How to talk

It’s a really, today’s
topic is kind of

discourse, and how
discourse is changing, and also


But we’ll get to that.

That’s the second part.

There’s two stories.

One is there’s been
a study of some of the

language that’s being
used in climate denial

arguments, and it’s a
new kind of discourse.

So it used to be climate
change is not real.

Climate change is not
man-made, it’s just a natural thing.

Nothing to worry about, just keep going
on with the status quo, everything is fine.

The obvious changes
in the actual climate,

climate disasters being
more frequent in the

stuff, have made it
very hard to actively

dispute the reality, the
facts of climate change.

In my lifetime, I have seen the
difference, the effects of climate change.

It is hotter in the summer,
the summer is lasting longer.

It is winter shorter, but it’s actually
much colder for a shorter period of time.

It’s actually funny because before climate
change, I forget what they called it.

Global warming, when
they were calling it

global warming, every
winter, some news anchor

from a conservative
channel would make a joke

about, “Moo, where’s
global warming now today?”

But actually, the colder winter snap is a
result of more extreme weather changes, and

so that always just to me
demonstrated how dumb they were.

The Center for
Countering Digital Hate, I

originally wrote down
as the Center for Digital

Hate, not a group you
want to be involved with.

The Center for Countering
Digital Hate did an

analysis of the way people are
trying to dispute climate change.

Now, actually since 2023, so instead of
saying climate change isn’t real, what they

do is deny the benefits
of clean energy, so

they’re saying like solar power doesn’t
give you as much energy as you want.

Wind power is ineffective because
the wind isn’t blowing all the time.

The benefits of clean
energy don’t outdo the

current benefits of the
system we have in place.

They will attack
policy, they’ll attack

governmental policy,
saying that this policy doesn’t

address all the issues,
and this is actually

the bit that struck me
why this became something

that I was thinking about, because what
they’re saying a lot is this policy makes

a small change, that
small change doesn’t fix

the entire problem,
therefore why make that

change at all, let’s just keep
everything going the way it is right now.

It’s the core argument of if you cannot fix
100% of the problem immediately, then there

is no point in trying to fix the problem
at all, because we can’t fix the problem.

So there is no incremental
change or benefits that can be done.

The other way is to malign
scientists and advocates.

And this has now become 70% of the
denial content on YouTube since 2023.

So they’re no longer attacking
climate change as a thing.

They’re attacking the scientists and the
people who talk about it in positive terms.

They talk about it in terms of government
policy and how it’s not effective enough.

They talk about it in terms of clean
energy and how that’s not effective enough.

So there is no benefit to actually doing
those things in the first place, renewable.

This is actually
interesting because what it

does, it gets around one
of the policy guidelines

of YouTube and a
lot of these big social

websites, what they say
is if you say something

that is factually incorrect,
they’re going to take it down.

So if you come out and
you say climate change

is not real, that
YouTube is then obligated

by their own terms and services to actually
take down that video, whereas if I say this

policy is not good and
it won’t make enough

change and it won’t do all the things
I like, that gets to say on YouTube.

So this is not, this
actually has a dual purpose.

It keeps your videos up and it still kind
of attacks the issue of climate change, but

without actually
attacking it directly so

you don’t get, you
know, there’s no violation

so you can keep your voice
active, maybe is what I want to say.

Renewable energy
generally is now basically

cheaper than fossil fuel,
something interesting

that I learned, if we
had stayed on the path

of nuclear power, so
we had seven mile island,

kind of turned America off a lot of nuclear
energy and then we had Fukushima, which

is made Japan a
little, but if all countries

had maintained the
progress in nuclear energy,

we wouldn’t be having
a climate crisis right

now because overall nuclear
energy is cleaner than the alternatives.

And I think if we kept
up with our engineering

practices and safety
standards, I actually

think that would have
been the thing that makes,

because Fukushima,
that power plant that failed

was about 60 years old and it hadn’t
been really upgraded in any real way.

