Speaker 1: Whatever you're working towards, a Volkswagen Commercial vehicle.
Speaker 2: Is with you all the way.
Speaker 1: It might be the crafter or transporter for carrying tools
and the drive that goes with them, the caddy cargo
or amarok for when the job and the journey matter equally,
or the id buzz cargo to get excited for the future.
Then benefit from HB finance from zero percent and purchase
contributions up to three thousand Europe Volkswagen Commercial Vehicles Space
for Needs and Dreams. Terms and conditions apply. Finance provided
by way of hard purchase agreement from Volkswagen Financial Services
Ireland and subject to ending criteria. Volkswagen Financial Services Areland
Limited is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. Visit
Volkswagen Bands dot ae for further information.
Speaker 3: Remaining a live man, I like this man letting butterfly
flatin in wing big ban in on force.
Speaker 2: Man, it gonna cause a tree fold letting five thousand
mile away man. Nobody seen, nobody, you know no man
and the panel.
Speaker 3: Welcome back to the Jay Burdens Show. How you doing that?
Speaker 2: Very good? Very good? A little short on sleep, but
happy to be here.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm really glad to really glad to have you
on again. I had a very good time with you
in the Portland event last year. We had a good
time our why he's met Yeah, which is I mean
not to say that I had low expectation, but this
is always nice. When you know your friends with someone
and your wives get along, right, it does make it
slightly easier.
Speaker 2: I think that's like a critical part of kind of
the community feeling is having or things where you can
bring your wife to the events. And it's always been
kind of a challenge. In the early days of doing this,
that was a real challenge. My wife got by you
to a lot of dinners with some very strange Internet
peace and she was an excellent sport.
Speaker 3: Yes, there have been similar occurrences. I won't tell tales
out of school. Yes, but you recently wrote a very
very good essay responding to this piece in Compact, right
the Lost Generation, which went about as viral as an
article really can. Obviously, i'll let you kind of summarize
your own remarks, but there were a couple of things
I thought we're interesting about that piece from Compact, because
if you've noticed, there have been several essays that have
taken talking points sort of from our spheres and adjacent
spheres and effectively republished them and laundered them through in
places like Compact Right, which is edgy enough but also
still respectable enough that you know, normal people are allowed
to read it. If you remember who wrote that, it
was honestly cribbing. That John Carter essay about feminization was
that Helen.
Speaker 2: Roy Helen No, no, no, no, wrong, Helen. There's there's
uh my, that's my wife's. Also first name is Hellen. Two.
There's so many Helen's there was like but anyway, Helen
Helen Roy was a former right wing blogger who kind
of retreated from the scene. This is Helen Andrews.
Speaker 3: Oh, I'm sorry, not Helen pluck Rose.
Speaker 2: Either of hell no, no, yeah, that's that's.
Speaker 3: All seriousness. We saw that same mechanism, right, taking a
complaint from the fringes, sort of bringing it into mainstream discourse.
In the instance of whichever Helen wrote that essay, it
was feminization, whereas in this Compact piece it was effectively
the dispossession of young white guys in America, and the
article was sort of narrowly focused on certain creative fields.
The author i believe was a little bit older, he'd
had kind of a Hollywood job, but it was expressing,
you know, many of the same concerns our friends have,
and you wrote a very good essay in response to it.
I'll kick it to you.
Speaker 2: Dave Well. I mean, this is the problem is that
I was. I got the inspiration for this essay during
when the article came out in December, and then my
family got super sick with this horrible flu this year,
and so it came out like a month late, and
everything's month behind. And I guess that it gave me
kind of two things. First of all, I couldn't say
what everyone else was saying about it, you know, I
kind of went over the general problem of the article,
but I added on some sort of the missing dimensions.
I felt that people weren't quite emphasizing the thing that
sets aside Savage's article. And again, he's not the first
person to write about this. We have Jeremy Carl who
wrote an entire book about this, and we have twenty
years of articles from like the you know, the distancephere,
going all the way back to people like Vdair and
those other people who caught onto this stuff early. The
critical thing about the article from Savage's point of view
is that, a it was very well written to appeal
to a blue state PMC audience, professional manager, old class audience.
It was ideally suited to do that. The publication in
Compact was also perfect, because Compact is becoming the place
where it's like the confessional for the mendacity of our
ruling class. You go to Compact temt you were wrong
about something and get that into the mainstream, because you know,
the New York Times is not going to run this article,
neither is the Atlantic Monthly, but Compact will. And the
other thing is it kind of it started out as
being kind of something that Blue Staters could kind of
get on board with, but then it segued into just
a very oblique view of the eventual consequences of having
all institutional arrangements, especially in creative spheres, essentially closed to
an entire generation of young men. The New York Review
of Books, I believe this is Savage's previous article. It
I mean, most great writers that were highlighted from the
twentieth century were featured there. And you look back and
what I can't remember the exact statistic, but almost none
of our generation's men have been put forward by those
institutions for thirty years now, right, And it's the same
story everywhere in movies, in script writing, in university appointments,
and in increasingly in technology as well. All these leadership
positions are being essentially built into this preference system that
was initially presented as being kind of a minor change.
And Okay, you know, there's so many different angles of
this thing. The biggest question that everyone's trying to answer
is we've known about affirmative action forever. As a matter
of fact, when I was in high school my state,
California illegal though I wasn't even high school. I was
in I don't think I was even in junior high yet.
It was like ninety five or something like that. I
must have been I don't know, sixth grade or something.
I'm just guessing here, right, But they illegalized affirmative action
when I was very young in California. And since they've
had affirmative action illegal, they've essentially been able to completely
shut straight white male screenwriters out of Hollywood. How was
that possible? Right? And so the question really is how
did this happen? And the answer to how did this
happened was a we don't live under the law as written.
We live under an administrative state where you can couch
things in different language and different decision making methodologies, so
that it's unclear who's doing what. This decision making apparatus
is very sensitive to things like the desire to diversify,
and furthermore, this is the real critical thing, the generational problem.
The baby boomers and the older gen xers were able
to diversify the institutions that they ran at no cost
to themselves. They came in and had full consideration during
their tenure for the work on its merits, and then
when they got into positions that were comfortable, they pulled
up the ladder after them and decided that they were
going to diversify at the expense of their children's generation
and really at the expense of their son's opportunities. I
think this falls a lot less heavily on white women,
although I'm sure they've had some disadvantages from this preference system.
