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