If they had continued
to upgrade, I mean this

is me, you’re going
to put money into it,

but if they put modern
engineering practices

into place, I think it
would have survived

without a meltdown,
without any problems at all.

I have a lot of faith in
engineering, something

I don’t know anything,
it seems like magic

to me the way engineers
can make things work

and that’s something
I have a lot of faith

and that engineers can
fix problems if you let them.

Now, often letting
them fix problems is

expensive, but if it means
no nuclear meltdowns

in the future and we no longer
have to even think about the

climate crisis, that seems
like a pretty good deal to me.

Of course, I’m not a policy
maker, I don’t have any money.

So they had now, then
they did a survey in America

of 1,000 teenagers and
30% of teens because

they get a lot of their information
from TikTok and YouTube now.

Say that climate policy
does more harm than good.

So the one that’s
famous right now is the

Green New Deal because
it has kind of a catchy

name and people can say it very quickly.

And what they’re
saying is the Green New

Deal, if we do that,
it will actually damage

the world in the future
more than not doing it.

Yeah, I’m not attacking that part directly.

So Jay just said the
problem is that it would

take money away from oil
companies and that’s a big no-no.

All right, I’m not even talking
about oil companies directly.

I’m actually talking about the way
people are attacking the arguments.

So it’s the discourse is what
I’m actually trying to get into.

There was a Senate hearing, I
was watching a Senate hearing.

This is how you know
I’m a party dude because

I just said I was
watching a Senate hearing.

I was actually, I was watching bits of it.

I don’t watch whole Senate hearings.

I’m not that bad.

You can tell I’m
getting up in years when

Senate hearings are
vaguely interesting to me.

And it was about, they had some people who
were in renewable energy and this one woman

was very anti-plastics, she said
we should basically stop using plastic.

And it was the way they
spoke back and forth.

It was almost disingenuous on both sides.

This is something I found very interesting.

I don’t actually understand
the point of Senate

hearings anymore because
what they do is they

come out and they make a statement and they
badger the person and they shout at them.

And they don’t ever actually ask
a question and wait for an answer.

This is all just a show.

And the show is, hey,
listen to me, I’m making

this person look bad, not
actually dealing with the issue.

This was the start of the bit.

I was very interested in it.

She want to end all plastic manufacturing.

So that’s it.

The first question.

Do you want to end all
plastic manufacturing?

And the answer is going to be yes, but it,
he’s going to say, like I already, without

even seeing the rest of it, I
actually know what’s going to happen.

She’s going to say yes, I do want
to end all plastic manufacturing.

He’s going to go, well, that’s impossible.

We can’t do that and
she’s going to say, you

know, we could try
or we could start or we

could use less plastic and he’s
going to go, everything’s plastic.

We can’t like I mean, if we look at my desk
right now, keyboard is plastic, microphone

is plastic, web cameras,
plastic, the monitors,

plastic, the computer
has plastic in it.

Yes, plastic isn’t everything.

That doesn’t mean we can’t
transition away from it in some way.

The Senate hearing,
what he’s saying is

basically if you do not
give me a 100 complete

full solution immediately,
then there is no

point than even
furthering this conversation.

And again, I don’t even
need to watch the rest of it.

I’ve seen parts of this clip, but I don’t
need to watch it to know what they’re going

to say because I’ve now watched enough
Senate hearing to know what they’re doing.

He’s, they’re holding people to a standard
where you have to come up with a perfect

complete solution or
you have no solution at all.

So the idea of let’s use less
plastic bottles isn’t enough.

If let’s use less plastic
overall, let’s use lighter plastic.

Let’s inject air into the
plastic we use so that the

plastic is lighter and we
use less plastic overall.

That’s not enough because it
doesn’t erase plastic completely.

So we’re listening to
a bit of this and then

again, I’ve already said I
know I’ve seen bits of it.

And I already know,
but I knew as soon as he

opened his mouth and
said that first sentence,

I knew where this was
going because this is the

quality of discourse
we get in congressional

hearings and Senate hearings and it’s part
of what they’re attacking on the internet.

They’re using this kind of argument.

