Speaker 1: Meaning a man like this man letting butterfly flapping his wing.
Speaker 2: They've done in a force.
Speaker 1: Man, it gonna cause a tree fall letting five thousand
Speaker 1: miles away.
Speaker 2: Many nobody see, Nobody else.
Speaker 1: Might see.
Speaker 2: You don't need no man, don't They's like you followed
Speaker 2: another story and you got back to flect that that's
Speaker 2: the way. Man, don't blackly d on the panel. Man,
Speaker 2: You don't don't better, man, I.
Speaker 1: Don't any few words come to dominate the conversation more
Speaker 1: than shell. Right, someone who is paid to offer their opinion. Now,
Speaker 1: some of this right is the explosion of influencers. Traditional
Speaker 1: media is well and truly dying, and the fraction of
Speaker 1: people who make decisions, whether political or consumer decisions, based
Speaker 1: off of traditional media is to decline. Let me just
Speaker 1: look at what happened to car magazines. They barely exist anymore.
Speaker 1: I think you can still go to newsstands and buy them.
Speaker 1: But what really matters is what's big on social media.
Speaker 1: Big on YouTube, big on TikTok, big on Instagram, And
Speaker 1: that applies to pretty much every hobby, and it certainly
Speaker 1: applies to politics. I mean, look at what I'm doing here.
Speaker 1: But with that, of course, comes the shill, right, someone
Speaker 1: who uses their audience to enrich themselves, get paid to
Speaker 1: say certain things. You now, a lot of times this
Speaker 1: is just undisclosed advertising or even disclosed advertising. You know,
Speaker 1: this episode brought to you by insert whatever it is.
Speaker 1: And I think that we are well attuned to that, right,
Speaker 1: the deliberate paid speaker. Let me see this with influencers
Speaker 1: all the time. You know, even Tim Poole, right, got
Speaker 1: busted for taking a whole bunch of money from Russia.
Speaker 1: And maybe he didn't know and don't know the specific
Speaker 1: of that. That DNC twin carries this on. I think
Speaker 1: that's how you say his name, right. They are a
Speaker 1: number of these, right on both sides of the political
Speaker 1: wile because people understand one it's cheaper, right, you don't
Speaker 1: have to spend a lot of money to get a
Speaker 1: lot of result. And two, this is how decisions are made,
Speaker 1: This is how people formulate their opinions. They go to
Speaker 1: the Internet, they don't go to traditional media. And when
Speaker 1: we're looking at a time like ours where the conservative movement,
Speaker 1: which okay we may not be a part of, but
Speaker 1: we're certainly in dialogue with conservatives, are floundering become really
Speaker 1: difficult to figure out, Well, where is this coming from?
Speaker 1: Some of it, like I said, is direct. So this race,
Speaker 1: Thomas Massey's primary has been really fascinating because a lot
Speaker 1: of money has been going and I'm sure you guys
Speaker 1: all remember what with polymarket no points for guessing, you
Speaker 1: know where they get their money from? Who owns it?
Speaker 1: But of course, right, big kind of nothing sex scandal.
Speaker 1: His ex girlfriend alleges that he got her fired from
Speaker 1: her job I think an intern right after they broke up.
Speaker 1: There's nothing to it, right, He denies it. Everyone at
Speaker 1: the office she works at denies it. Her friends deny it.
Speaker 1: It's nothing, but it was promoted because they want Massy up,
Speaker 1: and very quickly, of course Polymarket, which weirdly enough, the
Speaker 1: betting markets have sort of become a stand in for
Speaker 1: polling shift dramatically and that becomes the error, that becomes
Speaker 1: the point you promote. Oh he's cooked, he's done, and
Speaker 1: who knows, right, we haven't actually finished the primary yet.
Speaker 1: Like I said in the episode, I'm not the biggest
Speaker 1: Massy guy, but you know what, as much as it matters,
Speaker 1: he's got my support. And so there's that the kind
Speaker 1: of direct reaching your fingers into the conversation. But there's
Speaker 1: another level as well, a kind of softer control. I
Speaker 1: think it's very important to look at, and it's important
Speaker 1: to examine when we're wondering, well, why can't the right
Speaker 1: get anything done? Why does it seem that you know,
Speaker 1: there's there's money raised, there's a project, and then nothing right?
Speaker 1: And all that just comes down to soft control, the
Speaker 1: kind of carrot and sticks the decentralized media landscape enables.
Speaker 1: So money is perhaps the easiest one. So X formerly
Speaker 1: Twitter pays you, right, you can get a decent amount
Speaker 1: of money by posting there, But of course it's a
Speaker 1: constantly adjusted algorithm, so you are getting played, right, You
Speaker 1: are getting paid to produce certain types of content, and
Speaker 1: sometimes that's just a formatting thing. You know, how short
Speaker 1: is it? Is it too repetitive? Whatever? You can kind
Speaker 1: of understand, right, X is a business, and certainly you
Speaker 1: know there are sort of things that they would rather
Speaker 1: you be doing than things that they wouldn't. But you're
Speaker 1: an idiot if you think that it only applies to
Speaker 1: that sort of stuff, That only applies to how long
Speaker 1: the video is. If you're spamming content every five minute right.