It was really as them to exclude white males in particular,
because there's always a pretense to have more women in
these creative roles because they were historically underrepresented, and you know,
how does our civilization or society what's left of it,
tell the story of what happened here in a way
that is just not some kind of arch treachery. I
don't I don't know. I'm sure you know, the the
ruling classes is admitting to this now, they're admitting to
the fact that they essentially dispossessed a generation or two
of opportunities that should have been theirs. And the next
step is they're going to forget it. They're going to
forget about this, and the bureaucracy is going to continue
on as normal, and we're going to have to figure
out what the narrative is going forward. And I guess
it just shows you. I mean, it's it's it's too
late for the boomers at this stage. There's not going
to be a come to Jesus moment. They're they're well
passed retirement. The disposition has already taken place in many ways.
The reason why this article got popular was that it's
it's so advanced it's almost impossible to fix, and you know,
so they're not going to really be involved in this conversation.
But a sort of the last part of my article
was talking about the real conversation now has to go
on between millennials, especially older millennials like myself, and the
younger millennial slash Zoomer set that kind of caught. I mean,
we were all kind of caught in this preference scheme
at one part of our careers or the other, but
the Zoomers and the younger millennial young white men caught
the worst of it. And we're going to have to
find some way of talking about the task going forward
politically and culturally and find some kind of narrative that
works for us, because when you talk to zoomers online,
I don't know, there's a law of black pilling. There's
a lot of Doomerism, and there's there's a there's a
really big lack of mentorship too. You can tell with
the Zoomers more so than the millennials, even that there
are generation and men raised by women, and so it's
it's very hard to kind of talk people in that
position out of this kind of embracing their own despair
at a certain level. And I think that is you know,
we talk about we're in an age of a post
discourse age, Well, now this is an element of public
discourse that we need to explore and that we need
to develop tools to deal with how do we work
together as one people, as one unified society, as one
unified community in light of the fact that there's this
massive generational betrayal that we're kind of uncovering. Not that
we all didn't know about it already.
Speaker 3: Yeah, there are several several aspects to that.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 3: I've been sort of interested in the coverage coming from
Mark Mitchell, a guy behind resmuse and polls, and he's
been hammering away at this issue. And one of the
things that he says over and over and over again
is that in twenty twenty four, the most conservative people
in America are twenty year old white men. That is
no longer the case, hopefully that was, Yeah, and several
things there. One of the things that he points out
as this group right effectively young right wing men under
forty and we know this already, is incredibly radicalized. You know,
for instance, they're they're the most likely to say something
like that. You know, the judge James Boisburg, right, this
judge who's kind of continually coming up with ways to
block the Trump administration should be thrown in jail without
a trial. Right, something like that. The idea of you know,
subverting or going around the judicial system apparently the most
in favor of dictatorship, things like that. And one of
the interesting things, and I've been writing and talking about
this for like the last six months because they can't
stop thinking about.
Speaker 2: It, is.
Speaker 3: This generational betrayal is obviously evident at kind of multiple
levels of culture.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 3: You've mentioned entertainment, obviously the kind of other major industries,
but it's also happening within the conservative movement kind of
as we watch. So I thought one of the most
interesting conclusions that I've seen from both the whole woke
fright discourse and also the conversation around heritage. Right, I'm
sure you remember when heritage was put through this struggle session.
Speaker 2: For oh yeah, the yeah that is. I thought that
was fascinating because I most my friends were Jewish growing up,
and so I've gone to a lot of Shappot dinners.
But it is amazing to see how it's used as
a political technol. But I'm sorry, go ahead.
Speaker 3: But the conclusion to that, both the woke right discourse
and also the discourse around heritage is that you can't
trust the youth boomer you you know, kind of more
traditional conservative. They're poisoned, they're lost, cut them out, get
rid of them because they have been you know, made
ploys of and this is you know, their kind of
you know, Pepe Sylvia esque red string conspiracy, not mine,
but uh like Andrew Tait, Nick Fuentes connecting to the
woke right, which connects to Tucker Carlson Qatar, there's some
other you know, like ill defined nodes.
Speaker 2: This is the giant list that James Lindsay had a
few months ago.
Speaker 3: But to be honest, he's not the only one, right.
You see this from you know, Mark Levin, the people
who you know, we're putting heritage through that whole struggle session.
And look, I don't have any particular emotional attachment heritage,
just kind of an example to hand. But nonetheless, it's
almost it's the same mechanism, right. The idea that you
know there is that this within the conservative movement, right,
that this movement exists exclusively for, to be honest, people
older than millennials, and anyone outside of that group shouldn't
be trusted. It's sort of this odd inversion of you
know what the hippie said, right, don't trust anyone over thirty.
You know, the boomers have kept that exact same.
Speaker 2: Mentality, don't trust anyone under forty. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Well, do you see what I'm getting at there? Yeah,
I'm same dynamic within.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean there, this is something that is I own.
This is the very unstable place that we are right now,
which is that the boomers are. They're kind of they're
very slowly coming to terms with their denial of the situation.
I mean, and they have a various copes that they
try to keep up the pretense, and like one of
those is like the woke right, So it's not this
is the greatest kind of cope that boomers have that
it's not reality that's red pilling people. It's this alternative
influencers network that is feeding all these bad ideas. And
you know, it's particularly good for the Red States set
because they've always believed that people were poet poisoning their
use minds, and because it was largely true, at least
in so far as university was concerned. But now not
only are people poisoning your kid's minds from the left,
are also poisoning your kid's minds from the right. The
problem with all of this again, is that I think
is slowly dawning on people over especially this last year
twenty twenty five was kind of a banner year for this.
The Boomer formulas that people like rodri Her or I
guess I probably should exclude David French, But let's say,
say like Glenn Beck and rodri Her and the people
from the Heritage Foundation that think that attending a Shabbat
dinner should be your price of admission for being a
conservative Catholic. For some reason, I have no idea why
these people have no coherent vision of the future for people,
at least people who aren't from a certain ethnicity that
they're very attached to. And because of that, you can
have an you can have sort of like a position
that these organizations come out with that sort of reads
well enough, these kind of cya positions about how the
world is. But once you get into extended conversations about
the actual issues and what people are asking for, it
immediately becomes indefensible. The entire conversation about Nick Fuentes was insane.