I don’t know if it’s
an argument in fallacy

that has a name it probably
does, but I just don’t know it.

But essentially it’s
saying if you do not, you

can’t do anything in
stages or transitional,

you have to do everything
in a complete 100% or zero.

There’s no like one, two,
three, four percent improvement.

She want to end all plastic manufacturing.

I said the plastic
industry must be stopped.

So does that mean end
plastic manufacturing?

I mean in my dream world’s shore.

So there you go.

He’s saying he wants you to make a definitive
statement and plastic manufacturing.

She said, yeah, in my dream
world, she’s more reasonable.

She understands that we’re not
going to get rid of plastic tomorrow.

We’re not just going to shut down
every plastic company in the world.

And then he’s going to
go on the offensive and

say, I know it in this
case he actually says

your glasses are made of plastic
and that bottle’s made of plastic.

He starts explaining like how
much plastic is in the world.

She knows.

I mean, she knows how
much plastic is in the world.

But I think that um, oh, oh, God.

So I don’t mean to be kind of sitting here.

I just point out what I don’t
mean to be condescending

here, but he’s absolutely
being condescending

because he’s talking
to her like she’s a child

because again, he’s going
to hold her to a standard.

He would never hold himself to whenever he
is tasked with coming up with a solution.

He probably doesn’t come up
with a 100% complete solution.

I mean, if you want
to start talking about

politics, there are standards
that need to be put into place.

Like I actually think a retirement
age, I’ve said this a bunch of times now.

I don’t know if I’m
just like beating a drum.

Both Trump and Biden are in their late
70s and going to be in their early 80s.

Why are these men even
up for running the country?

If the government decides
that they’re retirement

age 65, then politicians should
have to be have to retire by 65.

If politicians then
decide to move up the

retirement age, then it should be
across the board and they can stay on.

But you have to be, I think it’s
30 or 35 to become president.

That’s the minimum.

There should be a maximum.

Like that just seems self evident.

If you cannot complete your
tasks, you should be fired.

The problem I think
in American politics,

politics, probably all
over the place, is that

a lot of places you cannot remove
politicians who aren’t doing their job.

So if you do not come to an agreement within
a set deadline, you all lose your job.

And I bet deadlines get met really quickly
in every branch of government everywhere.

Because people don’t
want to lose their jobs.

This is their power and they
want to hold onto that power.

So I think most recently
at the end of America,

they’ve been talking about
government shutdown.

Again, this is something
that’s come up in the

past and they don’t want
to come to agreement

because the conservatives want a government
shutdown to make the liberals look bad.

But I would actually say, if you guys don’t
come to an agreement, you’re all fired and

then bring in a whole new group and
they make it seem like that’s impossible.

It’s not.

Like you could always
have someone second,

third, and row and they just like move
up and then, okay, you guys are out.

You don’t get reelected.

You don’t get to run
for re-election if you’ve

lost your position in
power and government.

That would change the
dynamics of what government is.

I bet a lot of people
wouldn’t want it anymore

because they’d be
held to a standard that

they wouldn’t be used
to because they’d actually

have to get things done
within a certain time frame.

But I, sorry, back to this.

That was all just a tangent about
how to make government work.

I think I watched some rich guy say it.

There are smart rich guys.

There was this rich guy and he said,
like, I could fix the budget in a month.

And he’s like, basically just fire
everyone if they don’t fix the budget.

And I was like, that would work.

They would come to a plan to
improve things and it wouldn’t be 100%.

It would be transitional
and it would be step

by step in stages and we’re going to
improve this and we’re going to fix this.

And that would be it.

And again, this is what this man in this
hearing is demanding of this woman, give me

a 100% complete
solution to replace all

plastic in the world
right now, or you have no

argument that you can make
here in front of me right at all.

And if she had called him out on
that, I think it would be interesting.

I don’t see a lot of these
congressional hearings

where the person
being spoken to actually

makes a claim as to
what’s being done to them.

I watched the TikTok hearings.

I was very interested in that.

