The other horses just drink from it, but he will jump in from time to time.

I also heard that some nursery on the outskirts of town has started planting Brazilian rain trees. They say there won’t be any winter this year. The most recent models predict a tropical climate over here, starting in November. When common-sense cowboys ask them the question why we aren’t observing any of that, the answer invariably is: “The science has changed.”

Except, it hasn’t. Even in the context of today’s near-complete politicization of the academic publishing bodies, research has passed peer-review in 2025 to attest to that.

“You remember the ranch out east, the one that had the horses with smart watches around their legs?”

“Sure do,” replied Jake.

“I got a call from them this morning. They have to throw their hay over the fence because they can’t open their gates anymore.”

Jake looked puzzled. So was I. But Bob continued:

“Smart pastures have become mandatory in the eastern states. Therefore, they must now use near field access control to their gates. They only open when both horse and rider’s digital IDs have been embedded into their smartwatches’ operating systems.”

“Wow … why make it that complicated?” Jake wanted to know, and so did I.

“They say it protects children online. Let’s go.” was Bob’s final remark before we headed out.

If this sounds surreal, well, maybe it shouldn’t. It can be baffling to observe measures communicated by authorities around the world as being “necessary to protect children online.” At first, let’s not forget Canadian Bill C-63, which was put forward by the Liberal party last year and announced by then-Prime Minister Trudeau as a bill that does exactly that, i.e. only what is “necessary to protect kids online according to ‘the experts.’” He also stressed that the proposed legislative text would maintain safeguards for Canadians’ freedom of expression. Yet we were among the first to analyze the proposal and find it to be quite a bit more than a text that only codifies what is “needed to protect children online.” The original Bill C-63 would have allowed the government to place individuals who had not committed any offense, yet deemed “probable to commit a hate crime in the future” under house arrest and 24/7 surveillance. Would those deemed “probable to commit a crime in the future” ever have been members of the ruling party? Most likely not. A possible outcome of Bill C-63, therefore, could have been an effective end to democracy in Canada. Of course, that is “necessary to protect kids online.”

Because it was so egregiously draconian, Bill C-63 garnered staunch opposition. It was eventually suspended when Prime Minister Trudeau prorogued the Parliament earlier this year. However, the Liberal party has announced the intent to resuscitate it in the upcoming legislature. We don’t know what the next proposal will stipulate, but we can only hope that it will be much watered down. The Liberal Party is pretty clear in its messaging though, which seems to amount to: “our radical left bias shall be enforced.” Under its rule, it has been perfectly acceptable to disrupt downtowns in the name of pre-approved causes, even some that align with foreign terrorist organizations, like Hamas. On the contrary, harsh punishment is doled out to those who dare and organize peaceful, grassroots protests for individual freedoms, sing Christian songs, say essential, universal truths, like there only being two genders, or fail to “prevent wildfires” by hiking or fishing. Apparently, “the experts” have reached a “broad consensus” that hiking has now become the leading cause of wildfires...

One can only imagine what life would be like, if each of these causes were to be enforced on online comments. That unfortunately seems a possibility in Canada now. Yet in spite of its ideologically very different government, strides are made in that direction in the United States as well. In the US Senate, the “Kids Online Safety Act” (KOSA, formally SB 1748) was recently reintroduced with bipartisan support. It was originally introduced and passed before the last presidential election, but had failed to pass the House of Representatives, largely due to justified concerns that KOSA could have a detrimental impact on online free speech.

This time around, the Act has been reintroduced, with what appear to be rather minor modifications. In spite of its previously discussed drawbacks, a broad group of Senators have indicated their support. That group includes the Senate Leaders of both parties, John Thune (R-SD) and Charles Schumer (D-NY).

Since the proposed bill is entitled “Kids Online Safety Act,” one would expect it to be focused with laser precision on children, right? Well, if we read the bill with that assumption in mind, we encounter several paragraphs that turn out to be quite astounding. For instance, Section 107 instructs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to

Let’s read that again: “At device or operating system level.” Really? The purported reason why the bill has been drafted, is to protect children from harms resulting from exposure to age-sensitive content at “online platforms.” To that intent, the bill clearly defines what an “online platform” is. Even if we agreed blanket age verification on said platforms to be the desired solution, the bill should start by limiting the age verification to those platforms. They could implement it in a much gentler way, e.g. by running a face scan and using an algorithm to estimate age upon account creation, which could potentially be overruled by scanning physical ID in case of doubt or dispute. There really is no justification to link all of our digital activity to a digital ID at system level. Whether we do or do not have a digital ID embedded into our operating systems when we start typing a local text document, has no impact on any child’s online safety whatsoever. However, it comes with great risks. Let’s start by outlining the most straightforward ones before we dive into speculative territory.

Should we end up with mandatory digital ID at system level, what happens when the digital ID gets hacked? Outside Africa, few are aware that Nigeria has been one of the first countries that have rolled out a nationwide digital ID. Well, it also has become one of the first countries where the national digital ID registry has been compromised. In June, it was possible to buy sensitive government data on Nigerian citizens in some darker corners of the internet for just one hundred Naira. If anything, it seems that a nationwide rollout of digital ID is a direct path to rampant identity theft. We should note that such identity theft would also be identity theft on steroids, since the digital ID can be used as an entirely digital way to, say, sign off on financial transactions. The conclusion from the Nigerian data breach should therefore be that we need more research to develop a secure architecture for such as system. However, governments around the globe are racing to roll out “digital public infrastructure,” as is witnessed by this section on KOSA, by the “BritCard” the United Kingdom’s Labour government intends to deploy, or by the fast-tracked legislative proposal underway in Brazil (PL2628/2022), which is eerily similar to KOSA’s language on mandatory age verification and removal of content “offensive to minors.”

(If you like this post, please consider to subscribe. The free tier can be accessed without a BritCard)

Subscribe now

Besides security issues, it is obvious that online anonymity will be much harder to maintain, if not become impossible, if a digital ID is rolled out at system level. We need online anonymous publishing. At any time, abuses of the then-prevailing system exist and merit to be exposed. Whistleblowers and investigative journalists need to be able to operate in a sphere of anonymity to catalyze change. We have witnessed that very explicitly over the last few years. Many online influencers have seen retribution, such as loss of their jobs or professional licenses at the behest of some less-than-admirable objectives. Linking all activity to a single ID makes it much easier to identify each of these persons, which can then be abused to silence dissent.

Further issues can be pointed out regarding KOSA. At first, it empowers the Federal Trade Commission as the enforcement mechanism to define what resorts under the “harmful content” outlined in Section 102. While the present FTC may interpret that reasonably, I can perfectly imagine a future FTC that deems writing that there are only two genders to be “online harassment that is objectively offensive.” By virtue of the Act, such a statement can then no longer be presented to children online, in spite of being an absolute and immutable truth.

Finally, Sections 104 and 105 of this Act impose a quite high administrative burthen on the online platforms targeted. Such administration may be easy to comply with for the biggest tech companies, yet not so easy to adhere to for smaller companies, let alone new market entrants. It may therefore effectively stifle competition in the social media sphere and end up being suffocating to innovation.

All of these drawbacks can be deduced directly from the present proposed draft legislation. Given these flaws, it is already a good question why so many Senators support it. However, let’s take the thought process a few steps beyond the actual text. If system level digital identity is mandatory, it is literally impossible to work on any computer without. Moreover, let’s recall that the most popular operating systems have started embedding artificial intelligence and we are deliberately kept in the dark as to what that AI does.

Presently, if a user starts typing a document that is true, yet not aligned with current government narrative, nothing happens. We are still free to write our thoughts and to publish them. However, if a user does the same on an AI-embedded operating system with digital ID check, the AI may actually detect “dangerous misinformation” at the point where it is typed and report it back to the authorities, entirely unbeknownst to the user. That already is scary, but it can get worse. What if digital ID is not only linked to what we type, but also to our finances?

An effort with global reach seems to be underway to reshape currency systems. In the US, this is most prominently underscored by the recently passed GENIUS Act, that provides a regulatory environment for stablecoins. Stablecoins are digital tokens, whose transactions are recorded in digital ledger technology inherited from cryptocurrencies, but whose value is backed by government-issued treasury bonds. Therefore, they are pegged to a state-backed currency. As opposed to cryptocurrencies, the mere fact that stablecoins hold large amounts of US Treasuries requires them to comply with the rules and regulations of the dollar denominated financial system. However, their broad deployment can be far more insidious than most are aware of.

Today’s stablecoins are already implemented as smart contracts. Such contracts are essentially short pieces of code that control the modalities of transactions and are executed at the time of the transaction. Today’s smart contracts for stablecoins solely concern the transaction of tokens (digital money). However, it is technically very easy to insert other prerequisites for a transaction to take place. For instance, it isn’t hard at all to link execution of smart contracts to the digital ID of the owners of both sender and receiver, and to only validate the transaction if no red flags are associated with those persons. I don’t expect stablecoin issuers that grew big in the crypto environment to implement such modifications. Lo and behold though, since the GENIUS act provides for a legal framework that makes stablecoins mainstream, we may soon see less crypto native companies issue a stablecoin. Good candidates for such companies are internet giants, like Meta. With Meta being a company that already deletes accounts that spread “dangerous misinformation,” it would be extremely dangerous to see them develop into an entity with power over finance. Here, we note that, in spite of its founder Mark Zuckerberg’s recent bogus “pro-freedom” makeover, Facebook still censors aggressively. For instance, it closed independent newspaper Epoch Times’s account for truthfully reporting that the arctic ice caps have not decreased for the last twenty years. In fact, Epoch Times is one of the last newspapers in the United States that does independent fact-checking and investigative reporting itself, rather than relying on extremely left-biased organizations like Snopes.

The doom scenario in the last paragraph need not materialize. All we need are legal assurances that the ability to transact can never depend on any opinion, statement or other form of expression by the account holders. Since the GENIUS Act is already all about regulation, it shouldn’t be too hard to bring such a tiny bit of regulation in as an amendment. The same should be done for legacy banking. We have to make access to checking accounts and debit cards subject to stipulations similar to those for utility companies, such that access cannot be determined by random woke bureaucrats who do not like what certain customers say and close their bank accounts for “reputational risk.” Let’s be serious, not a single bank will collapse because of “reputational risk” for providing essential services to individuals, no matter how (in)famous those individuals may or may not be. On the contrary, it is pretty challenging to get around in our digitized society without access to basic financial services. Finally, let’s also stop abusing the emotional appeal of “protecting children online” and only reserve that phrase to where it truly applies. Neither digital ID, nor stablecoins, “protect children from online harms.”

