Speaker 1: Smart Plan, big savings when you switch to three Get
iPhone sixteen E at no upfront cost. Now from just
forty euro per month hurry after and soon from forty
euro a month for twenty four months forty seven you're
a month thereafter. Annual price increase of three euro and
direct debit apply on three select essentials five G plan
see three dot Ie.
Speaker 2: On the go, NonStop gym sessions, deadlines, homework with Avonmore, soups, comforting,
flavorful taste, it all just hmmmm with a range of
different flavors. We've been perfecting soup for over thirty years
so you can have a moment of delicious pleasure. So
whatever it is, soup it with Avonmore.
Speaker 3: Meaning life. Man, I like this man letting butterfly Latin
in wave big then in force. Man, you gonna cause
a threefold letting fat a mild away man, Nobody see
nobody see you know need knowing man story and you
got back to protect that. Go back to Dagon panel.
Speaker 4: All right, Cee Jangle, Welcome back to Jay Burdensto. How
are you doing that?
Speaker 5: I'm doing good. Thanks for having me.
Speaker 4: Yeah, man, I'm glad to have you back. On glad
to actually have a conversation face to face. So I
figured this will be a more topical, more news related
show than normal. But there are two big stories with
a connecting line that I want to cover. The first, obviously,
is now Abigail Spanberger is the governor of my home
state of Virginia. And as the kids say, the Democrats
are going hard in the paint right there, doing all
the sort of things that we were assured moderate Democrats
never do as regards to the Second Amendment, abortion of
anti white discrimination. And that's one part of it. Another
one is this anti Christian protest in Minneapolis. Right. There's
a pastor, there's an official at the church who may
or may not be connected to ICE, and so Don
Lemon and a number of other you know, kind of
radical left activists storm the church, right. And the through
line is basically, this is what happens when you lose
the idea that this is some sort of contest between
gentlemen that the GOP can sync back into politics as
it were, is plainly, completely and totally absurd, right, This
is not how it works. So just a little bit
of context there, because people do listen to these well
after the fact, and so I wanted to provide sort
of a primer there. But CJ, I'm curious, what are
your thoughts on both of these incidents and what do
you think that we should learn from them.
Speaker 5: Well, I think there's a couple of different layers here. One.
I think that there's this tendency in politics to think
that like, once we get through this little hurdle, these
are very bad people, we can let them out and
then things can go back to normal. And people don't
understand that history has a tragic sense to it, and
there are moments in history. I mean, as Lennon said,
there are weeks where decades happened, and we're kind of
in one of those historic world historic moments, and the
stakes are so high that both sides kind of know
that if they lose, the other side is going to
take it all the way. The problem is is that
the GOP classic GOP, going back a very long time,
half a century or more, they've always approached the issue like, well,
we're going to take the path, We're gonna take the
high path, we're going to do the high road, and
we're not going to do what is necessary to defeat
the enemy. Because the Democrats are not our enemy. They're
actually just on another side of the aisle. But we're
all one people. That's kind of the way they approach it.
Historic Democrats have generally, i mean, this isn't this hasn't
always been the way that Democrats are. Right, So, like
after the war, both sides were kind of right there
in the middle. They were working hard to make sure
that the radical factions to the GOP's right and to
the Democrats left never really got into power. So we
talk about things like you know, Bill Buckley, and his
role was to sort of make sure that those on
the extreme fringes of the right didn't actually have any
influence on the conservative movement. So he did his job
very well. Actually, you know, people call him a failure,
but actually his job was to keep the extreme right
from accessing, you know, the organs of narrative formation and
of political power itself, and he was very successful, and
in fact, he was more successful than the Democrats were.
They had their own people that were there to keep
the radical left out and they failed. So Buckley actually
did better. And so all of this what we see
now is the Democrats have been much more infiltrated by
the their own radicals, whereas the GOP hasn't actually been
infiltrated very well at all with right wing radicals. They've
actually the GOP establishment has done a much better job
at holding the fort down and staying true to their
liberal ideals. The problem is that now we're in a
situation where we have these the conservative side of the
post war consensus is going to war with an increasingly
radicalized left, and the radicalized left wants blood, and the
conservative post war establishment wants to return to the nineteen
seventies and nineteen eighties, and in that fight, it's obvious
who's going to win. What you see in Virginia is
the fruition of that these people are ready for blood,
and the GOP still doesn't get it. And so what
you're seeing is this realization among the Democrats that the
American people are pissed off. They are done with democracy,
they are done with constitutional principles which have always been
you against them, always been used against initiatives that can
be leveraged in order to take back their country, take
back their heritage, and so they're done with it. They're like, look,
if we're gonna lose any ways, if we're gonna lose
our country anyways, we might as well go all the way.
The problem is is that all of the people in
power that nominally represent them, they do not see things
that way at all. And so that's what's happening. The
Democrats understand that the stakes are so high. The American
people want blood, and they know that if this younger generation,
you know, twenties and thirty year old, if they get
any any if they get any closer to power, their
days are numbered. And the you know, their their liberal
hegemony is days are numbered as well, and so that's
part of the problem. They have to make sure that,
you know, can right wingers never get close to power,
and that's what they're prepared to do, and they don't.