It was insane. I mean, you know, not to go
into their article, but we had this huge struggle session
about how we needed to excommunicate Tucker Carlson for talking
to Nick Fuentes. And then you know, immediately afterwards, Piers
Morgan is interviewing Nick Fuentes, you know, And and while
people are trying to cancel Tucker and cancel conservatives for
their affiliation with Nick Fuentes, you have the New York
Times doing like puff pieces on Hassan Piker, and you know,
specifically Ross douta who I kind of liked from the
New York Times, doing an interview that was somewhat critical
but also not remarkably different from the interview that Tucker
Carlson offered Nick Twentes. And the question here is, you know,
like you can you can. You can come out with
public statements, and you can come out with blog posts
that framed this in some kind of light where you
introduce all of these standards that are not very consistent.
But if you take these standards and just poke at
them a little bit, they immediately fall apart. You know,
I don't know, I could go on. There's so many
different dimensions of this you could. It's hardly James Lindsay
is like the perfect example, right, James Lindsay is really
good at creating these kind of or at least he
was really good at creating these kind of humiliating optical
moments for his opponents. And he spoke the Boomers language
very very well, and because of that he got a
huge following in the COVID years and just before the
COVID years. But the problem is is that the second
he tries to engage or answer hard questions from his
right flank, his narrative about how the world works just
kind of disintegrades in front of his eyes. He pull
the thread and it falls apart, almost cliche to say
this at this stage, but these characters from the right wing,
they cannot stop themselves from and I don't even really
care about this issue, they cannot stop themselves from just
gushing over the majesty, the heritage that the supreme collective
beauty of the Jewish people. There is no equal, there's
no gentile equivalent of that. In their imaginations, all other
gentile nations are purely propositional nations. They have no core ethnicity,
they have no right to exist. They exist simply as
a mechanism for making the GDP line go up. And
like everyone points us out, everybody points us out at
this stage, and and you know, even even the Peers
Morgan thing too, like by a generational disconnect, you have
you have Peers Morgan trying to the kind of the
moment was him him trying to he wasn't arguing against
Nick fant Is, He's kind of trying to shame him
with these optical moments. With that, Lindsay does like, I'm
going to associate you with Holocaust deniers. I'm going to
associate you with this man who I've brought who somehow
paradoxically had his parents die both in the Holocaust and
the Haltimore Like he double dipped right, Like sorry, I
don't know it's your podcast. I shouldn't speak so you reverently.
But I mean, all of these moments that are just like, oh,
don't you remember this element of the Boomer truth reghime,
let's relive that and get really upset about that, and
you don't want to be on the wrong side of that.
And it gets to the point where Piers Morgan is
shaming James Lindsay for not having pre marital sex, which
is you know, is this total inversion of the Boomer
shame mechanism, Like the whole story of the Boomer generation
was that we weren't going to have shame. We weren't
going to shame people for their sexual history. Okay, great,
so you know we all the Boomers fought fought, fought, fought,
fought to have the Catholic nun not be able to
shame you for having pre merdal sex. What so that
like a double divorce could shame a Catholic guy for
not having pre virital sex. Like it's crazy, and the
whole thing kind of disintegrates and you end up with
one side that has all of the power but just
no ability to frame a narrative that anybody would believe.
Speaker 3: Oh, I mean one hundred percent, and you know, look
like I'm not like a fuends guy per se. He's
speaking to someone kind of different than me on multiple levels.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 3: But to be honest, I think that that was a
very that interaction he in Piers Morgan was sort of
emblematic of, you know, a wider transition, right because you
mentioned the fact that you know, Peers is adopting this
sort of hectoring tone, right, like the kind of school
mar right like how dare you? Which again only works
if there's some sort of common sense of value there,
and very clearly Nick Foann says in Peers more Gonna
have literally nothing in common morally, so why.
Speaker 2: Would well they they on paper they do right on paper,
They're well, yes, on paper, Paris Morgan's obviously British, but
on paper they are both Catholic, I guess or something.
On paper, they both have conservative tendencies, although you know,
Peers Morgan's not very consistent, but in reality they have
none because there's no functional ability to shame each other
for transgressing some core value.
Speaker 3: Well, and then I think the moment that's perhaps the
most interesting in that is and these are not my words.
Some have called this the invocation of the tactical Jew,
when Peers Morgan basically calls in, you know, lord Finkelstein,
as you know you mentioned earlier, to talk about his
family history, and when starts laughing at him again because
it is sort of absurd, you know, it's like, well,
you know, here's a guy, obviously. But the thing that
I found interesting about the story, and I've been following
this aspect perhaps more closely, I'll be honest, I did
not particularly enjoy that interview between the two of them
for my own reasons.
Speaker 2: Well, it was this like one awkward moment after the other, right,
but it was it was kind Yeah, I just it
was an interesting historical artifact. I can we can acknowledge that, oh.
Speaker 3: One hundred percent. I just uh, I'll put it this
way to get me through the whole thing and be
like eyes, like you'd have to like buy.
Speaker 2: My eyes the clockwork orange method.
Speaker 3: Yeah, just the deep second and social shame anyway, But
is that you know, Lord Finkelstein has sort of kicked off.
It's slightly subsided now, but for about six weeks a
very similar debate, you know, to the one you're mentioning
in England right, particularly with Connor Tomlinson, who you know
I've talked to you several times, making a which seems
to be a very reasonable point, which is, you know,
if if we accept that Israel is nation for the
Jewish people, why can't we have them?
Speaker 2: Yeah, and this is.
Speaker 3: No answer to that past, which is a family history
of Lord Finklestein.
Speaker 2: This is amazing to me, is this is absolutely amazing
to me. God, I can't I don't want to talk
about this group too much, but I'm sorry, but do
these Jews living in the Western world have absolutely no
theory of mind for Gentiles. I mean they walk into
these interviews, they walk into these conversations talking about their
heritage and their nationalism and their rights to this and that.
Are they not aware that they're going to get sort
of a question about reciprocation, that people are going to
ask for essentially permission because we were celebrating your version
of this collective identity, what about us? And it gets
to be ridiculous because Lord Finklestein was he was, he was,
he was part of the Nick Fuentes Puis Morgan interview.
And then he gets on Twitter and he's unprepared for
this question. And then you have Andrew Gold, who has
Steve laws On, who I'd never heard out about before
the Andrew Gold interview. I guess he's a UK figure.