He was clearly smarter
than everyone in that

room when it came to
computers and phones

and apps and all this
other stuff and he would

say stuff and they
just didn’t understand.

I mean, that was just
the first actual breaking

communication is he
would say things that

they clearly just didn’t
understand what he was saying.

In this case, he’s
holding this, I assume,

just activist to a
standard he wouldn’t hold

anyone else in the
world to in a realistic way.


Um, so I do know, they’re made of plastic.


And it’s a when she starts
to speak, he interrupts her.

So she’s not going to
actually get to answer.

That’s another sort of secondary
issue, but that really bugs me.

Once you ask, as a senator,
once you ask a question,

you should be forced
to listen to the answer.

And even if you don’t like it.

And what they do is they ask a question.

When the person starts to
speak, they interrupt them again.

They reiterate their
question, sometimes not

very rude, but this is a
power play that people do.

It’s a psychological
tactic because if every

time I go to speak,
you interrupt me and

I stop, then you’re in this weird situation
where they’re interrupting you and it puts

you sort of off balance.

This is one of these like old, the really
shitty, busy business psychology books.

And it’s, it’s a tactic you
can do to people on purpose.

You ask them a question.

When they go to answer, you
reiterate or you interrupt them.

And then you finish speaking.

And then when they go to speak again, you
interrupt and you do like five, six times.

It’s a power move and it’s done on purpose.

And the counter to that is to just stop.

And then you have a huge silence
and then go, do you want me to answer?

And they have to either say yes or no.

And then when they say yes, you go, because
they’re out there, of course, I want you to answer.

I want you to answer
honestly and that kind of stuff.

Then you say, are you
going to interrupt me?

And the instant there and there, there’s
now like an unwritten agreement that if you

interrupt me, you’re actually breaking
your own rule that you’ve just established.

I didn’t keep track
of it the first time, I

should have actually, how many times
he interrupts her while she’s speaking.

They’re me not out there.

So, and I just point
out some things here

because I just want to
be realistic when we’re

having conversations because
when statements are made like this.

So there you go.

She’s gone to speak again.

This is at least the second
if not third interruption.

And after he’s asked his question of,
what are you going to replace plastic with?

And he’s, when she went to
speak, he’s like, what do your

glasses made of and he’s going
to speak and he’s going to do it.

So we’re not having a conversation.

He’s giving a speech
and he’s interrupting

you so that you can’t
answer in any real way.

They will.


That’s easy to say, but what’s
the solution? So he’s there.

You go.

He’s saying,
what’s the solution?

He’s not letting her speak though.

So she’s not often able
to offer up any solution.

And again, the solution
can’t be 100% right away.

So it’s this disingenuous
attitude of something.

Apparently this is really
happening on YouTube,

70% of the climate
denial is actually going

through this form of
secondary attacks that

current things you’re
doing aren’t going to work.

So why even bother to do them?

If the government
asks you for a solution,

if you don’t come up with 100% solution,
then there’s no reason doing it at all.

It’s one of those
things that now that I’ve

become aware of it and
I hear it, these dialogues

become more interesting to listen to.

This is a different story.

It’s a different kind of
discourse we’re talking about.

So what you are looking for
was Nirvana perfect solutions.

Ah, thank you.

Yes, I knew there must be this is
not like a new way to attack arguments.

So the Nirvana perfect
solution fallacy as I

guess what I actually
like, I actually could

have come to that conclusion of myself
because that is what they’re always asking.

It’s ridiculous.

It’s ridiculous to want that.

And then if you
speak in realistic terms,

like, yeah, let’s let’s
focus on water bottles first.

We’re at a water like plastic bottles
and replace them with something else.

Or again, in Japan,
what they’ve been doing

for a lot of bottles is
making them 50% less plastic.

Well, that’s 50% less plastic.

Let’s do that.

Let’s do try to do
50% less plastic in

everything, make the
plastic thinner or, again,

I think my glasses are made of plastic,
but they’re the lightest frames ever made.

And I think the idea is that the
plastic is actually injected with air.