They're not really going to face any opposition because, as
you said, especially state level geopeers are incredibly pathetic, and
so they're not prepared to do anything. And so, you know,
just kind of casting out what would happen if the
reply and look, I'm not a Republican advocate or partisan,
like I don't really care that much for the GOP. However,
you know, a GOP winning in twenty six and twenty
eight continues to buy us time, and that's what we
need is time to organize, time to form the ranks,
time to build up the courage to actually fight back,
because the present establishment, the old guard that still exists
in Washington and the Conservative movement is completely unprepared for
what's coming down the pipeline. So when I say the
GOP needs to win, it's not because I care all
that much for the GOP. It's because I recognize the
Democrats are much more radicalized than the GOP and just
having the inability of power to kind of, you know,
work in lockstep with itself in order to push us
away and basically decimate us, that's what we need. We
need that time, and the Democrats know that the Democrats
do not want us to have that time, and so
therefore they will do whatever it takes to get into power.
And once they have that power, they will seek to
crush their enemy for all time, which is the complete
opposite perspective that the GOP has.
Speaker 4: Well, certainly, this reminds me of something that my friend
Peter Brimolo said in his appearance on Tucker, which is
quite good. If you haven't listened to it, listener, you should,
because one of the things that he talks about is
that there are these sort of implicit communities. When he
used the example of NASCAR for example, he's like, no
one at NASCAR wants to be a sport associated with
the white working claves. They've tried to distance themselves from
that fan base, and yet nonetheless that is the association.
And somewhat similarly, the GOP is the Party of Americans, right,
people who are actually from here, who don't have anywhere
else to go, who are religious. And so I share
your feelings. I don't particularly like the party at all, really,
but it's really the only game we got, at least,
you know, as the state of play stands. And so
when you see this sort of limpristed behavior, right, you
see this sort of unwillingness to do something that would
provoke any sort of negative reaction from your opponents, Well,
we've seen where that goes. We see the consequences. Obviously.
I had, you know, our mutual friend and a risk
Aron not too long ago to discuss the broader situation
in Minnesota, and that was a common note in his
comments as well. The Minnesota GOP is by and large
completely useless, right, unwilling to view politics as it is currently,
which is sad to say, an existential struggle, right, I
don't like that. I don't wish that were the case.
But fundamentally pretending as if we are in this era
of good feelings, obviously referring to a different era, but
we'll keep it just as a conversation piece. It doesn't
make it true, right, Just by pretending it doesn't make
it happen. Conservatives are more than willing to point this
out when it comes to transsexuals or others, and so
to me, it's incredibly baffling, especially because as we've seen
in Virginia, as we've seen in Minnesota, or even on
places like Blue Sky, the consequences are quite clear. Your
way of life will be made illegal, it will be
impossible to live as you want to, or in the
case of prominent politicians, you'll go to jail, or you'll
go to the Hague. Right, they will ruin your life.
We saw this happen, or at least a solid attempt
at it, between the first and second Trump presidency, and
so I'm curious you'd think, even just cynically, that these
people would act out of self preservation. Why do you
think that conservative leaders for whatever that term is construed
to mean. Are not aware of this danger to them,
if not to their.
Speaker 5: Voters, because they don't operate with you know, a classical
political mind. They operate much more with a with with
with like a series of narcissism where they can get
payoffs and payouts and and and financial benefits. And it's
basically like a big party to them. You know, it's
all it's all a club. I mean, that's that's like
classic like Republican donor level dynamics. Is it's all a
big club where you can I mean, this is this
is why all they care about is like business, because
the GOP exists basically to represent uh economic interests, and
so that's what they care about. They they're not thinking
in terms of politics. Classical politics was which is the
class a friend and enemy along existential lines. And so
they they have been there. They're just so absorbed in
the corruption of like a narcissistic style of capitalism or
whatever you want to call it, that they've politics to
them actually is something of the past. And so and
so I would say that the Democrat have much better
political minds. They're much more you know, for all of
their ideals or whatever. They're much better at recognizing the realistic,
the realism of politics. I'll say this too. You know,
we talked like I see this all the time on
Twitter and it drives me crazy. So I'm going to
take the opportunity to to push back on it. But
like I always see from the like the maga, the
paid maggot influencers that like they'll show a picture of
some like Islamic gathering in Dearborn or in Texas or
in New York or other places like that, and they'll say,
like it's over, It's Michigan is lost forever. You know,
they've you know, they've they've won. It's it's lost. And
like they keep saying these things. And now Virginia is
going through these this own you know, series of of
like really intense radical legal initiatives to show up their
own power in Virginia, and so these same maggot influencers
are saying Virginia's cooked, it's over.
Speaker 6: It's like at KFC, where are doing a deal on
our mini Philates, ten Mini Phillips for just twelve year
of fifty that's sure to fill you up, like I'm
filling this time up. Just stretchchate ice, how'd your fill? Okay,
I'll go, but make sure you have your philiphilates. Grab
a book up before the dealers up on fabbe fultecencs
at KFC dot ie okay, bye bye bye bye bye
bye bye bye.
Speaker 5: They're they're they themselves, these MAGA influences are they're not
thinking politically, they're thinking within the bounds of liberal democracy.