He gets hit with this sort of what about nationalism
for Gentiles? What about nationalism for the English? And not
only can he not answer it, he implies that somehow
the English should be at peace with their own extermination. Well,
at the same time they hand over millions to Israel
to like, you know, secure their borders in this like
little meaningless backwater by killing tons and tons of people.
And not only that, he gets on Twitter again, like
he's now heard this question two times from Steve Laws.
He fails a question on Twitter. He has Carl Benjamin
on his show again. He reviews it, kind of walks
back the whole the British people should be at peace
with their own extermination thing, and then Carl Benjamin says, Okay,
let's just clarify it right now, ask him the exact
same question again. And Andrew Golds is like, m Ah,
I don't know, are you not prepared for this. It's
been a month. It's been a month of the same
question over and over and over again. You just if
you say, you say yes or what is obviously happening
is that there is essentially a double standard. I mean,
you know, obviously what obviously is going on is that
there is in the core moral justification that these people
have for their politics, a double standard that holds themselves
up as a particular type of people that deserve things
that no other people does. That's obviously what's going Otherwise
they would just say yes, they would say themselves the humiliation.
They know this question is coming. They've had this question
fed to them for years now, since October seventh, and
they have no answer for it. They continuously have no
answer for it. And I don't know, I'm I guess no.
I understand there probably are, There probably are younger people
in the Jewish community that are more willing to kind
of bite the bullet on reciprocation. But insofar as the
more established sectors of this community that they can't countenance
that they're ever going to entertain this, that that basically
endorsing nationalism at some level.
Speaker 3: Well, and this is an idea you mentioned in one
of your streams in the last six months. I have
no citation better than that, uh we were talking about.
And I think this is, you know, a thread that
ties you know, the relative position of both the state
of Israel and ties back to our conversation about baby boomers,
which is, to be honest, like what's in it for me?
Like what if I am to play my role correctly?
What does that look like? And you know, in the
answer of you know, the economy or job selection, is
the answer just that I simply resign myself to sliding
down the socioeconomic ladder.
Speaker 2: And be at peace with your own proletarianization, grind, grind, grind, grind, grind,
and pay forty percent of your salary in too taxes
until Social Security expires, and then you'll pay fifty percent
and then also get locked out of all roles that
involve any modicum of creativity or prestige or political power,
and then be resigned for your legacy to be a
minority inside a polity that celebrates identity politics for all
people except the specific ethnic group that is your own,
which we have conveniently been teaching everyone for the last
fifty years to believe is responsible for all contemporary human problems.
That is the deal of the baby boomer. That is
what all baby boomers tell you, either gentile or otherwise.
And I guess it's particularly funny in the case of
people who are Israeli Zionists, because there's this really obvious contradiction.
But I mean it made sense because baby boomers believe
that history was ending and that they had solved the
problem of humans success, they had solved the problem of
power and of of scarcity. No, you were on this
guy A. P. F. Young's show, right, You were dealing
with this question with this kind of and suffer spent
my entire life around these idiot academic types. Well done,
but you were talking about on that show.
Speaker 3: Just just to clarify this, you may have noticed that
I started out with a very different game plan of
what we were supposed to do. What I was told
is that we were talking about well bridge building bridges
between the left and the right, and what we ended
up talking about was identity politics and like Star Trek,
abundant socialism. Well, completely unrelated.
Speaker 2: But that's the thing, right, like you talk about the
realities of ethnic anity politics and the nature of social cohesion. Now,
this is an established scientific result. It has been an
established scientific result for twenty or thirty years, you know,
and and and it came out with the and so okay,
so this is an established scientific result. He knew that.
I can't remember who your interlocker was, but he knew that.
And the way that the Academy has coped with the
Putinum effect is to point out the very real I mean,
don't know, we're talking about statistical effects in multi factor systems.
It's hard to say it's real. But the reality that
they'll they'll tell you this, that that that wealth is
a better predictor for a cohesion than is diversity. So aka,
if you're filthy, filthy, filthy, filthy rich, you know, then
you could have a multi ethnic community. So for instance,
Berkeley is highly multi ethnic and it's very very cohesive. Right,
so are all rich Ivy League schools. So the solution
to all the problems we have with the real political
disadvantages of diversity is just make everybody rich. And he
didn't say that. He's like, why don't we just have
policy that makes everybody rich and then we won't have
to worry about this anymore. And you know, okay, I forgot.
We had them make everyone rich button. We have been
pressing it. It's been you know, it's been sequestered in
the behind the layer of capitalism. And you know there's
another button in the oval office, and if you press it,
then scarcity goes away and politics is solved forever. And
it kind of gives you this idea that socialism and
communism are just another they're like the final Boomer cope.
Like the final Boomer cope is to be being a
white male communist in present era is is to sort
of be engaging in the final Boomer cope. It's the
idea that if we only, if we only applied Stalinism,
then Stalinism would bring back the world that was promised
to us in the nineteen nineties, where the only thing
that mattered was your consumer habits and your cell phone,
and we are the world and you know, all the
people are holding hands and coca cola, and that's what
communism is going to deliver. You know, It's it just
it's this attitude. It's it's a boom. It's it's this
boomer attitude that has kind of pervaded everything, and it's
it's it's impossible to puncture this. This is sort of
the you know, the famous millennial woes tweet. So much
a progressive discourse is just pretending not to notice things,
pretending not to understand things, us making discourse impossible. That's
every single Rochard Tanania blog post, that's every single Matt
Eglesias article, as every single thing that Noah Smith has
ever done. They just talk about some policy idea that
is popular among the PMC as a kind of boomer cope,
and then they pretend like they don't even understand the
objections that are brought against it. And you know, that's
that's the that's the entire stick and it sells perfectly well.
These people have careers. There's entire university departments based on
this cope, and it's it's kind of amazing to witness,
I think.
Speaker 3: One hundred percent. And I was speaking to Victor Berzoni.
I think I don't know how to say his last name. Uh,
for those wondering on p F Youung's channel, Well, that's
very much is and to that point, right, it's it's
the idea of and you see this as well, you know,
anytime paying this slight digression right to the ice operations
in Minneapolis. One of the things you've seen from kind
of the podcast brows circuit, right, you know, you know,
Joe Rogan others, is this idea of Well, I didn't
want illegal immigration, but I didn't want it like this, right,
I didn't want people to be upset or people to
be unhappy. And Okay, I can understand that if there
were a way to accomplish such a thing without you know,
making people uncomfortable fair enough, that would be you know,
the preferable alternative. But it's this profoundly unconstrained vision of
the world. Right, It's this idea that you know, things
like abundance, things like immigration, needing, one of these things
are simply a switch to be flipped, right, instead of
sort of this nexus of competing goods where one thing
will produce a negative externality somewhere else. This is the
process of balancing. And it's incredibly frustrating to me because
you see this saying and look, it's a human instinct.