So there’s less plastic
overall, less weight,

which is they’re
selling the weight, but

they’re actually probably
way cheaper to produce.

Oh, wow.


Thank you.

The perfect solution
fallacy is an informal

fallacy that occurs when
an argument assumes

that a perfect
solution exists or that a

solution should be
rejected because some part

of the problem would still
exist after we’re implemented.

But thank you for that.

Thank you for the fallacy thing
because I knew there was one.

I just didn’t know what it was called.

That’s the story of my life.

I know stuff, but I don’t
know what it’s called.

Like people.

I know you, I don’t know your name.

There was a Colorado pastor called Eli,
how man Peter, Regal Lando, whatever.

It was called Eli, my
handwriting’s so poor in this.

I got this.

I actually stuff.

I have to start typing up notes.

I did notice there was a thing, Elgato
has made a teleprompter for web stuff.

And so it goes around your
webcam and it just prompts up.

And then I would just sit here and
like, like a newscaster and just read.

And it would look like I was
looking at the camera the whole time.

I’m always looking slightly down
because I’m actually reading my notes.

I’ve learned to hold
my notes up under the

camera so they don’t
like wave around in front.

That’s the techniques
is how they’re coming.

There’s a Colorado
pastor named Eli and he

launched a cryptocurrency
called INDXcoin index

coin already not a great
name, I mean, not inspiring.

If this is supposed to
be like funded by God,

because he’s a pastor,
it’s already suspicious.

Pastor and cryptocurrency are not
two things I put together to be successful.

But there was
nothing behind it, it was

basically worthless
because usually you launch a

coin with a certain
amount of fiat currency

behind it or something
behind it, some way you

could exchange it, something
like that, to make it have value.

So you could actually say the same thing
about Bitcoin, Bitcoin has no actual value.

The value is injected by our
perception of it and all that other stuff.

That’s also how money works.

But I could trade out cryptocurrency,
Bitcoin, let’s say, for cash.

Whereas this didn’t have
anything to support it.

People maybe had to buy it,
but there was no foundation.

The first, let’s say, thousand coins
that were created had no foundation.

So buying them actually meant buying the
source, not the actual value of the coins.

You could only, this was again, the
second part that’s very suspicious.

You could only buy index coin through
the crypto exchange that Eli created.

So not only was it a
coin that had no value,

it couldn’t be traded
in any real way with

any other exchange to either create or grow
in value, because you couldn’t trade it.

So you could, and he
called it the kingdom

wealth exchange as
American pastors and these

like mega churches and
stuff and they’re always

like, it’s almost a joke
to me because I live so

far outside of that culture.

But it’s just, I see it and I’m
like, it’s not real, it’s not real.

If you said, hey, I have
the kingdom wealth

exchange with a coin
made by a pastor and you

can only trade it on
the kingdom wealth

exchange and you can’t
trade it anywhere else.

I’d be like, look, I’ve been scam
before, but this seems like a real scam.

He shut the exchange
down last year and in

his defense, he said it
was God’s idea, maybe

he misinterpreted what
God said, which would

imply that God is not a
very good communicator.

Because, okay, I was
thinking about the times

God in the stories I
know, because it’s very

shallow knowledge of a
relationship, let’s be honest.

The times God has communicated with people,
so the most famous one to me is Noah.

He took this guy.

He’s like, hey, no, buddy,
I want you to build a boat

and I was like, dude, I don’t
know how to build a boat.

He’s like, oh, God, you’ll build a boat.

It’ll be fine.

I want you, when you
build the boat, this animal’s

going to come, they’re
all going to get on board.

It’s going to have to be super big.

He’s like, dude, I can’t do that.

He’s like, dude, you can’t do it.

And then Noah built a
boat and the boat was

big enough to house
all the animals and then

the flood happened and all those
animals repopulated the earth.

I mean, it worked out.

I don’t even know if Noah was a carpenter.

If he was a boat builder,
if you knew anything

about it, but through
God, God communicated

enough to him to build
this boat, apparently

God’s communication
skills have dropped since

then, or maybe just cryptocurrency is too
complicated for God to really get his head around.