And since these these places are basically utilizing soft power
to shore up their own hegemony in all of these places,
the MAGA influencers are still operating on a post war paradigm,
and so they can't see that politics actually can return
and you actually can defeat these things because these are
actually incredibly weak people. What they're utilizing is increasingly depleted
political structures, and so you can defeat them. You just
can't defeat them within the paradigm of electoral democracy. And
that's what people have to that's what the right wing
has to understand. The problem is is that the radicalized
right is so far to the right of the GOP
establishment that we have nobody willing to actually wield power
in an effective way. But places like Virginia and Dearport
and dearborn in Texas. They could be crushed by you know,
by power overnight if they really wanted to. I mean,
you see this all throughout the twentieth century in Europe
in extraordinary situations. You know, power can do extraordinary things,
and so we shouldn't We shouldn't approach it like it's
lost forever. But what we need to realize is that
politics is returning. Politics has returned that we need to
operate on a friend enemy paradigm, and the GOP is
basically like a temporary ally that we can use for
our benefit, to buy us time to push our agenda,
little bits here and there, But ultimately we have to
we have to see this through and we have to
put an end to this. You know, post war liberalism
is killing us and it's not sustainable.
Speaker 4: Well CJ. That sounds very woke, right of you. How
dare you look at the people who have won every
major political conflict domestically in the last eight years and
try to learn from that. You should be running the
same playbook that the losers have. Of course, I'm slightly joking,
of course, but what is your retort to those who say,
you know, even worse than losing is becoming like the
woke left. What do you say in response to that?
Speaker 5: I think American history is full of heroes who took
extraordinary measures in extraordinary times. I mean, the entire American
Revolution was illegal. It was completely against Like you're not
allowed as a colony to you know, declare war on
and rebel against the British Empire. That's that's against the law. Right,
So like our own our own American spirit is full
of heroes and people who declared the state of the exception.
George Washington and all the other rebels declared the state
of exception. Andrew Jackson basically did the same thing in
numerous ways. And so like the idea that this is somehow,
this like eternal law, that we have to adhere to
these principles even when they've exploited against us, is something
that I think is ridiculous and suicidal. But also I
think if they want to claim that what we're doing
is where we are, if by woke right they mean
that we are challenging the established hegemony of liberal democracy,
then okay, you can call me whatever you want. I
don't It doesn't really bother me to be called I've
been called worse names, right, Like, that's that's the answer,
is we've been called worse names. I mean, Eisenhower deported
you know, a million illegals, and in people today called
Trump like literally Hitler for deporting what to hundred and
fifty thousand people. So like, it doesn't these words can't
affect us anymore if they want to call us woke, right,
and all that means is that we've abandoned liberal democracy. Okay,
that's fine, you know, so we can't get caught up
in these in these labels that are are shot at
as those that's loser think actually and loser think gets
all caught up in perception. They care what the enemy
thinks of them, and they want to be perceived as
better in the light of those who want them dead.
And that's that's a recipe for political disaster and also
you know, civilizational disaster. You know, not even just you know,
political disaster in electoral terms, but also civilizational disaster. These
people very clearly want our way of life liquidated, and
they want to see us banish from the face of
the earth. And that's the stake not looking.
Speaker 4: Bad well, and you see that very much with the
inability of Republicans in power to make any meaningful changes.
It was sort of telling, right. I think it was
Youngkin's one of his last comments right the day before
he transferred power was you know, what was your biggest
regret in office? And he had this sort of globe
comment like, oh, I'm sad we couldn't get the sports
team a new stadium in my state of Virginia. And
I thought it was very telling because it's like, well, look, man,
like you came within two thousand votes of completely and
totally carrying the state. It was very narrow. You could
have had a trifecta. And okay, so that indicates that
at least four years ago this was in play. I
understand you have the whole Loud County scandal which was
a part of that, But what did you do in
your time and power? Okay, you made the DMV work better.
I appreciate that, but there was really no desire to
expand your power. There was no desire to make that
state more like how your voters want to be. Everything
was simply put on pause. We imported hundreds of thousands
of new guests, if you will, and roundly defeated complete
and total destruction and you see that, and a large
part of it is because he did try to make
very tepid reforms to education and a few other things.
And as soon as he was yelled at, as soon
as they said, oh you know, you're just like Trump,
You're just like Orange Man. Oh nope, we're not doing
that anymore. I need to go back to my big
business corporate consulting job. That the one interest group that
did quite well under him. And look, you know, I'm
a little bit salty about this because my life is
likely going to be not so much fun for the
next little bit. And okay, fair enough, But that same
pattern you see over and over again that very very
few Republicans, the Indiana GOP is another example, are willing
to play politics, are willing to recognize that this is
is existential, as you've said, And so given that the
frustration is understanding is understandable. Rather because you made a
generational point, and it's one that I've identified as well. Obviously,
you have the big ticket issues that are sort of
signifiers of other things, you know, immigration, the state of Israel,
racial representations, shall we say that, are you know, signifiers
of a broader generational change. But to me, I'm genuinely
curious what becomes of the red state Republican because they're
older right there. There are not a lot of guys
in there, you know, even in gen X who I
would consider in that kind of classic you know, Indian
a Republican mold. But from what I see, the base
is incredibly radical. And you see this with I had
Mark Mitchell from resmusin on not too long ago, and
he was talking about this, that there's this shocking divide
on Republicans or concern it is rather plus or minus forty,
where the under forty crowd is basically as you said,
they want to see blood. They don't really care how
it happens, but they want you know, Judge Bosberg in particular,
but you know you can extend that to other figures.