But also I think a large part of it, or at
least the extremity of it, has to do with that
belief that issues like poverty, issues like advancement, issues like
war were ultimately solved. Solve them. Yeah, right, And I
was thinking about this because you shouldn't be familiar with this,
but you know, I wrote an article on David French,
so I.
Speaker 2: Was doing that. I like that a lot. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Are you familiar with the Holy Post?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 2: What is it?
Speaker 3: It is the worst, Like, honestly you you would be
better off like committing like Japanese ritual suicide than listening
or reading to any of their stuff. But it's sort
of pretty close. But it's sort of the last gasp
of of kind of mainline Protestant culture. It's not entirely
Protestant though it's actually quite ecumenical. You know, they'll have
liberal Muslims exactly. Uh, the Veggietails guy Phil Fisher, David French,
they're on that, right, it's their sort of project.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 3: But the reason I bring that up, right, is because
you get the sort of classic end of history style,
you know, assertions, right, the idea that you know, can
you believe that people still care about X y Z.
Don't they know that's already been decided? Right, We don't
do that anymore. We live in the era past nasty things, right,
And if we just pretend like they're not there, they're
no longer there, right, it's another cope. And if we
you know, if we have to grapple with them, right,
if we have to admit that young people are being
radicalized on the left and right do to decisions that
were made by men, that sort of calls into question
the whole idea that we are living in this sort
of like app but this sort of like apex of
human history and human development, right, And I think that doubt,
like really at the deepest root of this a lot
of the terror because I do think these people are afraid, genuinely,
they seem to be in a very uncomfortable situation, and
I think a large part of it is that maybe
not for them, but certainly for their children and their peers.
They see that promise of eternal progress, They see that
promise of liberation as sort of like the jet fuel
for societal progress sort of petering out. And if you
have devoted your life to that idea, you've devoted your
life to that goal, that has to be very like
genuinely very scary. And look, when I say I have
sympathy for these people, I mean in a very abstract sense,
because if I think about it for longer than their seconds,
I'm sort of filled with this rage. But I think
that that's a large part of it. And when you're
talking about even earlier, right, your compact is sort of
this confessional for you know, the PMC, for the ruling elite.
I wonder if that's a part of it as well,
that if they were more confident, they wouldn't be confessing.
And I think it's sort of telling that they can't
fully admit it, but they sort of realize this project
isn't working. It's a vague thought. Do you see what
I'm getting at there?
Speaker 2: Dave. Yeah, and you know a lot of it. You
know I mentioned this. People make fun of me for
a setting Jarvin too much. But there was a very
Unyarvin Yarvin interview where he said, you know you, your
whole civilization is dying and you're out here talking about
barbecues and who's going to win SEC Conference football?
Speaker 1: Uh?
Speaker 2: And everyone is shouting at you. Your ancestors are shouting
at you, Your descendants are shouting at you. Why don't
you do something? Why don't you act? And in sympathy
to the boomer, that is exactly what they're thinking. And
I feel it all the time too. It just it
feels like we have to do something in this moment.
No one really knows what to do. And in the meantime,
if we really, if we really look at the problems
on the horizon seriously, it becomes a lot harder to
enjoy anything because you're always thinking, why am I not
preparing for the future that I know is going to
be harder for my children than it is for me.
How can I take this vacation, How can I justify
this stupid hobby? How can I indulge in all of
this stuff? When the future is slipping away from me.
And the thing is is that one thing our acide
lacks is we can't go to the boomers and say
it's cool, just go on your cruises, everything will be fine,
and we'll we'll take it from here. And that's essentially
what everyone else tells them. Everyone else tells them on left,
right and well, left and center, everyone on the left
and center basically tell people of the other generations that
their role in society was fundamentally good and now they
can step aside and let the chips fall with where
they may. But that's not the role that we're in
right now. The role we're in right now is to
kind of come up with something radically different from the
directions that we've been going previously. And you know, the
problem is is that the older people are going to
have to be part of this conversation. And the boomer's
decision is either to kind of pass that on to
the people who are younger and poorer than they are,
or to take up the mantle and kind of admit
that they're project there's been a fundamental failure. And I
don't blame them in this moment for kind of retreating
to these conservative platitudes and this conservative Pollyanna understanding of
what America is now a power works because that's what
they need to kind of keep their life on track
and to not believe that would derail their entire lives.
And I don't know, but you know, the future belongs
to the people who are willing to derail their lives
because they understand a reality that's coming down the tracks.
Speaker 3: See. There are two things there, right, which is I
think that perhaps the the best work written on how
to solve this problem is Johann Kur's leading Leaving a Legacy, Yeah,
which is a very very good book. I've had him
on to discuss it. You all should I've lent out now.
I think two copies of it given them, so I
like it to do that. But point is, you know,
and he's sort of tackling that project, right, how do we,
you know, explain how our ideas right? How do we
turn how do we sort of bridge that generational divide
and turn it into something positive. But additionally, I think
that one other issue, and this is partially generational, it's
also partially a political problem, is that, you know, how
do we as you know, outsiders and people who are
relatively speaking disadvantaged, as you know, we've said earlier, who've
been blocked out of you know, certain pass for advancement.
How do we index with wider culture or politics?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 3: And you spoke about this in a in a recent stream,
you know, kind of on one side you have you know,
the elitists and on the other the chimps. Right on
one hand, you have the you know, the populists who
are basically saying like, we will make our voice known
on every issue, right, using the parlance of the internet
chimp out versus you know the others that you know
kind of like you know, rock ribbed elitists who say
nothing matters whatsoever, you know, your opinion never have any
you know meaning.
Speaker 2: And so we we are we are heavily substueting academic
agent at that last part.
Speaker 3: But yes, well of course you know, and I'm friends
with both sides of this debate. Yes, right, uh, And
so I think that that's a really interesting question because
look like the anti boomer invective is a lot of fun,
you know, it's cathartic, but I'm not sure, I'm entirely
sure how productive it is or even if that form
of dialogue. I don't know what the expiration date on
that form of interaction is. So I realize I've thrown
a lot at you their data, but I'd be curious
to hear your thoughts.