We ended up having an enjoyable ride though floral, verdant (and tasty!) meadows. When we returned by the evening, children were playing out in the yard behind the ranch house. “Turns out the best protection for children online, is to have them play offline,” Bob said as he fired the smoker up for dinner. Jake opened the gate and walked me into the stable. In these parts of the country, the gates still open without digital ID. I still know who I am without it too.

Bod watched the trucks drive by and said: “Four Hats are getting rid of their horses. They’re gonna try ranching with electric all-terrain quads. I wonder how that’s gonna work out for them …”

“Why would they wanna do that?” Jake wanted to know.

“The United Nations have declared a ‘climate emergency.’ Now all countries need to impose a forty percent tax on animals.”

Bob spoke calmly, yet one could feel his distress.

“I though states could decide for themselves what to tax?” Jake remarked. He didn’t get an answer on the spot, though.

I was very upset by this news. I paced around the pasture until sunset. What is going to happen to us?

One would think that the United Nations (UN) do not have the authority to interfere in local affairs, such as taxation. After all, for most of its existence, it has been a paper tiger that really didn’t have much of an effect on member country societies, let alone on everyday life in them. Neither should it. The United Nations was established in 1945, on the heels of the Second World War, with the purpose of “maintaining international peace and security.”

Neither taxation, nor the quantity of meat ordinary people consume have anything to do with “maintaining international peace and security.” Yet the United Nations seem to think otherwise. Last June, they held their Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development in Sevilla, Spain. That conference concluded with a joint declaration made by 192 countries, as well as several agreements being signed on the side by a subset of countries. Beyond containing forty-one mentions of the word “tax,” the so-called “Sevilla Compromise” explicitly encourages signatory parties to raise their taxes to at least fifteen percent of their gross domestic product (paragraph 27, item n), as well as to introduce taxes on “natural resources” and “pollution,” just to name a few examples. So what exactly is in the “Compromise?”

The second paragraph of the “Compromise” already mentions what it really is about:

All right, let’s recall what these sustainable development goals are:

Upon first glance, these may appear to be laudable objectives. However, the possibly desirable end goals soon fade when one wonders what would be needed to reach them. Poverty is a deplorable state to live in and we don’t wish it upon others to be poor. It is another thing, though, to mandate “zero poverty” as an end goal. A transition from a global state of affairs with a lot of poverty into a state with “zero poverty” inevitably passes through wealth redistribution. With a few exceptions, it seems unlikely that the happy few would agree to their wealth being redistributed. If they are not going to do that voluntarily, then the UN goal must imply that wealth redistribution will be mandated. If so, by whom? Is there a club of UN bureaucrats who think they are in a position to determine how others can spend their money?

Just a little bit of scrutiny allows us to see that what may appear to be a highly desirable goal to some, is in fact nothing else than socialist totalitarianism in disguise. Socialism has been experimented with oftentimes in various flavours and has never worked. Be it dressed up as international socialism, communism, national socialism, or other guises, socialism has consistently led to the same outcome: a bloated state with a thin cadre of insiders who have all the wealth they can dream of, while the broad population have equality in the sense of being equally poor.

Other sustainable development goals are no different. It sounds great to have “affordable and clean energy” for all, doesn’t it? Except, most of us understand by now that the crux in that sentence is how “clean” is being defined. If “clean” means driving bats, eagles and whales to extinction by paving forest and seabed over with “sustainable” windmills that are not even thirty percent efficient, have a life span of twenty years at best, have giant blades from composite materials that are almost impossible to recycle and only intermittently produce power, then in fact that goal implies a degradation of energy stability rather than progress. Of course, the “and” in “affordable and clean” tells us that both conditions are a prerequisite, so if an energy source is truly affordable, yet deemed “unclean,” as natural gas is, then its use will be impeded nonetheless if the “sustainable development goal” is to be implemented.

The vaguest development may well be “climate action.” In fact the Sevilla Compromise does not only “reaffirm commitment” to this and other goals, but it does highlight individual building blocks in that direction in several places. Beyond re-committing to the “Sustainable Development Goals,” paragraph I.15 reads:

Let’s recall what the Paris Agreement is. It is a legally binding intergovernmental commitment for signatory parties to do what they can to hold “the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels” and to pursue efforts “to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.” It apparently wants us to do so, because it is “recognizing the need for an effective and progressive response to the urgent threat of climate change on the basis of the best available scientific knowledge.” One wonders which “scientific knowledge” they have consulted, since climate is a slowly moving forty-year average that can by definition never constitute an “emergency.” Nor do we have any reason to assume that a temperature increase above 2°C would lead to catastrophic outcomes. In fact, several geological analyses point to the fact that we are living in one of the coolest periods in the planet’s history. Of course, many will readily point to politically tainted reports on a scientific page layout in journals like Science or Nature that say otherwise, based on models that fail to predict present climate, yet should be considered “reliable” when predicting catastrophes in the future.

Equally problematic as the Paris Agreement’s objective, is the purported solution to get there. It is sheer hubris to assume that humans can control the climate by reducing some greenhouses gases. Solar activity has a major impact on climate. When looking at greenhouse gases, water vapour, in the form of clouds or otherwise, obviously impacts weather and, by consequence, climate. Humans control neither of both. Nonetheless, the Paris Agreement’s signatories set out to pretend that they will control future climate by reducing a few cherry-picked greenhouse gases, all of which happen to be closely related to our food supply chain. Of course, the latter is merely coincidental.

The Paris Agreement was the first to outline a path to stabilize global temperatures by

Moreover, it does so “being guided by its principles, including the principle of equity” and by “taking into account the imperatives of a just transition of the workforce.” In other words, in many ways, the Paris Agreement was the birthplace of the trifecta of nonsense of “equity,” “social justice” and “sustainable finance.”

Since nations have taken a few too many steps in the direction of realizing these objectives, it should meanwhile have become all too clear that none of these goals are worth pursuing. As commitments to ESG investing made critical defense, energy and infrastructure near unfinanceable and DEI’s commitments to “equitable and fair workplaces” created toxic, counterproductive work environments, one would have expected them to abandon their commitments and reflect on a better path forward. Yet if the Sevilla Compromise establishes anything, then that is a doubling down on flawed aspirations. Recognizing that “we are falling short in tackling climate change,” the Sevilla Compromise calls for an international financial architecture that is more “inclusive, representative, equitable, and effective.”

In an era of modern vocabulary distortion, heightened alertness is warranted whenever terms like “inclusive,” “just” or “equitable” show up, most of all so in connection to finance. Those terms tend to hint at a “carbon credit system” that merely transfers wealth from the masses into the hands of the happy few by making everything more expensive by charging for “carbon credits” for close to nothing in return. While the Sevilla Compromise does not mention carbon credits by name, it does call for a change in our financial system in alignment with such principles. Moreover, it also calls for transferring more wealth from citizens to the government. It encourages “effective taxation of natural resources,” as well as other options, such as “green budgeting, taxation and fiscal rules, and taxes on environmental contamination and pollution.”

The Sevilla Compromise does “address poverty eradication and hunger.” However, if eradication of poverty and hunger were priorities, then the Compromise would advocate for facilitating development of infrastructure for mature energy technologies in developing nations. Facilitation of infrastructure does not align with increased taxation of those same resources. Moreover, “taxes on environmental contamination and pollution” may sound reasonable, but it is all in the eye of the beholder what “pollution” means. We have recently witnessed countries like Denmark levy a tax on cow burps, since the methane gas in their burps is considered “pollution.” We have explained before that even if there were a climate emergency, taxing cow burps would not have a measurable impact at all. All it accomplishes, is to make Danish milk and cheese more expensive.

While the discussions were ongoing in Sevilla, the World Health Organization’s director, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebereysos, presented a speech on the negative effects of alcohol consumption. The speech was very much in line with the WHO’s 2023 statement that “no level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health,” further dramatized by some mainstream media outlets as “alcohol kills from the first drop.” Motivated by that statement, the Sevilla Compromise mentions:

Let’s appreciate the honesty here: this is all about increasing domestic revenue, not about health. There is no evidence at all that moderate alcohol consumption leads to severe health risks. In fact, we have analyzed similar statements made by the Canadian Centre for Substance Abuse, as well as by the US Surgeon General, and have found both reports to be based on flawed, cherry-picked methodology set up to underline a predetermined conclusion, which is pretty much diametrically opposed to the scientific method.

If the Sevilla Compromise reveals anything about the United Nations’ agenda, then it is that they may want to establish a society in which the average populace has equity in having access to almost nothing, since their energy, meat, dairy, transport, travel and liquor will all be priced or taxed out of their lives “to save the planet.” Of course, the ultra-wealthy will not need to make any lifestyle changes, as they will still be able to afford the increased prices.

An argument against this dystopian perspective would be that they will never be able to convince the masses, because none of it makes any common sense in the first place. Well, United Nations bureaucrats are well aware that their arguments are plain malarkey. Therefore, the solution they have come up with, is to censor away any criticism. Western societies have worked well for a long time allowing for various degrees of Freedom of Speech. The United States has been the most successful of those, in economic terms and in terms of prowess. Yet it also has the most robust and the longest standing protections for Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech is positively correlated to prosperity. It is insane to try and undo it, yet that is what the United Nations seem to intend. In two separate reports and comments, Elisa Morgera, the United Nations’ special rapporteur on human rights, has called for “criminalization of fossil fuel disinformation and its lobbying,” as well as “criminalizing climate scepticism.”

The first person that comes to mind who is aware of Freedom of Expression being a fundamental human right, should be the special rapporteur on human rights, one would think. Yet the tone set by UN officials seems to be that there is a hierarchy in human rights: our most important right, is to be “protected” by the government against imaginary cataclysms, like “climate emergencies.” For that protection, it is our human right to surrender all other individual rights. If this weren’t enough, the UN’s International Court of Justice recently ruled that nations can be held liable for not doing enough to “curb emissions and protect the climate.” What all of this illustrates, is the complete moral bankruptcy of supranational bureaucrats, who ignore their own legal framework and are willing to subject all of us to a tyranny of the judicial in order to make us comply to their own made up stories, like there being an “imminent climate catastrophe.”

We should not be too worried, though. How can we know that? Well, the answer is very simple: by the UN’s own track record. Over its eighty years of existence, the UN has failed at everything it has attempted. In spite of its eight-decades-long effort to “maintain international peace and security,” the list of ongoing conflicts in 2025 still requires a scroll bar to fit into a browser page. Its novel effort to curtail our lifestyles, speech and freedoms in order to “avert a climate catastrophe” are a reflection of a complete disconnect with reality. They will fail for sure, but they may achieve something else: they may very well wake a majority of the population up to the fact that a global government by “technocrats” leads to nothing but a disconnected, arrogant and corrupt managerial class.