They want his head on a metaphorical pike, like yeah,
charge him, throw them in jail, whatever, We don't care.
And I think that the goal of the Democrats, as
far as I see it, is effectively to pull so
many people into the country that politics doesn't exist anymore.
They can become a one party state. And to me,
I don't think there's really any getting away from politics.
So I'm curious, you know, what do you see the
future looking like, you know, if you have this increasing
gap between the political class and you know, a radicalizing base,
particularly of young white guys.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I am so. I've actually one theme that is
constantly debated on the right is whether the solution is
going to come from more regional initiatives where people kind
of shore up their power and surround themselves with allied
people in the face of a national trend that's seeking
to disenfranchise them, or whether it's going to have to
come from the center and all political power initiative is
going to have to be absorbed into something at the
at the national level. And for most of my you know,
political career is the wrong word, but like for you know,
most of the time that I've been commenting and thinking
about this stuff, I've actually taken the more decentralized approach.
And I think a lot of others are you take
on the same but I've actually shifted gears. I don't
think that's possible anymore because of technology and because of
the sheer civilizational volume of what's happening in terms of
you know, the import the you know, importing of migrants
from the Third World and all of that stuff. I
actually think it's going to have to come from the center,
and it's going to have to be you know, we're
going to have to transform from a like republican name
only to a formal empire, and that's the only way
we're going to get out of this. So I actually
have much more of a centralizing approach to this, and
so I think that basically state level and county level,
you know, all of those, all of those things are
going to basically have to be you know, held in
check by some sort of power figure at the top.
I don't think that there's any other way out because
I don't think that any attempt to regionally disassociate from
the halls of power is going to be possible. I
don't think that any attempt at the top too is
going to let them get away with any like dissent
or secession or nullification or any of those outdated concepts.
And I think that tech is actually becoming much more
of a centralizing force than people may have previously anticipate.
I think we're going to have to go through a
period of increased centralization. I think there's going to be
a multipolarity to world affairs. I really think that things
are going to be divided up, like with the powers
in Asia, and you know, the America is going to
have to kind of be all under one you know,
under one head, not not necessarily formally, but it's going
to have like we're going to have to be a
power player or nothing. I think that's the only way
out is to have those things. So to answer your
question specifically, I think the answer is going to come
from I've actually been talking about this for a while,
but I think the influence of Congress over the next
ten to twenty years is actually going to become less
and less important. And you can see this in the
initiatives that the Trump administration has taken in Greenland, in Venezuela.
They're talking about Cuba and other places like that, where
they're basically seizing assets and they're selling them on the
market and they've basically acute eimulated for themselves tens of
billions of dollars that they control. The Trump administration, the
executive state, is taking control of these resources. Well, what
does that mean. It means it doesn't need to go
to the American people, It doesn't need to go to
Congress for money. You know, if it seizes those assets
and sells them, they don't need Congress Congress's permission to
fund their initiatives. And so what's happening is Congress is
going to increase their petty squabbles. They're going to continue
to be sort of a basically like a clown show
that has no impact on power, and there's going to
be extraordinary existential political situations that the executive state is
going to have to act upon. It's going to have
its own budget, it's going to have its own infrastructure.
I mean, think about ice. You know, the Trump administration
basically has this army of people that are in the
middle of being trained. They have all of these contracts
for all types of different infrastructure and other equipment and
mechanisms that they now have, and they have a bigger
budget than the Marines. They've already been fully funded, and
they have extra funding that's basically at the discretion of
the executive branch. And so I think what's going to
happen is this is going to be an executive led nation,
and that executive led nation is going to take on
the characteristics of empire. An empire has to continue to
grow or it dies. And so I think that's kind
of the inevitable trend of the second quarter of the
twenty first century. And so all the little squabbling at
the state level, all the GOP conservatives that are too
passive and too paralyzed to take any actual political action,
it's not going to matter anyway, because all the power
is going to be in the executive branch. And I
think that's inevitable.
Speaker 4: Well, and you mentioned earlier the kind of weak and
ineffectual nature of these leaders on the political left, and
to me, it very much reminds me of Machiavelli's distinction
between boxes and lions. It might not be Machiavelli, My
citation on any Italian elite theorist sort of runs together
and Italian said this, but he made the distinction again
between foxes and lions. Right, the lion is sort of
the dictatorial figure, the man who rules by strength, whereas
the fox is a manager right to someone who is
competent with soft power. And to be honest, we have
been in an era of foxes. There is a cyclical
nature to this, you know, the foxes create a sort
of Gordian knot. Right, this impossible problem with managers crawling
all over it until a strong man comes up with
the sword, cuts it in half, right, solves the intractable
issue on the other end. And we're probably quite a
long time from this sort of cycle. But you know,
a lion regime, if you will, becomes ossified, becomes stultified.