That’s actually certainly
maybe the other issue.

I think the interesting
bit here is that God

sends you a message
and you didn’t understand

or interpret the message
properly, throws up

a lot of questions about God that
maybe you don’t want answered.

In October of 2021,
God brought this crypto

idea to me and he said, take this
to my people for a wealth transfer.

God wants a wealth transfer.

Now, again, God being God, I never
thought God would be that into money.

I never thought that
money would be kind of

the focus of God, but
there is like all these

wealth churches now
and where they’re like, if

you give us money, you’ll
get blessings in return.

That’s not a new thing.

That’s actually been around.

You could buy forgiveness
at some point and had a name.

Again, I don’t know.

I need one of my friends who actually knows
religion on here to actually like shout in the back.

This would be really cool.

I sit here and I make
vaguely incorrect

statements because I don’t
really know what I’m talking about.

And then I have
someone, an expert in the

back who just shouts the
correct answer over my shoulder.

Would actually be
a really good show.

I’d really enjoy that.

I’d have to end up with like a
panel of experts of different things.

So everything I talk
about, they’re just

like different people are
shouting at me from the back.

Anyways, so God wanted
this for a wealth transfer.

I want you to build this.

Now, the thing is, that’s
actually pretty clear.

God said, build a cryptocurrency, build
an exchange and create a wealth transfer.

Indulgence says, that’s not it.

It does.

Jade, man.

You’re awesome.

Paying for forgiveness is indulgences, yes.

I will never remember the actual terms.

Thank you.

The thing that is, okay.

So if you look at this statement,
God said to me, create a

cryptocurrency, take this to the
people, create a wealth transfer.

That’s actually really clear.

So God’s communication on
this, there’s not a lot lacking in it.

He successfully built an exchange.

He successfully built a cryptocurrency.

He’s actually very hard
things to do anyway.

And then he did it and then it collapsed.

And so they made me think that
maybe God wanted you to go to prison.

This was God’s
roundabout way of putting

you in prison because
you’re a bad person or

to punish you in this
life or something like that.

There’s always the secondary
part when this stuff falls apart.

And these people said
that God told me to do

this, they’re not taking
into account, maybe

God wants you to fail
in this to learn a lesson.

Maybe God wants
you to go to jail, maybe

there’s a third one, I’m not
going to say until the very end.

So Eli said to God, I
do want the explanation.

So the pastor, I’m going
to assume is praying.

And that’s when God’s voice comes to
him and he says to God in his prayers.

Is it a voice?

Is it a feeling?

To know, because when if I say, if I’m
laying in bed, let’s say, if I’m laying in

bed and I hear, do I
hear a voice that says,

hey, make chunk coin,
make beef bucks, and

then create the chunk, exchange, is
that God or is that just me having an idea?

I do, like I want to
know a more perception

oriented version of what
happens when they hear

the voice of God, because these
pastors and stuff do hear the voice of God.

So they claim, what is that like?

Just give me an
explanation of that because

then I’ll know if God’s
talking to me because

I actually, a lot of times, I’m like,
did I have that really messed up idea?

Because I have had the
idea of killing my own son.

It’s pretty dark, but I didn’t
because I didn’t believe the voices.

So I said, Lord, I don’t want to do this.

I don’t know how to do this God is
giving you hard times to forge you for him.

Just like stealing the
fire, if times never got hard,

if things never get hot,
how can you get stronger?

Oh, God is giving you
hard times to forge you

for, Eli said God is in the business
of doing new things and breaking seals.

Is he, I mean, that’s
actually another thing

that he’s using business terms
to describe God’s actions now.

So anyways, he got to $3.2
million dumped into this exchange.

He claimed a malfunction and he
exchanged closed the whole thing.

So it wasn’t that he did something wrong.

It’s not that he
just like drained it all

of the money and kept
all the money himself.

There was a malfunction and that closed it.

He did actually admit, and I think
I’m going to be able to find the video.

I have a couple of videos saved.

I’ll cut those in here.