On its turn, that will lead to the UN’s own demise. Some Israeli leaders have recently expressed concern that their country might not make it past the eighty year mark based on biblical parallels. In fact, there is another, higher level organization that has existed for exactly eighty years: the United Nations. We should not be too worried for Israel, but it is highly likely that the UN and its “international order” won’t last for much longer. Judging from the number of ongoing international conflicts, there was never too much “order” anyway.

A week after the dramatic event, we saw Hat Four’s trailer drive in the opposite direction. Their ponies were inside! While heart-warming, it was even more exciting to hear what had happened. Ranchers from across the country had driven to the capital and set their horses free right in front of the Senate. They then honked like crazy and the horses actually took over the Senate. Senators scattered and ran away like little children. To temper the mood, the Government did what needed to be done: withdraw us from the United Nations. We horses did it all by ourselves!

We were excited already when the three black trucks and their horse trailers stopped next to the pasture. We couldn’t help but notice something strange, though: as soon as the horses got out of their trailers, we saw that all of the guest horses had enigmatic, black rings around one of their legs. Our cowboys seemed to be wondering the same. They soon got the answer: over on the Eastern Seaboard, horses now all have to wear them. The local “health authorities” contend that “permanent health monitoring is an early indicator for many diseases, such as hoof canker, and can thereby prevent immature equine loss of life.”

We couldn’t help but see the parallels to a recent announcement made by US Secretary of Health Robert F. Kennedy Jr., boosting budget for advertisement on the benefits of wearable technology. He subscribed to a vision in which “every American is wearing a wearable within four years.”

Are wearables really that beneficial to health? Even if yes, is it a good vision to roll them out to the entire population? A lot can be said to these questions. To begin, let’s start with the fact that the term “wearables” can refer to many different devices. Some make direct skin contact, whereas others may be tucked away in backpacks or other accessories. Also, some wearables are designed as a monitoring tool for one or more specific medical conditions, but the vast majority are not.

In what follows, we will focus on those devices that could potentially benefit broader segments of the public. Of those, positive impacts have been reported on several health outcomes. The most obvious positive effect of wearable technology is a very relatable one: having it on leads to increased physical activity. Many who have tried wearing a smartwatch will admit to sometimes having gone for a walk or for a workout because their daily steps goal or number of “zone minutes” had not yet been met (“zone minutes” are minutes at increased heart rate during exercise). They would most likely not have done the exercise had they not been nudged by the device. This effect has even been confirmed to be an effective medical treatment, as it was proven to lead to increased weight loss in obese patients in a randomized control trial. Some caution, though, that the use of wearables can lead to over-exercise. Also, wearables’ nudging to exercise more seems to be most effective in the adult population, especially the cohorts that have a medical need to improve their health, such as the obese. However, the opposite effect in has been reported in adolescents, which may be explained by their typical aversion to nudging by anything that resembles authority.

Wearables can have a positive impact on mental health, too. If the daily goals to be monitored by the wearable are realistic, then the wearable will provide positive feedback on a daily basis, which leads to increased self-confidence and a sense of accomplishment. Likewise, wearables have been shown to positively contribute to sleep hygiene. They are also promising for management of chronic disease, above all so cardiac conditions and type II diabetes. They could help diabetic patients monitor insulin levels more accurately. Moreover, they could potentially be used in the general population as an early warning system for diabetes. They can be used to monitor blood pressure and cholesterol and could thusly initiate changes in behaviour that would then supposedly lead to more healthy readings of those same indicators.

We have been gradually moving forward from benefits that are easy to grasp, and to some extent scientifically proven, into the realm of possibility: wearables “could” lead to improved health outcomes for a set of indicators and conditions. Do they, though? Two meta-analyses have addressed that question, and have arrived at very similar conclusions. They agree in unison that wearables can lead to increased physical activity. However, they report little to no significant effect on other health outcomes. One study states that “Effects for other physiological (blood pressure, cholesterol, and glycosylated haemoglobin) and psychosocial (quality of life and pain) outcomes were typically small and often non-significant.”

Another study concludes:

Here, we note that these studies only examine positive health outcomes. To get the full picture, some negative effects, such as skin irritation, or occasional over-exercising, should be accounted for.

Based on the above, there seems to be little reason to roll wearable technology out to the general public from a medical perspective alone. There are other reasons for concern, though. At first, questions has been raised to the accuracy of the results obtained from wearables. Some individuals report that their wearables sometimes give them “zone minutes” for elevated heart rate when they are merely walking, yet they do not get those minutes when they are exercising on a treadmill. Beyond individual case reports, there is a growing body on scientific literature that investigates the source of error in measurements from wearables, such as heart rate.

(If Wild Horse Wisdom allows you to make your reading zone minutes, please consider to subscribe. There is a free tier.)

Subscribe now

There are further reasons for caution concerning a broad rollout of wearable devices. At first, those devices collect a lot of data on personal habits. While the wearers may think to own those data, in practice they often have no control over how those data are used. Often the small print the users have no other option but to click ‘Agree’ to if they want to use the wearable, will allow the company to use the data as it pleases, which in some cases can include selling the data to third parties. The latter becomes more questionable when the third party is a health insurance company. As such, the wearers’ behaviours can have an impact on their insurance premiums. In fact, there are already quite a few health insurers who will give premium discounts or bonuses to customers who consent to share their wearables’ data and exercise regularly. As long as this is set up as an incentive to reward individuals who are willing to share their data, there should not be an issue. Howbeit, it does not take a long leap to picture a world in which insurance companies make collection of data from wearables a prerequisite for insurance, or significantly raise premiums for customers who are reluctant to share their data. In fact, that seems the direction in which the present US Health Secretary moving. Beyond the intrusion in privacy, doing so poses clear risks: it can make certain individuals with poor health or less active habits uninsurable, as was already heeded in a 2019 JAMA Viewpoint article. Another, more insidious consequence of possible coercion to use wearable technology by insurance companies, is that it may result in the fact that most individuals will be wearing them all the time.

One drawback of individuals constantly in need of wearable technology resides in power consumption. Back in 2019, the combined power use of all computers, laptops, smartphones and other devices already equaled all energy consumed for air travel. A blanket rollout of wearable tech to the general population would be yet another addition to power load and will not help abating fossil fuel consumption if that is thought to be desirable. But power consumption is the least of possible evils that constant, quasi mandatory, use of wearables may entail.

We are entering speculative territory, but the following Gedankenexperiment is worth your while. Let’s assume everyone is using wearables. Thinking of a cashless society, wouldn’t it be convenient for authorities to have everyone’s digital identification, linked to their digital wallet of central bank digital currency, accessible from the wearable? That way, they would be able to track each individual all the time, including their spending patterns and would be able to link those to their habits. Moreover, further sensors could be built into future wearable tech. For instance, it is not hard to imagine wearables that can monitor the wearer’s alcohol or drug consumption. They may then disable access to digital currency for further alcohol consumption if the “healthy limit” of two beers per week has been exceeded. Note that Canadian health authorities have postulated such a ridiculously low limit based on work of equally low scientific quality, using cherry-picked studies and arbitrary limits on the health outcome. Yet whatever they say the “healthy limit” is, may be enforced through wearable technology. Even worse, wearables might be listening to conversations, report wrongthink and deduce a fine from the “e-wallet” in real time.

Fortunately, those nightmare outcomes are all highly speculative and we can make sure that they never happen. One step in the right direction would be to end online blanket user agreements that cover thousands of lines, but allow the user to opt out of individual clauses, as was possible in the days of printed contracts. Another step would be to enhance digital privacy protections, such that information from smartwatches and the like can not be forwarded to third parties unbeknownst to the bearer, be they government or private sector. Finally, any jurisdiction should codify that cash shall always be accepted as legal tender, regardless of the amount. Even better would be that precious metals be accepted as well as a legal form of payment. Right now, some jurisdictions are moving in the right direction, but others are not. For instance, the present Canadian liberal government plans to outlaw cash payments over C$10000, a move that only serves purposes of surveillance and none of the purported benefits of border security.

A lot of water will still flow through the Hudson and St. Lawrence rivers before we end up with either dream or nightmare scenario. Meanwhile, it is up to the customer to decide wearables’ speed of adoption. Some people like the idea of meeting daily exercise goals, which is fine. If they opt to get a rebate from their health insurance by sharing their own data, they are welcome to do so. However, we should not overstate the benefits of wearable technology, since the scientific literature does not support that either. Because the positive effect on health outcomes is rather limited, we should definitely not try to blanket roll out these devices in the general population, much less so to try and coerce them.

The mares from Four Clovers were great company while they were here. I still don’t get why they were wearing those devices on their legs, though. We had a good time together and we hiked the entire pasture up and down several times a day. We walked exactly as far as they did, though. The only difference is, that we don’t exactly know how many steps we took. But let me ask you something: does that really matter? Even in Rancher Bob’s case, if he walks seven thousand steps one day and thirteen thousand steps the next, or exactly ten thousand steps for two days straight, does that make a difference? You know the answer. So do we horses, because we have pony common sense.

FOOTNOTE

*Emphasis by Wild Horse Wisdom

“The Cowboy Festival has been canceled this year,” Jake said.

“Why is that?” Hunter wanted to know.

Jake replied agitatedly: “The County now only wants to fund events that are ‘of cultural essence,’ so they withdrew all support for it.”

“But the reggae festival is still on ?”

“Sure.”

“So why is the reggae festival still on and ours has been axed?”

“Apparently, our way of life is not ‘culture.’ Culture is something only minorities have, they say.”

Jake made air-quote gestures each time he pronounced the word “culture.” He was right to do so, while he didn’t express the question at the root of his argument: what defines the notion of “culture?”

For a long time, most of us would have implicitly understood what is meant by the word “culture,” without the need to reflect upon an exact definition. Many of us still do, but over the course of the last decade, we have been able to observe people from many walks of life struggle with the concept of what it means to adhere to their own culture. It is possible to point to individual sources in which Australians, Brits, or Canadians claim that they do not know what the essence of their own culture is. Today, the question “what does it mean to be British,” which is equivalent to asking what British culture is, is often classified as “a question no one can answer.”