You can think of the you know, the French monarchy
right before the revolution, you know, kind of overbound. It
wasn't alive anymore. And so look again, there is a
cyclical nature to this. But to me, as far as
I'm aware, that's the only way to get out of it.
There must be a man, a guy. And similarly, one
of the other things that's come up in both Minnesota
and soon to be in Virginia is how much of
our enemies are mercenaries. They're bribed, they get paid to
do what they do. And we understand, of course from
Mochy Velly, the dangers of mercenaries. They are at the
risk of being tautological mercenary. You know, they're there for
the money, they're there for the gibbs, and when those
gibs dry up, or when there's a chance of real consequences,
when there's a chance of you know, actually having to,
you know, to face defeat. They tend to cut their losses,
live to fight another day, live to collect another paycheck.
And I think another aspect of this, And you know,
I've been very vocal about my criticisms of the Trump administration,
so you know, don't take this to be you know
me again, as the kids say, glazed him. But Trump
is showing us something different from politics, which is personal loyalty, right,
not loyalty to an institution, the GOP or whatever, but
loyalty to a man. Right. I like that guy because
he does X y Z for me. And you said earlier, right,
you were talking about the return of politics. That's another
part of it. That personal loyalty is a much stronger bond,
even if it is wasted, even if it is not
exploited to the degree that it could be. Then these
sort of mercenary impulses. Now, look, it's always a little both, right,
Like the Legion is chanting Caesar because they love Caesar,
but also because you know, you enslave and or kill
two million goals and everyone gets paid.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 4: So I'm not trying to say it's in either or,
but I think in my mind, I think that that
is very much the way of things, right, that this
sort of institutional loyalty is very much an aberration in
human affairs. And I think it depended on a broad
conception that the system worked, a broad conception that these
institutions had our respect and were legitimate. But as you've said, really,
I mean for my entire life, but increasingly through the
Biden years, and now that institutional cache has been spent,
there's very little left in the piggybank, so to speak.
And so if that is the source of your legitimacy,
if that's the source of your kind of cachet or
simply bribery, I don't necessarily know how that lasts when situation,
when the situation deteriorates, when things get actually difficult, when
politics becomes actually nasty. I realize I've thrown a bunch
of you there, CJ. But I'll let you react.
Speaker 5: Yeah. One thing that stood out to me was just
the idea of the personality that can kind of capture
the imaginationation and the loyalty of the people or whoever.
And I think, I think what happens in the cycle
of history is that personality becomes you know, part of
part of a like a like a founding momentum for
a people, and so eventually that can ossify into allegiance
to a system or a nation or something metaphysical. But
it starts with a personality. And in a situation when
things have become so paralyzed and corrupted and ossified, that's
when the personality needs to return. So this is kind
of like a Thomas Carlyle point is, Uh, these these
types of cycles come and go, and so you don't
always need to have the personality there. But the purpose
of the personality is to reignite the engine, so to speak.
So like the people in England, you know, were once
loyal to King Alfred, and they were you know, he
was their champion, he was their hero. He was sort
of the founding figure of the English people, you know
in some ways. And I know history is complex, but
he's an example of one of these types of personalities.
And then you know, history isn't full of a constant
flow of these types of personalities. And so he leaves
the person the hero leaves his mark on history, and
the systems begin to operate in his name, and they
try to operate in accordance with his vision, and that
dissipates over time, and it usually, you know, it could
last decades, it could last centuries. In the English situation,
it lasted you know, a thousand years or more. And
so that was a that was a blessing that even
like Anglo Americans had in their context, is they were
able to you know, like a lot of people don't notice,
but the entire ethos of the American founding was based
on their appreciation for their own English heritage. But that
English heritage was founded, you know, by personalities. But the
system became corrupted, and so you have figures like George
Washington that can reignite it and they can help them
reinvigorate that spirit. And so you need heroes as well.
And heroes are the ones that you know, that break
back into history and reassert the dominance and the importance
of politics and the reality of politics. Andrew Jackson was
another figure like this. And so from time to time
you have these when the system becomes so corrupted and
ossify that nothing's actually functioning appropriately, you need that person
to come back in and remind people that they are loyalty,
that their loyalty to flesh and blood is more paramount
than their loyalty to systems. And I think Donald Trump
sort of quasi anticipated that type of figure, that type
of historic figure. I don't know if he is a
man of history. It doesn't appear so, but you need
someone like that. But he's definitely reawakening our imaginations and
reminding us that better things are possible, that we don't
have to accept the way things have been for the
last half century, that our grand children don't have to
suffer under that. And so these things, these examples that
we're giving in Minnesota, in Virginia and else in Texas
and elsewhere in the United States, are actually good because
it's reminding people that there that there are more important
priorities than just elections and the democratic mechanisms and all
of these things that we've been taught to be loyal to. Well, actually,
we shouldn't just be loyalty to loyal to systems. We
should only be loyal systems when they reflect the personality
and the heroic contributions of a founding figure.
Speaker 4: Well, and I mean, you could even look at you know,
f FDR in that light. And obviously his project didn't
last as long, but we are still very much in
the crumbling remains of the house he built. The way
our government government works was sort of decided by FDR.
