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