A few decades ago, that question would readily get a lengthy and passionate answer. Some aspects of British culture often cited would have been behavioral, such as being phlegmatic and disciplined, queuing up instead of rushing, or having a soft sense of humour. Beyond behavioral aspects, one would have resorted to lifestyle habits and agricultural products, such as having a pint of bitter and a ploughman’s lunch or fish and chips at the local pub, or having cream tea, depending on one’s personal preferences. Some would certainly have mentioned loftier aspects of British culture too, such as Britain having been the pioneer of the Enlightenment, valuing individual liberties and being a nation that has exported the Industrial Revolution. Others might have added that British culture was predominantly Christian, or that one could only be British if one was born in, or had at least some family lines that could be traced back to, the British Isles.

Not surprisingly, these examples align very well with dictionary definitions of culture. For instance, Merriam Webster defines the term as:

Many of these aspects defining British culture are still very true today. Howbeit, we seem to have ended up in a situation in which some “elites” have so much bought in to the false god of the “multicultural society” that they are unwilling to see that their own nation has a culture worth preserving. This is not only true in Britain. Mainland European circles can be found too who sing tunes along the same vine, such as “elite” Dutch who contend that “the Netherlands does not have a culture.”

I can very easily reject that statement and readily bring up unique aspects of Dutch culture. As opposed to the British, the Dutch are known for their very direct communication style, which many tourists will perceive as “blunt.” They are hard workers and praise moderation: any event that can be summarized as “too much, too long, too copious,” the Dutch will not like. Moreover, they are notorious for eating things that many others would not dare to from the looks of it, such as swallowing raw herring (maatjes), or cheese that is so old and brown that many who were born in other cultures would assume to be rotten. Yet those who have the courage to try those dishes, will be rewarded!

Along the lines of these two examples, it is pretty clear that it does not take too much of an effort to describe what distinguishes British and Dutch cultures and that we can do so in alignment with the dictionary definition of the term. So why exactly are European “elites” so keen on spreading the disinformation that they don’t know what their own culture is? Well, they have been chasing the idol of a “multicultural society” for decades. The failures of that endeavour are more obvious as each day goes by, yet many European “elites” seem incapable to admit to that.

The intention to build a multicultural society may have been good in the beginning. It started in the vein of “let’s bring in some people from far and abroad who do those jobs that are too dirty for us to do ourselves, which keeps the economy humming and, as a side effect, brings some people in who have different cultural habits and whose restaurants we can occasionally patronize.” As long as the latter was the effect, it may have been a transformation for the better indeed. However, all of this was built upon a few silent assumptions. The first is, that those people who arrive and bring a different culture in, do so with positive attitudes and want to contribute to the society in the place they land at. The second is, that there actually is a dominant, domestic culture to which these other groups are willing to act as enriching minorities, all the while aware of their own differences to the lead culture.

Unfortunately, European governments have not been selective at all as to who they let in. Instead, they have started to import jihadis and sharia fanatics, who want to impose their own rule upon the host country. Instead of having a positive mindset, jihadis arrive with the conviction that their new host country needs to be destroyed.

The turning point could have been the Charlie Hebdo shooting. Charlie Hebdo was a French weekly satirical magazine that dared to publish cartoons critical of Mohammed. In response, jihadi gunmen entered their editorial offices in January 2015 and randomly shot employees. Twelve people died in the heinous attack. European authorities could have reacted proportionately to this attack, for instance by reassuring that freedom of speech would always be a core cultural value on the continent, as well as by introducing harsh penalties on jihad and sharia. Such a response would have signaled that Europe would never give in to terrorism.

Instead, Europe has done quite the opposite. Many European countries have reintroduced, reinvigorated, or are considering to reintroduce, blasphemy laws. A good overview is provided by the nonprofit End Blasphemy Laws. While such laws would make blasphemy of any god illegal, it is very much understood that the reason they are being (re)introduced, is to cater to muslim extremists. Even in regions that do not have formal blasphemy laws, people can get convicted for crimes that would otherwise resort under such laws, but nominally for “public order offenses.” This was recently witnessed in England, where a Kursdish-Armenian refugee who had fled islamic hatred in his home country had dared to burn a Quran in front of the Turkish consulate, found himself at first thrown onto the ground and threatened by a knife-wielding radical islamist, only to see himself be convicted of “disturbing the public order,” while the attacker was released on bail.

Jihad and sharia are non-cultures that are completely incompatible with any kind of society. That includes predominantly muslim society. If European “elites” had a grain of common sense, they would have understood this and they would have acted to eradicate those non-cultures. Instead, they have decided to worship the false god of “multiculturalism,” to give in to the whims of terrorists and to plunge their own continent back into the middle ages by nullifying the progress made in the era of Enlightenment.

(If you like the progress made by Wild Horse Wisdom, please consider to subscribe. We have a free tier)

Subscribe now

European “elites” are tightly interconnected with supranational organizations, from which many draw their income, often for little to no accomplishment in return. It is therefore understandable that they see national identity as a threat to the trough that feeds them and think that it is a good idea to quash it by allowing massive immigration. In so doing, they are wilfully destroying what makes their own nations unique.

If Western European governments, who implement “elite” agendas, had an inkling of common sense, they would appreciate criticism from within and start a course correction. So far, however, their reaction has been to increasingly label all those who still believe in the uniqueness of their own culture with any epithet du jour associated with one of the totalitarian regimes the continent became infamous for eighty-some years ago, or worse. For instance, the British anti-radicalisation programme creatively named “Prevent” recently stated that concern about mass migration, as we are expressing here, is a “terrorist ideology.” At this point, one should note that Prevent is the same programme that had managed to flag the the Southport stabber for terrorist tendencies, yet had completely failed to actually prevent him from committing the utterly atrocious act of barbarism.* If Prevent stays tolerant to true threats to society, while investing resources in countering the “terror” threat posed by those who still have culture and faith, well then maybe soon the term “terrorist ideolgy” will be coveted as something desirable.

The Merriam-Webster definition of “culture” attests to the existence of a direct link between culture and a certain geographical area in a given time period. For exactly that reason, it turned out to be easy to come up with clear characteristics of British and Dutch cultures above, as well as to point out the differences between them. Culture has ties to a geography, so geographies that have produced a culture need to take an effort to preserve it.

Cultural differences are what enriches a continent. They are also what makes it worthwhile to travel there. We are presently on the cusp of losing cultural richness to the failed construct of “multiculturalism.” We need to turn that around. That can only happen if we recommit to the virtues of the nation-state and curtail the power of any level of supranational structure. Let’s start by abandoning the United Nations, which has over its roughly eighty years of existence never succeeded at its core mission of preventing conflict, yet meanwhile thinks it is entitled to determine what citizens can say.

Abolition of the United Nations should be followed closely by disintegration of the European Union. An immediate positive corollary of that would be that supranational “elites” would return to their home countries from the soulless, endless corridors in Brussels and Strasbourg. Maybe that way they would see that their home country has a culture that differs from Brussels and maybe, just maybe, they would start to recognize again that it is valuable. However, as long as they place their bets on the hollow ideologies of “multiculturalism” and “tolerance” in absurdo, which implies multiculturalism to the point where no culture remains and tolerance for those who lack any tolerance themselves, but no tolerance for those who adhere to the original culture, their own demise is only a matter of time.

Culture is a by-product of a nation’s past endeavours. A common forgotten aspect of how nations came to rise to glory, is that they did so based on faith: a common belief or conviction that the nation and its culture are worthwhile to spread, to preserve and to die for. England, the Natherlands, Portugal and Spain are all nations that succeeded at exporting their culture and values to far and beyond and to areas much larger than the country of origin. Each of these countries engaged in highly risky quests of discovery. In these travels, many ships did not make it back and many sailors and soldies died. Back in the seventeenth century, Portuguese poet Luís de Camões reflected upon if the massive loss of life to discover new territories and spread the gospel was worthwhile. His answer to that question was: “everything is worthwhile if the spirit isn’t too little.” In other words, a nation is built upon faith. American founding fathers can be found to reflect along very similar lines when they were creating the One Nation under God.

Right now, European “elites” have lost all faith. Instead of believing in the projects their own countries and cultures represent, they have reached a state of complete and total moral bankruptcy, maybe best exemplified by their preaching of the false convictions of “multiculturalism” and “decolonization.” It is painful to watch them being unable to see the collateral damages those attitudes produce.

When all of a nation’s forays in the past are portrayed negatively (“decolonization”) and when a nation’s leaders stress the absence of a dominant culture worth preserving (“multiculturalism”), then those who buy in to those assertions will inevitably end up questioning if it is worthwhile to contribute to that society at all. If we believe that all Britain has done is bad, then why would anyone bother to fight and die for it? Moreover, why would anyone pay taxes to a “dark colonial power,” risk one’s life in the police force, or even try to contribute positively to public service? In fact, not unlike tolerance for the jihadi and woke death cults, the false prophecies of multiculturalism and decolonization are a certain road to societal disintegration.

Fortunately, not all is lost. Lack of faith sits at the root of each of these bizarre trends. The recipe to its reversal thusly resides in restoration of faith. All citizens can do their own part, at their own pace. Once a critical mass has been reached, a collective state of awareness will establish itself that can return nations to their erstwhile belief in their own values.

Around here, we are doing what we can to keep our culture alive. If the county doesn’t want to sponsor, so be it. A little after the announcement was made public about the Cowboy Festival’s cancellation, a few wealthy locals stepped in. The festival will now go ahead on private lands, at Z-Hat Ranch. Turns out we don’t need the government after all. We horses have known that all along. Our herd culture does not accommodate the need for a government.

“I don’t know what to do anymore,” said John, “I got notice from court that they’re taking our western pasture.”

“What?! How can that be?” Bob wanted to know.

“Did you see the billboards I had up right next to Route 35?”

Bob nodded and added: “Yeah, I liked them. More people should read that the Bible only mentions two genders.”

“I liked them too and I let the nonprofit that wanted them up use our hardware for free. But a judge just declared that to be ‘incitement’ and then decided that the land that the billboards were on, needs to be taken under county custody, because the land ‘incites to violence.’”

Bob was now getting angry too and said in an excited tone: “That’s completely unacceptable! Can a judge simply do that?”

Many who live in Western countries, will think that this could never happen to them. We live in a solid legal system, with legal protections, due process and judicial impartiality, right? We sure do, but that increasingly seems to have become an inconvenience to the “powers that be.”

If one wanted all of these aspects of the judicial process to change in one’s favour, one could try to change the laws. Yet that option would come with significant disadvantages: at first, the proposed changes would have to be discussed in a legislative session, whence it might attract (negative) publicity. Moreover, the legislative process can be notoriously slow and prone to vicissitudes in the political climate.

(Not prone to any vicissitudes are Wild Horse Wisdom’s analyses. If you like that, consider to subscribe. We have a free tier.)