Speaker 2: Well, you know, this is you know, this has been
my Twitter experience. I have found Twitter to be totally
unusable for the last month. I haven't enjoyed it at all,
and it just it's a discourse app and a post
discourse age, and so the only thing you do when
you get onto it is just kind of feel kind
of like you're watching this big mess up here. And
the fact that the algorithm has become broken has not
helped things at all. And you know, I'm very grateful
that it's there as an organizing tool for us, but
this has been kind of something that I've dealt with,
is looking at this kind of conflict from the populists
and the elitists. And I know, first of all, I
hate chimp energy. I think that this kind of I
don't want to subsweet people, but you know, like, and
I really respect people who are in these camps and
who want to kind of use chimp energy more. But
at the same time, I feel like it gives US
impression that we have some kind of control over the
Trumpet administration, which we don't, And regardless of the dire
consequences that will arise once the Democrats possibly take back
power in twenty twenty eight, we have to operate as
if we have no control over that right now. Right now,
the extent to which the Trump administration essentially takes control
over the real government of the United States is totally
in the court of Donald Trump and his people who
he's put in positions of power. Right now, it's our
job to assume that a regime change is not going
to come to pass and to prepare accordingly. And look,
I mean, chimp energy is good because it can get
you concessions from the regime. But if the regime is
going to have to decide fundamentally at a certain level
whether it wants to replace the American government, and no
amount of chimping out on Twitter is going to change that.
And maybe decision is going to come now, but it's
going to come sometime between now in twenty twenty eight.
Is this simply a change of administration or is this
actually a permanent regime change? And I think that that
the ball is out of the ball is in their court.
The destiny of this particular lifeline is out of our hands.
And if if you care about things, in my opinion,
you shouldn't be looking at power this way. You shouldn't.
You're not on team Trump. You are not on team Trump.
None of us are on Team Trump. We are on
our own team. We are for the continuation of our collectivity.
We are for the continuation of our faith. That is
what is at stake in all of this, and that
is what we have to actually fight for. So as
as such, I think there just needs to be kind
of a consciousness change, and it doesn't make or good
social media content, but we either have to start thinking
collectively and acting collectively, because even if Trump does change
the administration, we are still going to live in a world,
a multipolar world where we are going to need to
pursue the good collectively. I mean, I guess to say,
like on the elitist side, part part of the pattern.
I say, from a lot of the old n RX
guys and a lot of the you know, the people
who are maybe in the early distance sphere that later
soured on it because of Trump, I feel like they
get caught up in counter signaling things, and what really
matters here is what you're going to fight for and
what you're going to represent and what you're doing to
actually take as meaningfully forward in some sense, and that's
all I don't see if you are a good actor
in this sphere, what you should be doing. I mean,
everyone looks out into the ether of Twitter and they
see some people that they think have that they had
their head in the clouds, their useless academics, they're not
doing anything useful for real people. And then at the
same time you also see people who are just totally
drinking the kool aid on the latest popular delusion, and
they don't have the wherewithal to understand how they're being played.
In my opinion, your job is an intellectual is to
bridge the gap between those two groups of aligned people.
As long as they have the same vision of the
good life, the vision of the ultimate spiritual good, and
they're working for the same collective well being, they are
in some sense your people. And when those two camps
work together, things can happen. And when they work across purposes,
you get endless Twitter drama, which is what has made
X completely useless for me, at least in the last
month or two. Now it's oh, sorry, what was that, David?
So that's a big grant Yoh yeah, no, well, I mean.
Speaker 3: And it's something that I've been thinking about quite a
bit because I recently was that, uh, hanging out with
some online friends in real life, right, sort of one
of these classic events where you have an activity and
then you realize you did the activity for an hour
and ended up talking about like obscure right wing politics
for four right, kind of nullifying the whole point of
the you know, gathering in the first place. But you
know this this came up because you know, this was
exactly you know the point raised, right, like what is
our project here? What are we doing? And also like,
you know, what is our our path?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 3: Is our path effectively a sort of like reformation of
the current thing?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 3: Sort of an entryist position?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 3: Are we trying to you know, make this thing more workable?
Or do we assume that this thing is completely and
totally done evil and contra our purposes? And so is
the point to effectively to jettison? And when you look
at you know that that kind of chimp to elite
a spectrum you know you mentioned earlier It's sort of
two versions of that same thing, which is, either is
this thing, this system, this government, whatever reformable right is
the Trump administration is it within their power to right
the ship? Or is this ultimately completely and totally quicks
on it.
Speaker 2: But but this, this, this die is cast. Though this
this is this die is cast. I mean, we can,
we can get more concessions from the Trump administration, but
we cannot make the decision for Trump and for our
advance about whether they're going to actually or replace the
American government in a permanent sense. That is not in
our hands. We can try to kind of influence them
a little bit, but most of the things that they
give in their like in their little concessions where Trump
says something bad and then walks it back, that is
like a little treat concession. That is not him making
some cosmic decision. And and you know, ultimately a cosmic
decision is going to need to be made. It is
my opinion that we should assume that he's going to
make the wrong decision and prepare accordingly, and and that
that is I think that's the only way that really
makes sense to deal with the present moment. And I
don't know people find that depressing, but it is and
you say, like, what is what is the point of
doing all of this in terms of, you know, whether
we're going to make peace with the American government. The
American government as it exists currently is.
Speaker 1: Not.
Speaker 2: It is a broken thing. It is it is our
enemy in the sense that it is completely populated. I'm
talking about the permanent American government is completely populated with
our enemies, with enemies of ironically enough, the ethnic groups
that would have been traditionally American, and they are convinced
of this global vision of humanity that does not really
involve the types of cohesion and continuation that we want
to see and that is essential for the continuation of
humanity generally. And they're ideologically captured. So that's not a question.