And it's funny I was sort of you know, joking,
of course about the whole woke right brigade. I have
you know, written and spoken about them at length because
I think there's sort of an interesting fracture happening in
the conservative movement, sort of analogous to again the Buckley
Heighte purges of yesteryear. But it is always interesting to
me that these these conservatives are really the only ones
who still believe in that system anymore, who still believe
in you know, the politics of kind of FDR at all,
you know, all of that system in which you know,
the American Empire and its form was sort of created.
Just an interesting uh side there on your your broader
point about you know, centralization versus these kind of splinter movements.
And maybe this is you know, typical of you know,
my age or demographic, but generally I'm at the sort
of point where I actually don't really care what we
do that fixes this. Like, to be perfectly honest, I
think that many people who or you know, like myself,
perhaps less politically well educated, are are sort of feeling
at a loss, right, sort of feeling as if like, well,
whatever it is, make this go away, make this stop.
And I wonder almost if and you see this, I
think in the kind of you know, post liberal crowd
as well as if there is sort of a conscious
rejection or unconscious whichever one, rejection of ideology, right, rejecting
of some kind of totalizing system. I mean, honestly, you
saw the same thing happen to the libertarian sphere. You know,
there are a great number of post libertarians, and so
I'm curious, do you think that you know, ideology is
going away at least in an explicit form, or do
you think that this is sort of a function of
human organization.
Speaker 5: Yeah, so I think that ideology adapts to real world needs,
and so ideology is always important because you need something
that can be communicated and you know, motiva, your brothers.
And I think that ideology is something that humans, you know,
grasp onto and articulate in the service of their actual needs.
And so I don't know if I would say that
ideology is going away, but I would say that an
ideology that is unconnected to the real world needs and
identity of a people is in the long run dissipates,
and so I think that what's going to happen is
the right wing is going to adopt for itself an
ideology that justifies their own needs. It's going to justify
their own actions. It's going to justify the things that
need to be done in order to preserve their way
of life, or not even preserve, but recapture reinstate their
way of life. Ideology is going to come into the equation.
I mean, you see this in figures like Muldbug and
Nick Land and you know pek Q and just you know,
the two of us, Like, we are constantly talking about ideas,
and ideology needs to be adjusted, constantly adjusting to the
needs of our people. And so ideology, I think it
gets a bad rap among conservatives, and I think that
there's a case to be made for not idolizing ideology
and not making it the like the the kind of
like the fixed star that we can't move from. But
I also think that we need to you know, develop
and continue to develop our own ideology, which which needs
to be in flux in accordance with where we're at,
the characteristics of our enemy. The tools that we have
at our disposal, the mechanisms and systems that are being
waged and wielded against us. All these things go into
the making of an ideology that can justify and sanction
our political activity. So our ideology is actually brilliant right now.
It's it's it's infused with lessons from the past. It's
infused with Carl Schmidt and De Maestra, even Aristotle, it's
infused with you know, John Calhoun, It's infused with you know,
all kinds of thinkers from Europe in the twentieth century,
from America in the nineteenth century, from the classical age.
We have these things that we can use at our disposal,
so we don't have to create it excellent helo like
from scratch. We don't have to create our own ideology
from scratch. But we can use and leverage ideological tools
from our own heritage and deploy them for our current
situation in order to get what we need out of them.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I'm curious. I think that your description is quite
accurate there. One of the things that I've been watching
and someone interested in is the attempted sort of reconstitution
of the neo cons One of the things that I've
been talking about for weeks now, is that there seems
to be a deliberate sort of attack line right that
runs something like, you have this dangerous woke right. They've
already gotten to your kids. Cut your kids out, whether
that's literal or at a place like Heritage Right. Get
rid of the young staffers, but also get rid of
figures like Okay, well one tes he's representative of that group.
He talked to Tucker, so get rid of him. Obviously
there's other things going on there, but the real end
goal of that attack seems to be JD.
Speaker 5: Vans.
Speaker 4: Over and over again, we see this connection made. You know,
you have figures like I'll shoot I can't have that,
Rod Dreer, others like Brilin Hollyhand who wrote an article
wrote an article about this. But point is, there seems
to be this desire to create this sort of string
of red thread linking the the woke right too JD. Vans,
coming from all of your favorites, all the old neokons
who are still kicking around. And so I'm curious, what
if any danger do you see coming from the neo
conservatives and why do they seem to be so focused
on JD.
Speaker 5: Vans Are you are you? Are you ask? Are you
saying that the neocons are very anti Vance? Is that
what you're saying? Yes?
Speaker 4: Yes, and are deliberately trying to tie him to this
woke right radical group in scare quotes wherever applicable.
Speaker 5: Of course, Yeah, I think that they're just like pissy
and desperate. I mean to be honest, like I think
I think Vance. And it's funny because I, you know,
I have I have somewhat mixed, you know, feelings about Vance.