Subscribe now

If one really wanted to erode legal protections, therefore, the more elegant approach would be to have judges and prosecutors appointed who are on board with one’s own goals. It would take much longer for he general public to realize what has happened, because legal protections would formally remain in place and courtrooms would still look the same as they did before. However, what would change, is the judges’ verdicts.

The poster child for such a transformation of the judicial system is Brazil. It still has a Constitution. A very broad one indeed, that enshrines freedom of expression, which is guaranteed to all and is worded in even stronger terms in the cases of artistic or scientific expression, or parliamentary speech. Brazil also has a legal system built on procedures that embed due process and judicial impartiality.

Having a Constitution that provides a Bill of Rights is infinitely preferable over not having it. However, the presence of such a text alone is not sufficient for those rights to be enacted. As long as judicial decisions are being respected, then the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality is the Supreme Court. If one wanted to truly subvert a legal system without changing the laws, then the ideal approach would be to have Supreme Court justices appointed who willfully ignore the spirit of the law. Exactly that is what we are observing in most of the West, with Brazil certainly being the most extreme example.

Brazilian Supreme Court “justice” Alexandre de Moraes was recently hailed by the New Yorker for having “saved democracy from right-wing extremism.” In reality, what he appears to have succeeded at, is to kill democracy, by introducing right-wing extremist legal interpretations. Opponents of this statement will readily point out that Brazil is a constitutional republic. It sure has a Constitution, but what matters more, is how it is interpreted.

Brazil’s Constitution enshrines freedom of expression (Title II, Chapter I, Article 5, Paragraph IX - shown above), yet “extreme right-wing” commentator Oswaldo Eustáquio was arrested and saw his bank account closed when he took part in protests that followed the 2022 presidential election. Analogous to the United States, those protests were dubbed by press and judges alike as “an insurgency,” even though not a single gun was present. However, that proffered the the legal pretext to apply disproportionate sentences. When Eustáquio further critiqued the Supreme Court, he was slapped with another conviction and even some of his family members’ bank accounts were closed. I can only note that such “debanking” is an extremely cruel punishment that leads to almost complete exclusion from present day society. For that reason, Eustáquio presently lives in exile in Spain, whence Brazil is seeking to have him extradited. Inflicting such extreme punishments on relatives of the defendant is something that only happened before in Nazi Germany and in the worst days of the Soviet Union.

Brazil’s Constitution protects artistic expression, yet comedian Danilo Gentili saw himself prosecuted for a joke. A joke that supposedly violated the terms of the freshly minted “anti-racism” law. If the Brazilian Supreme Court had any intention of upholding its Constitution, it would not have allowed the “anti-racism” law to be enacted in the first place, since it is at odds with constitutional protections. Howbeit, what happened instead, was that “justice” Alexandre de Moraes added clauses to the proposal that had passed a vote in the Senate and expanded it to also criminalize “transphobia.” Whatever that means.

Brazil’s Constitution explicitly grants deputies and senators immunity from criminal proceedings for any opinion they express (Title IV, Section V, Article 53 - shown above). Yet when federal deputy Marcel van Hattem called the present Lula government “cowards” and referred to the Supreme Court as “mafiosos,” the latter opened a formal inquiry into him, stating that it may lead to him losing his seat, among “other punishments” (in Brazil, a “deputy” is the equivalent to a Congressman in the US or an MP in Australia, Britain or Canada).

Brazil formally does have judicial independence and guarantees for impartiality of judges. Yet in recent years, we have been able to observe many trials in which the defendant was supposed to have targeted the Supreme Court in some way. This led to trials in which “justice” de Moraes started the case himself and ordered police to arrest the defendant. He then organized a trial in which he swapped seats, acting as prosecutor, victim and judge at the same time. This obviously goes against the most fundamental principles of judicial procedure and is also illegal in Brazil. Yet these defendants were convicted and the corresponding sentences were enacted. Even the scientific literature has caught up with issues of judicial impartiality in Brazil. Some conclusions from that paper, that words the situation mildly, are:

It is fair to say that Brazil is presently governed by a tyranny of the judicial. If one thinks that such could not happen elsewhere, one would be mistaken. In fact, the United States have come scarily close to similar outcomes. Eerily similar to Brazil, when protests arose on January 6, 2021, that culminated in some entering the Capitol, many protesters were arrested, including many who did not enter the Capitol building. Like in Brazil, the press and Democrats alike were quick to label these protests an “insurrection,” even though no gunfire was involved. Some of the participants in the protests outside the Capitol were arrested with felony charges and incarcerated.

One immediately wonders how that is possible. The Bill of Rights, more specifically the First Amendment, states that:

Did the protesters outside the Capitol do anything more than to assemble peacefully? Well, that is where legal theories come in. Many trials were started against defendants who were supposed to have “instigated the insurrection.” In sundry an example, incarceration of the defendants was pursued based on the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. That piece of legislation was created in the wake of the Enron scandal, in which the corrupt Enron leadership did anything it could to obstruct the criminal investigation into the company. To avoid such obstruction of a criminal investigation in the future, the bipartisan act was introduced by U.S. Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) and U.S. Representative Michael G. Oxley (R-OH) and signed into law by president George W. Bush in 2002.

A cursory reading of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act leads one to conclude that the Act is all about countering corporate fraud. Unsurprisingly so, since it was a direct reaction to the Enron scandal. Yet its ninth title reads:

Prosecutors who targeted to incarcerate the January 6 protesters contended that the election confirmation hearing in Congress that day was an “official proceeding” that protesters were “impeding,” which then could lead to criminal sentences. It does not take long to conclude that this outcome is not at all what was intended when the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was enacted. Yet many “justices” went along with this very far-fetched interpretation and effectively suspended defendants’ constitutional rights.

Based on the example of the January 6 cases, we might still be led to think that Supreme Court justices would never ignore the Constitution, right? One would be mistaken to arrive at that conclusion. When the Twitter Files appeared after Elon Musk’s takeover of then-Twitter, it became clear that the Federal Government had massively pressured social media companies to suppress opinions that deviated from its official narrative on COVID-19. That included opinions from one of the world’s leading epidemiologists, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who notably presently is the Director of the National Institutes of Health. It had done so primarily by indirect means, through a network of nonprofits that received funding and directions from the government, but could pretend to be “independent” entities. The Federal Government had also communicated the thinly veiled threat to repeal social media companies’ Section 230 liability protection, which would plunge them into financial ruin. It is pretty clear that the Federal Government had infringed upon the plaintiff’s, and thereby the American public’s, constitutional rights. Several plaintiffs, including the States of Louisiana and Missouri, sued the Federal Government for what should be interpreted as an obvious violation of the First Amendment. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the injunction from the Fifth Circuit on grounds of lack of standing. Note that this implies that they did not rule on the merits of the case itself, which some of the judges found overwhelming, as can be read in Justice Alito’s dissenting opinion.

More frightening than the verdict itself, though, was the public hearing, in which “justice” Ketanji Brown-Jackson made several statements that seem rather out-of-context, such as her expressing “concern” that the First Amendment “might be hamstringing the government?” Also here, a cursive reading of the Constitution is sufficient to deduce that in fact the entire premise of the Constitution is to the limit the scope of activities for the Federal Government, most explicitly so the Bill of Rights. One can only conjecture as to why she acted the way she did, but one conclusion we can draw from it for certain: if the US Supreme Court had a majority of “justices”-in-name-only, like Brown-Jackson, then the Constitution would be null and void. It would still exist as a legal document and courts would still look the same as they do today, but the trials in them would turn into mock trials to prosecute anyone who opposes power, as is the case in Brazil.

It is not too late, though, to change course. There are several paths to instill change. The first, and most obvious path, is to use another provision of the Constitution, i.e. the provision to impeach judges (Article II, Section 4). As can be learnt from Congress.gov, this does happen and has become more frequent in recent decades. Therefore, it was rather uncanny to watch Chief Justice Roberts make a public statement against impeaching judges recently.

In a country that has separation of powers, none of the three branches of government can dominate the other two. In practice, systemic stability exists when the three powers balance each other. In recent times, far too much attention has been given to the importance of the Judicial branch to keep the Executive in check. However, the Judicial can amass too much power too, in which case the Legislative has the power to return the balance. The Legislative shall not hesitate to do so.

In the United States, the Legislative branch clearly has to take action against certain rogue judges and make sure the country returns to constitutional standards. The first step must be to impeach “justice” Brown-Jackson, who is either too compromised or lacks the mental ability to understand the Constitution.

In Brazil, the Legislative branch can impeach justices too. However, Brazil has meanwhile gone so far astray from constitutional guarantees that Senators are afraid to do so. It is perfectly conceivable that if a vote of impeachment against de Moraes passes, he will rule it to be an “insurrection” and therefore null and void. Likewise, if such a vote doesn’t pass, then all those Senators who voted for are in fear to be prosecuted by de Moraes for “disrespecting the Supreme Court,” as exemplified by Marcel van Hattem’s case.

For these reasons, Brazil will have to pursue another path. Verdicts issued by “justice” de Moraes that result from trials in which he himself acted as prosecutor, victim and judge are obviously in flagrant violation of procedural standards. Therefore, it is time for the Brazilian military and police to simply disregard them. There is no law that would force them to enact verdicts from illegal trials. If “justice” de Moraes has no-one to act upon his verdicts, they become irrelevant.

A few weeks later, John returned to our ranch to have dinner with us outside. It was still warm and dusty, but our patio provides for a welcome cooldown as the sun sets. John was much more relaxed. It turned out that the non-profit “Political Speech Union” had offered legal help. They had appealed the lower court’s ruling, which was effectively stayed. “Turns out there’s still some non-profits that do good work and some common sense in our legal system,” Bob concluded. We were relieved and could sleep – and graze – in peace again. We will always be able to do so, if we manage to avoid tyranny of the Judicial. I trust we will.

“It’s become a drag to go to town,” Jackie said, “those stupid ‘protesters’ were at it again. A bunch of purple-haired lost souls shouting the most insane things. But you know what I found most concerning?”

She looked over at Cat, who guessed “Did they want to abolish tractors to help Palestine save the Donbass?”

“No, not this time at least,” Jackie replied. A few seconds later, she asked: “Do you remember when there was that bloated horse at Four Diamonds, for which they got a visit from animal control?”

“Of course I do,” replied Cat, “who could ever forget that poor animal?”

“Well, the ‘protesters’ want to make bloating horses mandatory”.

