These People Need To Be Stopped - Eric Weinstein (4K)

When we spoke at the start of the year, I said it was way too close to November to switch anybody out. Turns out that I was wrong.

Beginner's luck.

You said, "What are the odds that Joe Biden has a debilitating event between now and November, including death, so he runs a one in 20 chance of dying in any given year or above, that I don't think you know whether he's even going to make it to November?" Debilitating event could have been a d- debilitating public event.

I purposely left it vague, and I didn't say the other part of it, which I now feel comfortable saying, which is, I don't, I don't know whether, I don't know whether Donald Trump will be allowed to become president.

What'd you mean by that?

I think that there's a, a remarkable story, and we're in a, a funny game, which is, are we allowed to say what that story is? Because to say it, to analyze it, to name it, is to bring it, uh, into view. 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. We don't understand why our news is acting in a bizarre fashion. So let's just set the stage, given that that was in February. Um... There is something th- that I think Mike Benz has just referred to as the rules-based international order. It's an interlocking series of agreements, tacit understandings, explicit understandings, clandestine understandings, about how the most important structures keep the world free of war and keep markets open. And there has been a system in place, whether understood e- 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, uh, exist in a face-off, are both acceptable to that world order. So what you're trying to do from the proi- 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 pre-commit 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 gonna rethink NAFTA or NATO or what have you, we called that democracy. And so democracy was the illusion of choice, what's, 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 magician's 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 populists 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 plebiscites. So i- 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 full-court 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 a, you know, a, a 20 to 1 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. 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, and 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 load-bearing walls that you don't understand."