When people say they like America, they say they like
certain elements of American history. But increasingly I don't think
those elements of American history have much to do with
the existence of the American government. And so once you
kind of and this is the reason why, and this
is one of the conclusions of my article, which increasingly
has become a conclusion of other articles as well, collective
identity is really and I'm not saying how you identify collectively,
but understanding that you were working for a people and
a faith is just so essential. This is the reason,
this is the reason why people who are hostile to
our interests are so unwilling to kind of acknowledge the
legitimacy of any collective label that pertains to an operative
political force that could represent the interests of indigenous Europeans
in Europe, or the various different ethnicities that are called
heritage Americans inside America. And that's because it's sort of
the key to everything. We are not our government. We
are people who are trying to survive in spite of
our government. At some point, maybe somebody, and maybe those
somebodies will be people that we train or influence in
some way. Somebody will actually change the American government in
a permanent way that would be beneficial to us. But
even if the government did become temporarily more benign, it
still would not change the fact that the principal political
purpose that we are under taking is one of religious
purpose and one of collective purpose, and both have to
be there. And I had to say, we've lost sight
of both in any meaningful way. And because of that
you know, all of the formulas we come up with
talking about whether you know this, I mean, I do
appreciate the Minneapolis thing, but people are people are spending
hours relitigating police shootings that are done in the space
of two seconds, and then they're holding people's previous opinions
against them. So someone sees a woman getting shot and
they they feel sorry for her, and then two days later,
when it's shown that the sort of her sympathetic story
is untrue, it immediately becomes this way to kind of
tear down the other person is not being based enough.
And you know, this stuff is all petty and not
really conducive to the kind of changes that are needed
in the American political consciousness in the twenty first century.
America political consciousness in the twenty first cent tree and
needs to be collective and religious in nature, and if
it's not both of those things in full force, then
it is completely unprepared to deal with the real political
questions that are ahead of us.
Speaker 1: Well.
Speaker 3: And to that point, right, uh, there's a fairly prominent
writer who spoke about the project of modernity is you're
separating man from culture, right, You're turning everyone into you know,
the sort of ideal global citizen. And sure, you know,
compared to kind of this like you know, full on
you know, Klaus Schwab, you know, doubt Davos, word salad, right,
the kind of like the things that really set off
the tinfoil hat crowd talking about the new world order. Sure,
you know, kind of like color blind. You know, civic
nationalism might be preferential in degree, but ultimately that still
is a separation of man from culture. It is less
of a lie, but still ultimately based on the same
untruths about the human organization. And this is something that
And again I'm going to mention British politics twice despite
not really knowing anything about it, but it's never stopped
me before watching the rise of you know, Nigel Frage,
you know his outlet, right uh and reform UK stuff. Yes,
it's kind of an interesting example of that because you know,
he is being touted as you know, the kind of
you know, British version of Cheetoh Hitler, right, this like
arch reactionary right winger. But really, when you drill down
to it, it is simply you know, that's a right
color blind liberalism, right. Sure, you know, it's probably better
than you know, Serquias Starmer. But ultimate it's then a
real course correction, right, it is not really addressing these
sort of deep fundamental claims. And I think that you're
you're framing there of surviving in spite of our government
is very much the correct attitude to have. And look,
on one hand, you know, I'm quite glad that Trump won, uh,
you know, just for living in the country. That's been helpful. Yeah,
But man, has it done a number to right wing discourse.
You know, it's really made everything you know, so much worse,
so much harder to have a real conversation about because
of you know, effectively that kind of chimp energy, right
that desire to you know, keep and enforce some sort
of side based off of this idea that we have,
you know, a say, to one degree or another. And
weirdly enough, there's actually a very good point from Mark Levin,
which is a very rare thing. But he of course
really likes Tucker Catarolson.
Speaker 2: His phrase.
Speaker 3: One of the things that he said is well, you know,
it sure is bad that this guy that I hate
that's a you know, a trader and you know, a
foreign asset and a jew hater. His words and a podcaster,
which is a funny, like he kind of attaches all
of these insults together, including podcaster.
Speaker 2: That's not a real job. You're just getting paid for
your words.
Speaker 3: Yeah, unlike me. I'm on a I'm radio.
Speaker 2: I'm on a network. Damnit, I'm on a network. I
demand somewhere. Respect.
Speaker 3: But in all seriousness, he made the point where he's like, well,
look like, you know, he's in Trump's office twice a
week and he doesn't get anything he wants. And it's like,
oh wow, Mark, that's actually a really good point. You know,
like he meant it in a very different way, right,
he was viewing that as something to celebrate. But I
think that that's a like something to keep in mind, right,
that even for the guy in the room, right, that
the someone with unprecedented access compared to you know, you
or I Dave, seemingly this machine marches on. And I
mean really, you know that was you know, the lesson
of the first and then certainly the second Trump administration
is that Washington, right, the American empire has such a
momentum to it that seemingly it is unreformable.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: I think that the you know, the dissolution of Doze
is sort of a poignant moment because in my mind,
that is when a realistic possibility of reform died, right, yeah,
because that was sort of the best good faith effort
at as the millennials would say, right, doing the thing, right,
doing what you were supposed to.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 3: The first run around was sort of the you know,
the the gen one populism, right, will get a present,
And the second term around was, well, we'll not only
get a president, but we will you know, do all
of the you know the things that you people theorized,
you know, having this sort of you know, budget accountability,
you know, mass firings, all of that, and you know,
sure it didn't happen, and if it had happened, maybe
that would change things. But it seemingly is impossible. It
is not something that can be done. And I don't know,
I think that that's sort of an interesting development kind
of on the like the psychological play almost.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, the well, this is kind of complicated again,
you know that it is very obvious. The great problem
with the Trumpet administration is that it needs to essentially
be FDR too. But America is not in a position
to essentially build a new government from scratch by borrowing money,
which is essentially what it would require. I mean, we'll
require keeping the old government financed and phasing it out
while you built an entirely new one. A great example,
like a great missed opportunity, is it would be to
take some of these DOSEE programs and then as you
cut them, some of them just need to be cut
because they're stupid, but as you cut them, use the
money you cut from your enemies to then refund refinance
your friends. So you know, you had a few things
that were like Aid to Africa programs, you could have
refinanced that through friendly NGO like basically the essential conservative
NGO bodies, right, like private public partnerships that would pay
out friends that way and create jobs. You know, And
you could argument we don't need we don't need foreign
aid to begin with, and there's a good case for that,
but I'm just using that as an example of if
you were really to do the thing as the young
people were to say, you would need to create a
new finance class, a professional people that were getting paid
to be your people, the way the FDR created a
group of professionals that were paid to be his people.
And that's very very hard to do in the present year.