At this point, I got anxious too … I know what is good for me and taking anti-petulance drugs is not so at all. I had no time to ponder, though, as Jackie continued her story. “I engaged in a discussion with them, which I maybe should not have… They’re all insane anyways, some of them even pretend to be a cat and wear a carnival costume. But what they said is that we ranchers are ‘destroying the planet’ by having horses and cattle and that there are ‘peer-reviewed publications’ that prove that bloating horses is what we have to do to avoid a ‘climate catastrophe.’”

Cat looked confused, and asked: “And that is true only because it’s in some sort of article?”

The COVID pandemic has brought renewed attention to the importance of the peer-review process in scientific publication. In the early days of the pandemic, guidelines for journalists could be found online that were advising, if not instructing them, only to cite information from sources that had passed peer-review. Academic elites, then and now, will stress the importance of the peer-review process. They effectively project a perception in which the peer-review process is seen as a criterion for trustworthiness. Academic metrics, such as the impact factor (IF) of the journal in which the article has appeared, can further add to perceived credibility. Many academics will posit confidently that if an article has appeared in final print in an academic journal like Science, Nature, or The Lancet, its conclusions can be trusted. In spite of academia’s attitude that ascribes superiority to information that has been published according to their own established processes, even before the pandemic, far from all peer-reviewed publications were reproducible, nor trustworthy. Far fewer are since. Over-reliance on the merits of the academic publication process has cascaded down into distorted media representation of the facts and, eventually, biased public opinion.

To grasp why the peer-review process may not be as watertight as many believe and the media project it to be, let’s dig into how the process works in practice. When a manuscript is submitted, it lands on a journal editor’s desk. The editor is typically an academic professional knowledgeable in the field, who has the discretion to subject the article to actual peer-review, or to reject it. The role of the editor should therefore not be underestimated, since editors can and will often reject a majority of the submissions. Which criteria they use thereunto, is entirely opaque. They can perfectly reject a manuscript because they don’t like the authors, the topic or the conclusions, all of which have little to do with scientific integrity. In practice, therefore, the chances for a manuscript to be forwarded to reviewers increase drastically if at least one of the authors is on good terms with the editor. Academic publishing thusly pretty often acts akin to a country club of fellow academics who meet each other at a set of conferences in the field and is difficult to penetrate for outsiders.

Editorial review is the first hurdle to pass. If positive, the manuscript is then forwarded to a set of supposedly objective reviewers. Most often two or three reviewers will be asked to read the manuscript, comment on it and if applicable, request modifications. It should be noted that this step of the peer-review process is rarely anonymous: most journals will actually share the authors’ name(s) and affiliations with the reviewers. Reviewers will submit their findings, based upon which the authors shall revise the manuscript until reviewers have no further objections. This step too is prone to ample subjectivity: reviewers can write a positive report because they like the authors, the conclusions, or even because they accepted to review, but lack the time to do it properly and then just write a report with a minimal set of remarks. Conversely, reviewers can write a nasty report if they don’t like the authors, their institution, the topic or conclusions, or if they happen to be working on a similar topic themselves and want to publish their own work first. All of these motivations are supposed not to occur if everyone acts with scientific integrity, but unfortunately they are quite common, also in elite academia.

(If you think Wild Horse Wisdom acts with scientific integrity, please consider to subscribe. We have a free tier.)

Subscribe now

The main side effect of the flaws in the peer-review process is that many rather low quality articles get published. The volume of scientific papers published has more than doubled over the last twenty years. In the science and engineering fields alone, over three million articles appear every year. With those volumes of material processed, it is understandable that not all papers are reviewed with the diligence due to guarantee reproducible science.

The statement that much scientific work was not reproducible, was already true in the early 2000s. This is underscored most of all by Stanford professor Ioannidis’ paper “Why most published research findings are false.” Researchers who set off on a new project, will need to review the existing literature. In line with Ionnadis’ paper, in the research community it has been known for decades that researchers need to evaluate the papers in the existing literature critically and filter out the academic junk. They should by no means accept all results of all papers at face value, even though all of them have passed peer-review. Neither should we.

The effect of low quality research that passes peer-review is largely benign: one may think of it as giant printing press of scientific spam. However, things are different when the results published without too much care start having an impact on our lives. Let’s recall that prof. Ioannidis’ paper mentions results from the medical sciences. What happens when doctors prescribe medicine based on results that should never have passed peer-review and subject patients to unnecessary harm? Or even worse, when those irreproducible results become the ‘standard of care’? Who thinks that such could never happen, needs to reconsider. It seems that this is exactly what has happened in quite a few cases. For instance, since a few years, the “standard of care” to “treat” children with so-called “gender dysphoria” has become to subject them to hormone treatments and drugs that previously used to be referred to as “chemical castration” and “gender affirmative” surgeries that can much more truthfully be described as “genital lobotomies.”

How did we get there? Well, because peer-reviewed papers exist, mainly published in the journal of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), that claim that prescribing these barbaric “treatments” will prevent the subjected children from committing suicide. We all know that children did not collectively commit suicide prior to 2020, not did youth suicide numbers drop significantly since. So how did this work get peer-reviewed and published? The answer is simple: because WPATH is not a society that professes the scientific method, but rather a pseudo-scientific propaganda clan. If the publishing society is a group of people who are ideologically captured, then so are the editors and the reviewers. In fact, in that case, reviewers will not check scientific accuracy, but rather adherence to the preferred narrative. Since the release of the leaked WPATH files, it has become clear that even at the most senior levels of WPATH, serious doubts existed about their own messaging. It is clear what needs to be done on this topic. It is time to ban any “gender-affirming” castrations and lobotomies and to start teaching children that their bodies are good the way they are, because the universe knows and has always known how to put creatures on the planet in the right body.

WPATH’s pseudo-scientific practices are a good example of biased narrative promulgation, but they are by no means the only society that does so. We can detect similar dubious practices across the scientific spectrum, in the most “respected” venues and by authors considered by many to be “the best of the best,” such as Ivy League scholars. One example is the paper entitled “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2,” which appeared in Nature Medicine on March 17, 2020, a time when there were still many open questions regarding the then-novel coronavirus. The proximal origins paper concluded shamelessly that the virus’s only plausible origins were natural zoonotic transmission. At the time the paper was published, it was already clear that the furin cleavage site in the virus corresponded one-on-one to previously published results on gain-of-function research. It was also clear that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was very close to the site where the virus outbreak was assumed to have started. Moreover, it was exceedingly unlikely that natural zoonotic transmission would have occurred in Wuhan to humans from bats whose natural habitat are caves hundreds of miles to the south of that city. For all those reasons, the “proximal origin” manuscript should not even have passed editorial review, let alone peer-review. Yet it did. Moreover, we meanwhile know from Freedom of Information Act requests, that the first author had pointed out that the virus pretty much appeared to be the result of a lab experiment rather than of zoonotic transmission until shortly before the article appeared.

(If you agree that pony common sense can be transmmitted zoonotically, please consider to subscribe. There is a free tier.)

Subscribe now

One may conjecture that the pandemic was an extreme set of circumstances that made certain scientists lose their usual cool-headedness. Yet we can still observe dubious publication practices today. Just a few weeks ago, an article has appeared in Nature, that claims that economic losses from climate change can be attributed to emissions from individual oil companies. It even comes up with a estimate for Chevron in the abstract: between US $791 billion and $3.6 trillion and boldly states that “the scientific case for climate liability is closed.” Real climate scientists know that climate attribution is pseudo-science, created by certain interest groups to target industries they don’t like. Climate “attribution” exercises are constructed to arrive at predetermined conclusions, which is only possible by starting off from a set of flawed assumptions. This paper is no different. It assumes that (i) the global south has suffered economic damages due to ‘extreme heat,’ (of which there is little evidence) (ii) that those heat related weather events are due to climate change (may be partially true), (iii) that climate change is due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions (completely ignoring other, more likely, causes like solar activity) and that carbon emissions can be traced back to individual oil companies (maybe partially true). Moreover, it evaluates the links between each of these steps quantitatively by using models and assuming those models to be accurate (rarely a good assumption). Since this paper is based on extremely shaky, unproven foundations, it should not even have passed editorial review. Yet it appeared in Nature, an “authoritative source,” with a very high impact factor (2024: 50.5), where “the best of the best” publish. Both authors are Ivy League scholars indeed. We can thereby observe that neither the publication venue, nor the authors’ affiliation guarantees high-quality results.

One pernicious effect of peer-review is that it has allowed much harmful junk “research” to get published, such as the “results” mentioned before. However, a possibly equally destructive effect can be observed when high quality research does not manage to get published. Imagine being a great medical researcher who runs a large scale observational study on “gender-affirming care” and arrives at the conclusion that the number of suicides actually increases in the group that receives those treatments. Will WPATH consider that article for publication? Likewise, given that Nature just published the pseudo-scientific paper on climate “attribution,” will it accept a paper that claims that there is no link between carbon dioxide and economic losses due to heat waves?

Things can even get more extreme than an article not being able to pass peer review. Sometimes, journal editors and referees thankfully still act with integrity, which then leads to papers appearing that do not align with political expectations. In the old days, that would be the end of it. Nowadays, though, there is another solution: retraction. We already discussed the course of events regarding the Alimonti et al. paper, that merely states facts aligned with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change well known to climate scientists “in the know,” such as there being no observable trend in the number, nor the intensity, of tropical storms. That paper passed peer-review, was published, and then retracted when a journalist (read: not a scientist) from Agence France Presse generated outcry and got the publishing house to retract it.

Likewise, at the height of the COVID vaccination frenzy, Dr. Peter McCullough, who is one of the world’s leading cardiologists and most published scientists in the field, noted heart related issues that could most plausibly only be ascribed to administration of the modRNA vaccines. He teamed up with Jessica Rose, a leading microbiologist and statistician at Stanford University. The two scientists meticulously documented their findings and submitted a paper that associated the modRNA vaccines with the side effect of myocarditis, a side-effect that many health authorities meanwhile recognize. The paper passed peer-review and appeared … only to find itself withdrawn by publisher Elsevier without explanation a little later. While these papers were removed, we note that the “proximal origins” paper still has not been retracted, in spite of its lack of scientific accuracy and the known conflicts of interest.

The examples cited are all individual cases, but a trend can be discerned. While some thorough science certainly still appears, there is a growing list of topics in which proper use of the scientific method has become verboten. Instead, the scientific literature in those fields seems to have morphed into propaganda printed in the page layout of a scientific journal, such that it appears “authoritative.” Recent polls show that the scientific community has lost trust with the general public. Based on the above, one can only say that to be the case for good reasons. If the scientific community wants to regain trust, it will have to start to rigorously enforce the scientific method and make sure that results published in the most respected venues are all reproducible.