He said, yeah, I took a bunch of the money.

I took one point, oh,
wait, wait, one point three

million dollars was
used for personal benefit.

That’s what the IRS says.

The charges are that
Caitlin and I pocketed

$1.3 million dollars and I just want to come
out and say that those charges are true.

He took out it as work
and sold a cryptocurrency

with no clearings or that
cryptocurrency turned out to be a scam.

And so the Lord says,
give that to him, but

also give them a 10x and I’m like, well,
where’s this liquidity to get a come from?

And the Lord says, trust me,
a $500,000 went to the IRS.

He renovated his house
because God said, take

the wealth exchange
and put it into your house,

put it into your assets
because that’s important.

God said, you know,
redo the bedroom, buddy,

where the action
happens, where you make

more babies to glorify me.

He bought a Range Rover.

So God said, buy one
of the worst rated cars

on the road because God
doesn’t care about safety.

Range Rover has
a good reputation.

That’s from decades back.

The current Range Rovers that come
out now, absolutely pieces of garbage.

You’re buying them for the status symbol.

Sure, God in this
situation seems to be all

about status symbols,
not about actually taking

care of people because
if you wanted to take

care of someone and
you wanted to spend an

expensive car, you
get a Mercedes like it’s

as much higher safety rating
on Mercedes than a Range Rover.

Just keep that in mind.

God might be trying to kill this guy.

God said, you know, take some of the money
and buy handbags and jewelry because what

glorifies your wife, glorifies me,
no, I might be getting good at this.

If I keep this going, I might start my own
little cult because we’re calling it beef nation.

We’ve decided that we’re
going to go a fan of the

chunk we’ve you just
in any format is a chunk.

And so I got to I didn’t do it.

I got to start going.

What up beef nation?

Hello, all you little
chunks out there, like

and subscribe, a set
of phrases I’ve never

used before, but I mean,
if I can put them into

practice, if I can make
that sound natural,

I think this is the cusp of my fame
when I say, what up beef nation?

Some money was put into
boat rentals, I’m leaving.

Whoa, I hit the keyboard and
the the transition went off to that.

That would be awesome
if I said, what up beef

nation and then just know
whatever, download it again.

Because I measure this
off podcast downloads.

I don’t look at I YouTube, I
get like maybe six, 10 views.

I know it’s not really that’s not
really why I used to doing this.

There’s a couple other like video websites,
I get like 20, 30 views or whatever.

This is a audio podcast first.

If the week after I said
what up beef nation,

no one ever downloaded
again, all the message

would have been very clear, God misinformed
me of what I was supposed to do.

So some of the money went to boat
rentals smart enough not to buy a boat.

God was saying boats are bad investments.

They’re money saying
don’t buy a boat rent a boat.

At least in this one case, God was right.

God was saying you
don’t want to buy a boat.

You just want to rent a boat.

It is a way better deal.

And then the final
one, which I loved the

most for some reason,
God said, you know what

you need, you need a
snowmobile adventure.

I would love when Noah
again, the only really

direct form of communication I can
remember from the Bible in any real way.

Noah, he’s like build a boat.

This is going to be
like incredibly difficult

for you because we’re
talking about a massive

boat, you know, 10 stories high, no qubits
or whatever it was is going to take so much

of your life and energy, your family and
everyone’s going to think you’re crazy.

You got to do this.

And then with this guy with Eli, he’s
like Eli, man, snowmobile adventure.

That’s what you need.

That’s going to glorify me.

That’s going to save the
earth if you have a snowmobile

adventure and then bring
that back to your congregation.

So I came to three
conclusions or three possibilities.

God is giving you bad
advice, but being God,

he’s giving you bad
advice on purpose so

that your life gets fucked up.

The second one, which I would actually kind
of hope to be the real one is God is just

fucking with you because
God doesn’t like Eli.

But what a way to
figure that out is that, oh

shit, God’s just fucking with me
because he’s enlightened me very much.

Or and the last one I wanted
to save is the big finale.

Maybe you’re not actually hearing God.