And you know, again the de is cast on this,
but I think with the dissolution of DOGE especially, this
is the this is the this is the Trump administration
saying that it is going to be another administration, not
a new permanent government. And uh, you know, I think
that it's dark. But that means at some point, at
some point, at least there's going to be at least
one other period. I mean, there's there's sort of a
limit here right there. There's going to be a point where, well,
I guess we could reach singularity and you know, all
borders could be erased by some kind of design super intelligence.
That's that's also a possibility. I think that's a little
bit remote, but that kind of apocalypse notwithstanding or media
is getting crashed into the earth. Eventually, the government is
going to become actively insolvent, not just theoretically insolvent. Has
been for the last twenty years. And when that happens,
the American government is going to start collapsing. And at
that point it will lose a lot of its capacity
to exert control in all the ways that we have
become used to. And there's a possibility then for a
radically new government to come into play, not because it's
absorbed the government of the old world, but because it
just creates one in parallel and then picks up the
functionality as it disintegrates from the insolvency of the old world,
which is you know, that's a much more dangerous scenario.
But in that interim period, the Democrats will get back
into power, they will try to use the total state
to punish their enemies. And you know, we have to
be prepared to deal with a hostile total state. We
have to be prepared to deal with bil holding communities
outside of the government's oversight or cooperation even sometimes and uh,
you know, without those skills developed independently, and these are
political projects, they are not sort of just like the
rodri Her, you know, go to the hills and I
don't even know what rodri HER's idea is. Don't do politics,
but also don't retreat to the hills or something like that.
It's not some kind of cute little platitude about having
a vegetable garden or a hobby farm or something like that.
There needs at least has something to do with Italian
hobby farms. And oysters and and people who read you know,
various different dissident authors from the old Soviet block and uh,
you know. But regardless of that, there's just going to
need to be people who are capable of doing activism
and doing organization from a non progressive point of view,
and we are very far behind on that. I think
that it's been very hopeful. We've seen an enormous amount
of growth in the last three years, in particular in
terms of people's capacities to actually do things, to take
the ideas they have got in well in the online
world or in the distance here, and then actively put
them into practice in the real world. There are many organizations,
including one or two that we are both members of,
and you know, that's helpful, but like that is unprecedented
in the twenty first century. It's still so far away
from where we need to be. This is another thing too,
we'll add this in before sorry. Do you notice how
like conservatives and I know I said this to you before,
conservatives can never wait to declare victory and leave, and
progressives never declare victory. They no matter how much money
they get from the government, no matter how much how
many specials to decide programs they get no matter how
much Hollywood is just sort of their catechism, you know,
superimposed upon popular intellectual properties. They never declare a victory.
They never declare a victory. Whereas as soon as Trump
gets into office, conservators like, oh, bok era is over,
America is back baby. Now we're the government. And it's
just not true. And we have to remind ourselves that
it's not true. We have to remind ourselves that there
is a very high probability, I mean almost a certainty
that you're going to be facing a hostile total state
or an insolvent total state, both of which are very
very dangerous if you're the only group in the country
that is not collectively organizing to defend its interests. And
I mean and again, that does not make retirement happy,
and it doesn't make you feel good, you know, indulging
in all of our kind of well indulgent not to
be redundant indulgent hobbies or whatever. But it's a reality
that we have to internalize, and until eternalize that reality,
I don't know how things change.
Speaker 3: And honestly, this is again in sort of an atypical
Curtis Jarvin mode. He's been making this point that, you know,
Republicans focus on good governance, the Democrats focus on power.
Speaker 2: Yeah, right.
Speaker 3: Republicans play as if they are in a reciprocal system
where you know, you're supposed to leave it better than
you found it, whereas the opposition is playing the zero
sum game, you know, and to be honest, that seemingly
is something that you cannot you know, shame or force
out of the GOP seems to be built in kind
of a bone deep level. But Dave, we're over time,
a ton of fun, man, it's great talking to you.
So obviously we've mentioned your streams, we've mentioned your your articles,
both of which will be linked on the description. You
also have Twitter, and I think that's everywhere people can
find you.
Speaker 2: Correct, well, almost right, because I started a new kind
of started a new blog here, so I have, by
the way, everyone knows me from the YouTube channel the Distributist,
although my main hub now has moved to substack, meaning
that you can get the podcasts and the written articles
on substack, whereas if you do the YouTube thing, you'll
only get the videos or whatever, and they probably sunset
and the occasional video. I said that no one watches
it anymore. In addition to that, I guess I am
also trying to start a new blog for the California
chapter of the OGC, the Redwood Society, where and we
haven't quite started this up yet, but we are trying
to create a blog focused around community building and positive
steps forward and developing culture and supporting people in our sphere.
And this is something that I've cared a lot about,
and it's hard going because it's a poor entertainment product,
but I I would suggest you check the work out
there too, as well as the OGC. More generally, I
suspect that these organizations, you know, we're looking forward to
twenty twenty six, I expect that these organizations like Beowolf,
like Selding's, like Exit Group, like the OGC. Obviously there's
gonna be a lot of interesting work that is done
by people under that larger umbrella, even if it's radically different. Right,
there are a lot of young guys out there that
are looking at the kind of go in a different
direction and need to have sort of collective support to
do that. So I think that'll be very interesting. No,
I think you're entirely right, Dave. Obviously, all the relevant
links down the description. As far as my stuff the
Jay Burtons Show, Apple, Spotify, YouTube, this is what I
do now. If you want to support me, the episodes
early in ed free for like five bucks a month
on Patreon, Substack or gum Road.
Speaker 3: Not a bad deal. Check out Xus Remote fitness coaching
run by j d Another you know, another friend of
the show, Dave. This was a ton of fun, man,
Thanks so much for coming on.
Speaker 2: Thanks so much.
Speaker 3: Everyone at home. Keep your head up. I can't last forever.
Good night.
Speaker 1: Marketing is hard, but I'll tell you a little secret.
Speaker 2: It doesn't have to be. Let me point something out.
Speaker 1: You're listening to a podcast right now, and it's great.
Speaker 2: You love the host, You seek it out and download it.
Speaker 1: You listen to it while driving, working out, cooking, even
going to the bathroom.
Speaker 2: Podcasts are a pretty close companion. And this is a
podcast ad? Did I get your attention? You can reach
great listeners like yourself with podcast advertising from libsynads. Choose
from hundreds of top podcasts offering host endorsements, or run
a pre produced ad like this one across thousands of
shows to reach your target audience and their favorite podcasts
With libsynads go to libsynads dot com.
Speaker 3: That's l I B s y n ads dot com
Today