Some of the most “authoritative” sources are readily publishing junk, while rejecting or withdrawing sound science. That may be scary by itself, but it is all the more so if those results are used to train artificial intelligence models. Most of the AI models available to the general public will be trained to assign a higher weight to what their creators label as “trustworthy.” That may merely be a nuisance if we only use them to get answers, in which case we can learn to look elsewhere. The situation changes, though, when such models are used to make decisions for us. Imagine, for example, a model censors us if we dare to say that extreme weather events cannot be “attributed” to carbon dioxide. Or even worse, a model that will decide whether or not to give credit based on narrative adherence.

Such practices need to be outlawed straight, but as we speak, they are not yet. On the contrary, some ghost concepts still seem to be gaining traction. For instance, accompanied by the bold statement that “AI is the future,” the New York City Subway is rolling out AI technology to analyze people’s behaviours. Sweaty palms, pacing around or shifting one’s weight too often balance could all lead to being flagged as a “pre-criminal” and may trigger a police team to be dispatched. This technology resides in the pseudo-scientific knowledge of “pre-crime,” which is based on models that associate certain behaviours with crime at a later point.

A decade ago, deployment of such tools was decried as building “weapons of math destruction,” but it seems that we haven’t learnt too much since. I’m sure that one can find some peer-reviewed paper that associates the number of times one shifts one’s weight balance to any sort of crime, but as we have seen before, the mere fact that it has been peer-reviewed does not mean that we should believe it. More less so that we should build models on it that have an impact in the real world. In fact, we should write legislation to outlaw such practices.

I trust that we can turn the tide around and ride the wave of the return to reason, also here on the Ranch. We have pretty good grips on reality over here. I don’t really need peer-review to discern truth from lies. Maybe that’s because I’m a horse: I can rely on my pony common sense. Here’s what I care for instead: pear preview. I can’t wait till those succulent, ripe pears start falling from our tree!

Rancher Bob was very happy that he was able to buy her for cheap too. I overheard him boast about that. “Great deal I made with Four J’s!” he said in excitement. “We had way more hay than we needed anyway. I gave Four J’s a trailer of hay and I returned with a horse in her prime.” Cowboy Jake, who had just finished trimming the edges across the fence, was awestruck. “Why did they ever agree to give you the horse for such a laughable price?” he asked. “I don’t see anything wrong with hat new mare. She’s strong and a very smooth ride.”

“It’s quite a story …” said Bob. He took a sip of water before he told us how he had made the deal. “Four J’s had enlisted her just for fun in the town parade. But they didn’t know that that parade was a qualifier for several other events. The horse would have to parade in five other towns and eventually, every day for a week straight in the County Fair. Four J’s pulled her our of the event when they found that out.”

“But that wasn’t the end of it, right? So how did she get here?” Jake grew a little impatient and wanted to know.

“Well ...” replied Bob, “when they pulled her out, a few activists showed up from some non-profit group called Black Friesians Matter. They threatened to sue because the mare was discriminated against for ‘protected characteristics.’ The guys at Four J’s are really afraid of lawsuits, you know. They once hired a native work student from the rez who did nothing but play games on her phone. They couldn’t get rid of her, though, three times in a row. She first sued them for unjustly being fired as a woman. Since she was one of the few female employees, of course her gender was why they gave her the sack. The second time she sued for being native and the third time for having business hours that were not aligned with shamanic religion. Four J’s didn’t want to go there again. It ended up to be easier for them to simply not own the mare anymore. So they passed her off to a ranch that does not participate in parades. Happy to be the one they thought of.”

If this sounds ridiculous, well, it shouldn’t. Laws in many Western countries contain “anti-discrimination” clauses that define discrimination based on “protected characteristics.” Maybe even more frighteningly so, certain private companies have recently been issuing “community guidelines” or “expected behaviour policies” along these lines as well. Before we go there, let’s first pause and reflect on what motivated such laws in the first place.

The origin of legal clauses that protect “characteristics” seems to be unambiguously in the United States, where such stipulations started to be used decades earlier than in some other countries. One could argue that to be the case just because the United States also had a much more explicit need to end discrimination than its counterparts in Europe and Oceania. Until the civil rights movement of the early 1960s, spearheaded by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the US was entirely segregated. Black Americans were entirely excluded from participating in many aspects of society. Segregation descended into the most banal aspects of everyday life. For instance, black Americans were assigned separate areas in public transit. Given the baseless discrimination against the black (and native) American communities in every facet of life, it is certainly true that they were excluded from many segments of the job market. Drastic change was definitely called for back in the early sixties.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act was intended to deliver that much needed change and end discrimination against identities. Given the backdrop of racial strife, it is perfectly understandable that the entire body of that text was written with racial discrimination in mind. It should therefore not surprise that Title VII in that act, which focuses on countering workplace discrimination, also intends to end discrimination against certain groups. The wording used, reflects the original (laudable) intent to end exclusion of entire groups from society, by making exclusion “unlawful” for a given set of reasons: “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Those reasons are commonly referred to as the “protected characteristics.” The original text goes as follows:

(a) Employer practices

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Title VII stipulates similar protections for practices in employment agencies, labor organizations or job trainings. To its credit, it was written with the foresight that anti-discrimination clauses could lead to undesirable outcomes, such as racial quota. It explicitly prohibits “preferential treatment” in Section 703, clause (j) too.

This approach to counter discrimination was, in many cases much later, copied as a blueprint into other countries’ legal bodies. For instance, the UK’s Equality Act of 2010 prohibits discrimination for “protected characteristics,” just like the Civil Rights Act does. Let it be noted, though, that the British version has added a few “characteristics,” such as “gender reassignment.” One wonders why they did not add “mental delusion” as a protected characteristic too?

The original intent behind the Civil Rights Act was definitely good. It has played a key role in ending crude racial discrimination. The way in which it was worded, though, let the door open for unintended consequences. The text’s direct intent was to make sure that having one or more of the specified protected “characteristics” could not in any way be a liability in an employment context. However, in spite of the clause that prohibits “preferential treatment,” the mere mention of these characteristics has led to them being an asset in some cases rather than a liability.

Imagine being an employee who doesn’t really feel good at work, but doesn’t see alternatives. Such employees typically know that they are not performing all that well. Then, some day, the inevitable happens and their employment is culled. The existence of the clauses cited above may very well lure that person into claiming to have been fired for their one or more “characteristics.” Then they reach out to a law firm that will avidly start a suit against the person’s former employer. In its essence, the lawsuit is frivolous, but as it happens, the employee has the “characteristics” and it may well turn out to be very difficult for the employer to wash the assertion of discrimination under.

Since this is a very relatable situation, it happens. Let’s have a look at some numbers. Most Title VII claims actually get resolved by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which was notably also created in the Civil Rights Act. It has an interactive data tool that summarizes claims, resolutions and litigations. We can see that, over the last decade, it was common to have over eighty thousand claims filed every year, with roughly 100 to 150 of them leading to litigation.

This does not imply, though, that all of those claims are frivolous. Nor would it be safe to subsume that the lawsuits resulting from them are all frivolous either. In fact, owing to this vast body of lawsuits, there are legal precedents that set the bar as to what can be admissible evidence for a claim of discrimination.

Owing to certain precedents, most of all so McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973), it is generally accepted that plaintiffs must prove their claims of being discriminated against by providing evidence that they:

Moreover, Mixon vs. Fair Employment Housing Commission (1987), clause [9], has added that:

From the above, it may seem that pretty stringent standards are in place to prove that certain actions by employers are discriminatory. However, in practice, the acceptable evidence for a causal connection can consist of “derogatory statements, such as the use of epithets.” That approach can be both reasonable and prone to abuse. Let’s jump into another relatable example.

Imagine a workplace that consists of ten employees. The place is managed by a pretty abusive supervisor, who does not miss an opportunity to point employees’ lack of intelligence out whenever they misunderstand his directions. The supervisor will, almost without exception, call at least one of the employees “a stupid goat” on a regular basis. As a horse, I don’t really see what is wrong with goats and I would not take that as a negative, but maybe that’s just me. However, occasionally, the supervisor will also fire one of his “goats” that he is particularly unhappy with. Now, usually, the employees who are treated like that and fired, are men. As it happens, though, one time, the employee severed is a woman. Well, then in that case, the terminated female employee already has established causal connection, merely by the use of the “gender epithet” of “stupid goat.” It will only take her one or two examples of being treated worse than the others. Any employee who has just been let go can typically come up with a long list of such examples, even if those do not always ring true to former colleagues. In this situation, all employees were treated badly. However, the Civil Rights Act allows only one of them to claim unfair dismissal on gender grounds.

(If you don’t want to terminate Wild Horse Wisdom unfairly, consider to subscribe. We have a free tier. )

Subscribe now

The Civil Rights Act was written to make sure that certain characteristics were never going to be a liability on the job market, by protecting them. In practice, though, it has turned said characteristics rather into an advantage than a disadvantage, by specifically providing legal options to those who happen to have one of the characteristics and by blocking that avenue to others. It is time for an overhaul of the wording, in a way that actually makes it more inclusive and more akin to the spirit of Dr. Martin Luther King’s teachings.

So far, we have focused on legal action on topics related to employment, membership, or admission in the United States. However, since its inception, the concept of “protected characteristics” was copied in many other places. Most Western countries have adopted it in some way or another, sometimes specifying many more characteristics, like “gender identity.” While the Civil Rights Act already lends itself to preferential treatment for certain groups, it is one thing to define a “protected characteristic” based on a biologically clearly defined concept of expression of sex. It is a whole other thing though, to define such “characteristics” based on properties that can be made up and changed overnight. If an employee decides over the weekend that “they” are no longer a woman called “Suzanne,” but all of a sudden “they” are five persons and need to be referred to as “they/their/those,” then it would be a shame to allow lawsuits to proceed for such employees being fired “unjustly” because their manager only happens to see one person instead of five.

The addition of further “characteristics” to a law like the Civil Rights Act may already seem frightening. Just as damaging, though, is when private companies start to implement clauses inspired by the Civil Rights Act as “community guidelines” or “expected behaviour standards.” These have regrettably become ubiquitous for online platforms and just a part of a collection of “terms and services” that the user has to agree to, to then make use of the “services” of an online platform that only allows the entirely dysfunctional discourse in which nothing can be said “that makes anyone uncomfortable.” We discussed such policies before, with the example of Discord. We have also highlighted that those policies are starting to creep into the physical world, with certain businesses posting standards of expected behaviour for their customers. We mentioned an example from a North American coffee shop before. However, here are the community guidelines from ski and snowboard consortium Ikon Pass. Ikon Pass is owned by Alterra Inc., a corporation that operates many mountain resorts across the globe, with a center of gravity in the United States (and headquartered in Denver, Colo.):

RESPECT AND INCLUSION

• Treat everyone with respect, regardless of their race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, or any other protected characteristic.

