Understanding Bret Weinstein
The difference between grifting and erring
Bret Weinstein is an important figure in the IDW. Some might consider him a founding father by now. The younger brother of Eric Weinstein (who coined the name for this group), Bret is an evolutionary biologist whose insights have shed light on the competitive and selective forces that exist in nature, often explaining much of human behavior in politics and the culture wars. He first came to fame during the 2017 controversy at Evergreen College. After protesting the administration’s co-opting of a student-led tradition (known as the Day of Absence), he was falsely accused of making racist statements, which spiraled into a mob overrunning the campus and driving him out, while the president of the college did little to nothing to stop this.
After several appearances on major podcasts and being able to corroborate his account, Bret won sympathy in the broader community that would soon become the IDW. Unable to return to teaching, he launched his own program: The Dark Horse Podcast. While initially focused on a wider variety of issues, the outbreak of COVID-19 and ensuing pandemic in 2020 made the virus a dominant topic that has since defined the show and much of his reputation. This is where many people make up their minds about Bret.
Bret has invited outsider guests onto his show about COVID, many of whom disagreed with mainstream understandings of the virus, such as how it could be spread, how deadly it was, the effectiveness of vaccines, and the viability of Ivermectin. These guests have brought him criticism as not merely a skeptic or a champion for underdogs. Rather, he has been condemned as a conspiracy theorist and a grifter. People who pay attention to Bret and actually listen to him might notice some details that make the grifting explanation unlikely.
I was a regular listener to DHP and Bret’s other interviews up until COVID. That is when he lost me, at least as part of his regular audience. For me, I simply did not need COVID news every single day, and I doubted we were getting new information that quickly. I was skeptical of his guests, some of whom struck me as a bit nutty and perhaps underdogs for all the right reasons. Why would a smart guy like Bret have them on his show?
Anyone who’s actually listened to him would know. Just consider how getting chased out of Evergreen must have felt, with no one sticking up for him or giving a chance to speak his side. It doesn’t take much to assume that Bret probably likes to use his platform to give underdogs the chance that he wasn’t given. I myself grew up in a house with a lot of yelling, which I hated. Therefore, as an adult, I do people the kindness of not yelling at them.
We also know Evergreen is not the only scar looming in Bret’s mind. He has also discussed his views on the Occupy Wall St movement (which he supported), and how it was sabotaged by an anarchist element that was a precursor to much of what is seen in the culture wars today. Secondly, while on Eric’s podcast, The Portal, Bret was confronted to discuss an event that took place over thirty years ago, in which Nobel-winner Carol Greider supposedly cheated him out of credit in collaborative research that she used to benefit herself and her career.
There are limits to how we can verify these things. Occupy had a diffuse, cellular structure, and so we may be only be getting Bret’s version of events as they were true in Portland. Similarly, it’s hard confirm something that happened over thirty years ago. What’s important here is what Bret believes he experienced. We see what haunts this family man in his fifties. By listening to him talk and tell his stories, this gives insight into his decisions behind his podcast.
Bret is a man who is not only sympathetic to underdogs. He is also someone who has learned to be distrustful of authorities that have misused their positions. This can explain a lot about why he’s had certain guests on his podcast. While it might still be a mistake to do these things, it’s an imperfection borne from his humanity, not grifting.
Rather often, I’ve noticed the people who accuse him of grifting are exactly the sort of people that would have driven him out of his original job. It’s ironic. If he had just not been slandered, he could still be teaching biology in the Pacific Northwest, out of sight and out of mind. The ones who want Bret to admit to grifting and take responsibility for his COVID broadcasts overlook the role they’ve had in putting Bret in exactly this position.
To be clear, I remain agnostic on almost everything related to COVID because it just isn’t my specialty. I got the vaccine and boosters, contrary to how many of Bret’s guests felt. I don’t actually know how right or wrong Bret is on anything, but I will say that, if he is wrong, that’s okay. Pouncing on him for it will not make him right. Instead, seeing the good in him and being a resource to guide him if he ever needs it will do that. Whether I do that from afar as CEO of this nonprofit or actually get to meet him, that is how it will be done. Bringing out the best in people like Bret Weinstein starts with listening and understanding.
Joe Parrish
Thanks for reading The IDW Feed! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support our work.