I'm a very like I'm one of those guys that's
been you know, I recognize that we've been constantly betrayed
over and over again by people that are supposed to
save us. And but I do I am on the
somewhat pro Vance side. And the reason for that is
because I think that you know, people will point to
like other like like personal you know hang ups that
he that he might have that would like Jade, his
vision of what American needs, like financial connections that he
has to very powerful you know, spot like you know,
power players in the American economics system, you know, especially
in big tech and all of that big finance. But
what I would say is that a lot, so many
of us, millions of us, have gone through a massive transformation,
and a lot of us kind of were radicalized, so
to speak, after the two thousand and eight crisis, and
so we basically like dissented from establishment politics altogether. So
many of us were Ron Pollyan types, and so we
had that libertarian moment when we thought that the best
way to get rid of, you know, out of the
totalitarian characteristic of managerial democracy in America was to pursue
the libertarian pathways and to pursue private business and private
society and all of those mechanisms that could be used
as a shield to protect ourselves from power. And I
think people like JD. Vance connected with people like Peter
Teel and you know the guy who founded Twitter, I
forget his name. So like all those guys kind of
went down that path as well, each in their own way.
And for some of us, we've realized that that's actually
completely untenable. You can't confront power by you know, leaving
the system. That's you have to confront power with power.
And I think we've all gone through that transformation, and
I think JD. Vance and others in his circles have
also gone through that transformation, and maybe they're not quite
as radicalized as us. But I do know for a
fact that they have staffers and people in their ear
that are our guys. They work, they operate within our circles,
they talk to us, they're in our group chats. So
I think that the Neo con concern about Vance is
a result of their own ineptitude and their own recognition
that they're on the way out. They have no popularity anymore,
and that Vance and some of the people that he
operates with, including you know friends of mine, they they
actually are ideologically set on destroying the the residues of
neo conservative thinking in Washington, and so they're concerned that
a Vance rise represents the complete liquidation of everything that
they've contributed to the American political system since the nineteen nineties.
And I think that's true. I think that Vance does
represent that because Vance has connections to people on the
right wing that are much more resolute in their right
wingness compared to the people in Trump's circles. Trump is
opening a lot of doors, but the people that Vance
has on staff, including like Tucker Carlson's son, you know,
they're a lot more radicalized than Trump's staffers, except for
like maybe Stephen Miller or something. So I think that
advance does represent a very healthy trend. Now you could say, okay,
but he's got all these connections to very you know,
powerful people that don't have our best interests at heart. Well,
here's the thing. If you want to actually pay politics,
then you actually have to make compromises. You have to
actually deal with the reality of political structures and dynamics.
You can't pretend like you can have a political purity.
That's the libertarian dream, and it's stupid to create a
right wing version of it. If you want to be realists,
if you want to actually engage with the state in
the nature of political dynamics as they currently exist, then
you have to open the doors to these types of people.
Does that mean they're your allies forever? No, there's no
you know, there's no forever allies at all. But you
have to work with them. And politics is constantly flowing,
it's always in flux. Allies and enemies are changing hands
all the time, and there's no end to it. That's
the nature of political life. And so I think that
we have to make these with these deals with these
people temporarily to bias time, to build momentum, to create
a robust coalition, and to keep moving forward. And so
I do think that someone like Vance represents that for us,
and he is good for us, and that's why the
neo cons despise.
Speaker 4: Him slightly shipping gears. But you mentioned Stephen Miller, who
might be my favorite sort of super villain in training.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 4: You could just imagine him, you know, screaming like that
that famous scene from you know, the movie about Hitler
and the fear of Unker, just demanding Trump to you know,
machine gun six thousand protesters or whatever. But nonetheless, this
does bring up, of course, the question of Minneapolis, right,
both the challenges to federal authority coming from their local
politicians as well as you know, the anti ice riots. Uh,
this is sort of a layup, right, But why does
this matter, right, more than just the number of people
being deported? Why is the Trump administration pushing so hard
on this issue?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 4: Why does it Why is it important?
Speaker 5: Why are they pushing so hard on the deportation.
Speaker 4: Issue, specifically with regards to Minnesota.
Speaker 5: Well, I think that they, I think that they recognize
that the nature of what's happening with what I call
replacement migration is it's extremely coordinated and organized, and so
hypothetically it's possible to bring the military in and just
you know, grab a bunch of people and deport them
and all that. That's that's one thing, and you know,
there's a lot of there's some disappointment that more of
that's not happening. I think there's reasons for that. But
at the end of the day, these these migrants that
are coming over in hordes are not doing this out
of their own initiative like they're described as like with
things like well they're coming from war torn areas or
their climate migrants, and they're because their own you know,
areas are no longer agriculturally sustainable and all these things.
But actually they're being paid to come here. They're being
facilitated that someone's providing their boats and their clothes and
the planes and all of these things. And so you
have to attack the organizations. And so Minnesota is ground
zero for a lot of this stuff, not only because
of its official government infrastructure, but also because of all
the charities and NGOs that are hosted there. I mean,
the Lutheran Church, the Catholic Church, all these charities adjacent
to those churches are all involved in this stuff, and
they're all headquartered in Minnesota. And so in order to
do this, you have to create severe pressure so that
these people basically cannot operate anymore, because you have to
you have to cut off the snake at the head,
and not just the consequences of the snake. You have
to you have to go into the heat of battle
and turn off the actual power mechanisms that are facilitating
these things. You have tens of millions of people that
are coming here that could not happen without international infrastructure,
and so that international infrastructure has to be shut down.