• Discrimination based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability or any other protected characteristic will not be tolerated.

• Our mountains are for everyone to enjoy free from discrimination, hate speech, harassment, personal attacks, violence (including threats of violence), and vulgar behavior.

• Respect and protect our natural environment.

I’ll agree that a mountain vacation should be a place to feel free from adversity. But it should also be a place to feel free. A big portion of the excitement about skiing and riding is exactly that it allows to go anywhere on the mountain any time, as one spontaneously decides. That only works in an environment where thought can freely be expressed. Alterra seems to misunderstand that people sometimes have different opinions and that what is considered acceptable in one group, might be considered “hate” in another. Does Alterra know what “hate speech” is? Since governments cannot come up with an objective definition, I trust neither can Alterra. And neither should they bother to. They should just remove these clauses.

The inclusion of “protected characteristics” into laws, statutes and private corporations’ community guidelines, generally leads to a choking environment, in which nobody can express their views spontaneously, which on its turn completely stifles innovation. Society can only move forward when people can think and speak outside the norm.

We therefore need to move forward in a more inclusive way, that includes all opinions, yet still discourages unfair treatment. As to the law, we should ask ourselves why the Civil Rights Act’s authors ever opted to write it as a double negative: it does not allow to not hire based on “characteristics.” Instead, isn’t it much better to rewrite it from a positive premise: to stipulate that one can only hire based on competence and cultural fit, rather than that one cannot not hire for gender? In fact, the law should protect persons, not characteristics. That should be a general principle across societal aspects and not limited to the workplace at all.

As to private companies, well, it is time to reinforce freedom of expression legally. If we fail to do so, we may end up in an environment where quasi-public spaces end up being as suffocating as Britain’s bars will become when banter bouncers are introduced. In the US, however, there are ample legal precedents that have considered places like shopping malls to be public and therefore, subject to the First Amendment. I would argue that skiing mountains and coffee shops also resort under that umbrella. It is time for legislation that enforces First Amendment protections to customers in any establishment that is open to the general public. Regarding online platforms, we should also end the practice of making users sign thousands of paragraphs of legal documents in one click. Users should legally get the choice to opt out of certain clauses.

We horses treat each other equally. We do not give preferential access to hay to horses of any color, or gender. Nor do we give horses extra apples because they think they are more than one horse and want to be referred to by “they/them.” The latter is quite easy to do, though, because… such horses do not exist. People will need to move on from such practices too, but in the meantime, well, let’s enjoy the positive while we haven’t changed the negative. If it weren’t for her characteristics, we wouldn’t have Friesengeist with us here. And we’re very happy to have her. In our herd, black Friesians matter. But other horses matter too.

John, the rancher over at Triple Diamonds, was the bearer of the bad news. He too could barely finish his sentence. “You know over at Bluebell …” he said, then started stuttering from emotion and continued, “… they were forced to kill their horses. All of them were gassed.” The news hit hard. We could barely take it in and some of the cowgirls started crying. I was very upset too. My flanks started shaking like ripples on a lake surface. Of course, we all wanted to know how that had come to be. John soon explained it. “Because of the bird flu, the health authorities ran PCR tests on the horses at Bluebell. One tested positive and then they forced them to kill the entire herd.”

Bill, our owner, replied: “How on earth is that a responsible health policy?” But above all, he wanted to know what we could do about it.

In much of the West, we may not yet be executing horses. Let’s do what we can to keep it that way. But we are not far from that. Since 2021, multiple outbreaks of avian influenza, or in more common terms, “bird flu,” have been detected. The contingency plan in each of the affected countries seems to be rather harsh. PCR tests are used to detect the presence of the disease. If a pooled PCR test returns a positive for a highly pathogenic strain, then the entire flock of birds is considered to be infected and is fumigated. Indeed, death by gas is the strategy put forward by health authorities to protect birds from avian influenza. This strategy has already accumulated quite a death toll. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) maintain a convenient dashboard, that informs us that at the time of writing, the death toll stands a little over 166 million birds executed. Other countries do not show numbers as staggering, but they are not negligible either. For instance, Australia reported to have fumigated 1.8 million birds in 2024. The Australian CDC declared the outbreak in Victoria over in January, just to report a newly affected flock a few weeks later.

Given the whopping number of birds killed, one would expect the disease to be under control, right? In reality, nothing points to that being the case. On the one hand, we know that migratory birds can spread it, which turns the problem into one that is very difficult to contain geographically. The recent outbreak in the United States started in 2021. We are almost four years and over one hundred and fifty million dead birds later. Where are we now? We are having new flocks infected and are at the point where the disease has started to infect cattle and domestic animals as well. At least one conclusion that can be drawn from those observations is simple: the present containment strategy is not working.

(If the writing style of Wild Horse Wisdom is working for you, please consider to subscribe. There is a free tier.)

Subscribe now

Instead of blindly pursuing a strategy put forward by “health authorities,” we should objectively analyze the situation and explore alternatives. To find viable routes, we should at first investigate the necessity for total containment. Based on the outcome of that research, we should then derive a mitigation strategy that optimizes the trade-off between minimizing risk and minimizing economic disruption.

The present mitigation strategy consists of fumigating the entire flock of birds once a pooled PCR test has yielded a positive result. That is outlined, for instance, in the USDA’s response plan, but very similar texts can be found in other countries, such as Australia. Subjectively, a first impression may be that this is a very radical way to cope with a disease. Without further facts, one would then be inclined to believe that the disease must have a high fatality rate? Well, commonly, the distinction is made between “low pathogenic” and “high pathogenic” avian influenza (HPAI). The latter mainly corresponds to the H5 and H7 strains of the virus. Most sources cite an infection fatality rate of 90% for such strains. So yes, these strains are highly lethal for birds, which is what has motivated the response plan in the first place.

We now understand why agencies like the USDA have implemented a strategy to “stomp out” viral infections. However, “stomping out” is a vigorous term that may sound convincing, but may also turn out to be easier said than done wherever it appears. Stomping out avian influenza may end up becoming as much of a mirage as stomping out COVID was, or as “stomping out hate” is.

While there was an understandable motivation to the response plan in place, we are still left with the observation that 166 million dead birds later, the disease has not been contained at all, much less so “stomped out,” so we need to look for alternatives. On the one hand, HPAI can be spread by wild birds, which makes it virtually impossible to contain. Some wild birds, like ducks, can be infected without developing symptoms. The frequency at which HPAI now occurs, can be considered endemic. An admission to that from “health authorities” would imply that eradication is impossible.

If so, there is really only one way to deal with the disease, which is to build herd immunity in flocks. The question becomes, though, how to get there. There are essentially two routes to building it: either through natural processes, or through vaccination. The latter route is certainly the most attractive to pharmaceutical companies, their executives and billionaire “philantropists” who “happen to be” heavily invested in them. However, it is well known that vaccinating in an ongoing epidemic is not desirable, since that spurs further mutations of the virus. To some extent, the different COVID-19 variants that developed in 2021 and 2022 attest to that. However, that fact has also been established in animal populations. A recent Chinese paper casts doubt about the effectiveness of vaccinating birds while the spread of the HPAI epidemic continues. Many older reports have established similar results.

What we should be doing, is to run controlled research projects in which we let the disease run through the flock. If 90% or birds die, then 10% of birds do not die. A recent study points to the possibility of having higher survival rates when low rates of exposure to the virus can be maintained. We should identify what makes those birds resistant. We should start breeding programmes for the resistant birds, which can then lead to flocks that have herd immunity in the future. Meanwhile, an alternative route that should be explored is if we can develop treatments for the disease. Pharmaceutical companies are welcome to participate in the latter.

For the sake of clarity, I am not saying that farms should just let the disease run. These experiments should be done in a well-controlled research and development environment. Farms should adhere to the present policy until there is a better alternative. However, organizing and supporting these experiments is an area where the government can help. It would be a much more reasonable use of taxpayer money than to invest in “green non-governmental organizations” that pay for the development of disgusting “plant-based egg products,” the manufacture of which also “happens” to benefit billionaire philanthropists, somehow often the same ones.

While there is a need for a response plan for birds, not so much is true for mammals. A few states like Michigan and California have declared “emergencies” over avian influenza spreading to cattle and have set up “containment plans.” However, in mammals we are talking about a very different disease. Mortality rates in cattle are lower than 5%. Many cows have no symptoms beyond excessive mucus production, in return for lower milk production. The latter is still economically relevant to the farmer, but surely not a reason to implement containment programmes as stringent as the ones for birds. Fortunately, there is no jurisdiction doing exactly that, but some are getting close, such as California, where routine PCR testing is now implemented. It is well-known that PCR testing is an inconclusive indication for acute illness, since virus fragments can still be detected for up to two weeks after the virus has cleared. Some may find this fact strange, since they remember the routine PCR testing in the early days of the COVID pandemic. However, the former is as true for humans as it is for cattle. We should never have tested asymptomatic humans. Nor should we do the same for cattle. PCR testing unaccompanied by symptoms is a sure factory of false positive results, which may result in drastic measures being taken against animals that aren’t even sick.

Finally, there is of course the argument that avian influenza could become transmissible to humans. Subjectively, I would say that it will not do that unless it is assisted to mutate that way in a biological research facility. The latter statement is actually most likely true for one of the presently circulating H5N1 variants that can be spread by mallard ducks. That said, even if it becomes transmissible between humans, there is still little to worry about. A recent study coauthored by the US CDC states the following on the symptoms associated with HPAI infection in healthy humans:

In common language, most humans who happen to get infected with HPAI do not develop much more than having a pink eye for a while and some feel like they have a flu for a few days.

Of course, there was a case intensely hyped in mainstream media of a “fatality from bird flu infection.” Since this was an elderly and obese person with co-morbidities, it is a question though, if that person’s death was really due to the bird flu alone. Even if so, it does not warrant any measures out of the ordinary. Every death is sad, but death is the inevitable end of life. We must not pretend that we can “stomp death out.” When a ramshackle cart hits a rock, it will fall apart, but it is quite unreasonable to ban all carts to prevent them from falling apart.

Sadly for Bluebell Ranch, the deaths of their horses could all have been avoided if there had been a reasonable policy in place. Fortunately, though, that policy didn’t last for long. Once the news broke, cowboys and ranchers were joined by amateur horse lovers and animal activists alike. They took to the capital and the policy was reversed. We can sleep tight again.

* Bold face annotated by the author.