Transcription
He's a wild card. You know, there are three people who are doing amazing versions of the drunken boxing game. Kanye, who's probably uh the first one to really fail, Elon and Donald Trump. And all three of them tried to do something where you couldn't pin them down. You couldn't figure out like what they were going to do next. And that's what the order is keeps trying to do. Like will you commit to this? Will you say this? Will you mouth these words? and none of these people would play the game. So that's what Donald Trump is. He's a guy who's got formulas that confuse people like Sam Harris. I think that Trump is an incredibly intelligent man and that there's incredible method in his tweets uh of old. You can just you could put them into a data set and you say that there are five or six different types of tweets and that the left falls for every one of them every time.
What if the one figure everyone called unpredictable was actually the most calculated player on the board? Eric Weinstein flips the narrative, arguing that Donald Trump wasn't random. He was strategically unreadable. Weinstein compares Trump to a drunken boxing master. Impossible to anticipate, impossible to trap. While critics saw chaos, he sees pattern. messaging designed to confuse opponents, disrupt expectations, and force the system into reacting instead of controlling. His conclusion is chilling and powerful. Trump didn't just challenge opponents. He exposed a deeper paradox at the heart of modern democracy. And once you see it, you can't unsee it.
>> I think we don't understand why the censorship is behaving the way it is. We don't understand why it's in the shadows. there has been a system in place whether understood explicitly or um behind the scenes or implicitly that says that the purpose of the two American parties is to prune the field of populist candidates so that whatever two candidates uh exist in a faceoff are both acceptable to that world order. So what you're trying to do from the point point of view, let's take it from the point of view of let's say the state department, the intelligence community, the defense department and um major corporations that are have to do with uh international issues from arms trade to oh I don't know food. They have a series of agreements that are fragile and could be overturned if a president entered the Oval Office who didn't agree with them and the mood of the country was why do we pay taxes into these structures? Why are we hamstrung? Why aren't we a free people?
So, what the two parties would do is that they would run primaries. You'd have populist candidates and you'd precommit the populist candidates to support the candidates who won the primaries. As long as that took place and you had two candidates that were both acceptable to the international order, that is that they aren't going to rethink NAFTA or NATO or what have you. We called that democracy. And so democracy was the illusion of choice, what's called magician's choice, where the choice is not actually, you know, pick a card, any card, but somehow the magician makes sure that the card that you pick is the one that he knows. Uh in that situation, you have magicians choice in the primaries and then you'd have the duopoly field two candidates either of which was acceptable and you could actually afford to hold an election and the populace would vote and that way the international order wasn't put at risk every four years because you can't have alliances that are subject to the whim of um the people in plebites. So under that structure, everything was going fine until 2016. And then the first candidate ever to not hold um any position in the military nor position in government uh in the history of the republic to enter the Oval Office, Donald Trump, broke through the primary structure. So then there was a fullcourt press. Okay, we only have one candidate that's acceptable to the international order. Donald Trump will be under um constant pressure that he's a loser, he's a wild man, he's an idiot and and he's under the control of the Russians and then he was going to be, you know, a 20 to1 underdog and then he wins and there was no precedent for this. They learned their lesson. You cannot afford to have candidates who are not acceptable to the international order and continue to have these alliances. is this is an unsolved problem.
So I don't have a particular dog in this fight. I one believe in democracy. I also believe in international agreements and it is the job of the state department, the intelligence community and the defense department to bring this problem in front of the American people and say we have a problem. You don't know everything that's going on and if you start voting in populist candidates, you're going to end up knocking out loadbearing walls that you don't understand. You remember that there was this uh uncomfortable uh accommodation given to the Central Intelligence Agency at the beginning of his actual term. There was a question about um was he going to question the I have a very different point of view than most of my friends uh who are also you know at least nominally Democrats which is it was a very immoral thing that was done to him. He was asked the question will you precommit that you will accept the results of an election? Now, if you were going to rig an election, you would ask somebody that to begin with, and that's part of the game. And he says, well, you know, we'll see.
So, you have this very strange thing going on where democracy is the greatest threat to democracy. Now, how can that be? It's two different concepts of democracy. One concept of democracy is the will of the people. you hold plebbeites and even if you do it with an electoral college or political parties the idea is that the people are elect you know by and of and for the people. The other idea of democracy is that democracy is about institutions that sprang from democracy once upon a time and that those institutions have to be kept strong. Those are two completely different concepts that are overloaded to the same word. Under that circumstance, we have a a paradox which is how do we keep the electorate from overturning the, you know, the the type A democracy from overturning the type B democracy? And that's the unsolved problem that they will not bring in front of the people.
If you enjoyed today's video, don't forget to give it a thumbs up and share your thoughts in the comments below. Make sure to subscribe and click the notification bell so you never miss out on our latest content.