And so I think if Trump has one legacy, it's
going to be that as people like Pete Hegseth and
others kind of work to reform the military, those types
of people can be deployed later in order to, uh,
you know, help deportation continue to ramp up. But that's
going to take decades. Like deportation, like I have a
you know, one of my you know, biggest tweets from
a couple of weeks ago, maybe a month ago, which
that deportationism has to become a way of life for
America for the next hundred years. Our grandchildren are going
to be participating in the Deportation Department. So deportations are
not something that's going to last for the next administration.
It's going to have to become a way of life.
It's going to have to be part of our national soul.
We have an agriculture Department, we have the FDA, we
have this big intelligence agents. Well, we're gonna have to
have a deportation agency. So deportations that are not something
that Trump's just going to one and done, figure it out.
It's going to have to become part of the Western
way of life, like all all of Western Europe has
to take part in remigration. Remigrationism actually has to go
into our ideologically ideological complex. So I think what Trump's
doing is he's trying to shut down the organized characteristics
of replacement migration. He's got to shut off the funding,
he's got to shut off the incentive structures he's got
to send he's got to shut down the corruption complex.
All of that stuff is what he has to do,
and he's got three more years to do this. In
every other major state. The hardest one is actually going
to be Texas in California. But the point is that
he has to keep going on this. So I don't
know if you heard me, but I think my internet
cut out, but I kept talking because it's privately recorded
so or you know, locally recorded. So basically my point,
my point though is shoot, okay, well I'm gonna I'm
gonna keep trying, hopefully it'll reset here. Well, let me
finish my let me finish my thought. Though. So Trump
has to shut down the organized components of this, and
then that's going to set the groundwork for a multi
decade initiative to actually deport people. Formally, the deportations might
have to come in a few years, but shutting down
the organizations, the incentive structures, the NGOs, the charities, that
has to be the most important thing, because that's the
mechanism that the that the migrationists are going to use
to fight back against trump Ism.
Speaker 4: Well, and there's one other thing as well, which you know,
I think needs to be said that this is ultimately
a fight for legitimacy where if you, if you have
seeded the monopoly on violence, you aren't really in charge anymore.
And you know, myself and many other have criticized the
administration for allowing their authority to be superseded by the judiciary. Right,
that's an issue that needs to be solved. And somewhat similarly,
if you get chased out of town by you know,
effectively an insurgency, we're not really in charge anymore, or
at least in the same way. And so I think
as well that that's another element to this, which is
that the Trump administration must win in order to remain
in legitimate political force. This is again existential for them
in a way that simply, you know, two thousand versus
ten thousand or however many thousand people are or are
not deported, It has become a question of do you
have the right to rule? And I think that's something
as well that needs to be mentioned.
Speaker 5: M Yeah, no, I agree. I agree with that. That's
part of it too. It's like you got to legitimate
your power here. I mean, that's that's part of I mean,
Oron McIntyre is really good on this issue. But like
nobody knows who's actually in charge here. I mean the
nature of the deep state, the regime is so decentralized
and there's there's actually like almost no one on top
it kind of has this completely like entrenched, decentralized character
to it, and so that's exactly right. You have to
have a personality that says, actually, the system is not
in charge, I'm in charge. And and once that happens,
you know, politics is back.
Speaker 4: So CJ, this has been a fascinating conversation. If people
want to find more of your work, what's a good
way for them to do that?
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean the best way is just to follow
me on Twitter or x at Contra mordor. That's that's
basically the only thing I need to shill. I mean,
I'm doing all kinds of different projects, you know, regionally
here in Tennessee with friends including Andrewisker and others. But
that's that's where you'll find me, is X sure.
Speaker 4: I will also link to your podcast with Andrew, which
is a ton of fun. I try to catch it
when I can, so I highly recommend that. As far
as my stuff, the Jay Burton Show, Apple, Spotify, YouTube,
anywhere you want to listen to podcasts, we want the
episodes early in d free. You could throw me a
few bucks on Patreon, Substack or gum Road. Look, guys,
I know it's annoying. I don't like doing them, but
it's what I do, right. I gotta pay my mortgage
and soon my massively increased tax bill thanks to Abigail Spanberger.
No points for guessing. Additionally, you could check out our sponsor,
Axios Remote Fitness Coaching. JD's good at what he does.
You should support him. He's a friend, both personally and
on a business level. Again, CJ, thanks so much, man,
this was a ton of fun. Oh actually, one more
thing I forgot. I'm supposed to tell you about this.
I not you, CJ, the audience, but I guess if
you want to know, you're allowed to listen. I have
an article coming out in the next edition of Chronicles magazine,
so if you want a physical copy, you can head
over there get a subscription. It's well worth it, right,
A lot of friends right there.
Speaker 5: Uh.
Speaker 4: They put out good stuff consistently, so check it out
and when it becomes available, I'll be sure to link
it here. Again, c J. Man was a ton of fun.
Speaker 5: Yeah, man, thank you everyone at home.
Speaker 4: Keep your head up. I can't last forever. Good night.