Speaker 1: That enables people to control the conversation, to lead people
Speaker 1: with money and on the back end, of course, with
Speaker 1: bands or restrictions, into talking what they want to talk about.
Speaker 1: And I think that this is really interesting when we
Speaker 1: look at why certain stories disappear or certain stories won't disappear.
Speaker 1: Epstein is great example. Right, that story is still big
Speaker 1: in the culture. Right, people are talking about it. It's
Speaker 1: a joke in certain context. Right, people bring it up
Speaker 1: as you know, a celebrity roasts and the like. The
Speaker 1: media is done with it, they've moved on, and big
Speaker 1: influencers their following course, something is being moving on from it.
Speaker 1: And I think that there's another thing to be aware
Speaker 1: if we're talking about this sort of cognito warfare, right,
Speaker 1: is that also there's a deliberate desire in my mind
Speaker 1: to pollute the waters, right, to promote using those same
Speaker 1: carrots and sticks we talked about, whether it's money or
Speaker 1: reach or whatever, a deliberately dumb or inflammatory version. So
Speaker 1: you saw this with the nine eleven Truther stuff, right,
Speaker 1: what gets the big headlines. It's loose change. It's a
Speaker 1: kind of overly conspiratorial view of what it was, and
Speaker 1: the very real concerns of like, well, wait a minute,
Speaker 1: who trained these guys wide and seemingly, you know, our
Speaker 1: government and the government Israel seemed to know about this, right,
Speaker 1: there were very suspicious things on the front end. Let
Speaker 1: alone that the flight that went down over Pennsylvania, with
Speaker 1: the very real questions was that shot down. That all
Speaker 1: gets kind of swept under the rug. Conversation becomes holograms,
Speaker 1: becomes integral explosives built into the towers, things like that.
Speaker 1: And so for a third party, someone who isn't necessarily
Speaker 1: super interested, when they go to look or when they
Speaker 1: have this conversation, their associations are poisoned by the coops,
Speaker 1: poisoned by the learn it takes right. And this is
Speaker 1: the meaning of that phrase you've probably heard before, a
Speaker 1: limited hangout right, a little bit of something, but it's
Speaker 1: a cul de sac, never get to you any And
Speaker 1: I think that that's something else we see a lot
Speaker 1: of lastly, and this is something that I think we
Speaker 1: need to be very cautious about. Let's be honest. For
Speaker 1: many people, politics as entertainment, and I don't begrudge anyone that, like, look,
Speaker 1: not all of these shows are particularly serious. I clearly
Speaker 1: am not a consistent, serious political podcast, even though that
Speaker 1: might now. But at the same time, when you combine
Speaker 1: that with the influencer dynamics, it leads to the sort
Speaker 1: of blood sports version of politics where nothing matters outside
Speaker 1: of being content to increase my own clout, my own audience,
Speaker 1: the bag that I get. And I think that, especially
Speaker 1: as we go through a time where it feels like
Speaker 1: energy is low, it feels like people are burnt out
Speaker 1: and burnt out for very good reasons, reasons that I've
Speaker 1: laid out in many other of these monologues, that behavior
Speaker 1: is going to keep going. That behavior of fracture, that
Speaker 1: behavior of saying something deliberately shocking or stupid just to
Speaker 1: get that clicks right, is going is going to continue.
Speaker 1: And I think that this is something that we have
Speaker 1: to be very cautious of because entertainment and quality. And
Speaker 1: I don't mean quality in the sense of like, you know,
Speaker 1: the most aeradite, the most you know npr ask, but
Speaker 1: to say that, you know, there are a lot of
Speaker 1: things that are very entertaining that really suck attention that
Speaker 1: are one not particularly good politics, and two not particularly
Speaker 1: good for you. And I'm not saying this to be
Speaker 1: your mom right to tell you what to watch and whatnot.
Speaker 1: But again, I think there is a deliberate desire to
Speaker 1: neuter certain things coming from the radical right, to spend
Speaker 1: people off into kind of pants on head, retarded conspiracy theories,
Speaker 1: to spin them off into kind of the entertainment sphere right,
Speaker 1: to spend them off away from the uncomfortfortable, very difficult
Speaker 1: fractures in our current political order, the questions that really
Speaker 1: we don't have an answer to, and that any investigation
Speaker 1: thoroughly delegitimizes a regime that's already flounder. And when I
Speaker 1: say floundering, I do mean floundering. Both sides of politics
Speaker 1: are in a very tough spot. And the post war
Speaker 1: consensus right, the sort of unwritten rules that dominated American
Speaker 1: politics for the last eighty years, I mean, it's crumbling.
Speaker 1: It's completely and totally falling apart. You see that in
Speaker 1: just the cultural disillusion, there is really no Median American
Speaker 1: culture anymore. Part of this is demographic, part of it
Speaker 1: is cultural. Part of it is just due to the
Speaker 1: fact that there are fewer and fewer actual Americans in
Speaker 1: this country than ever ever. But nonetheless, this is a
Speaker 1: fundamentally unstable system, it's no shock that people are looking
Speaker 1: for answers elsewhere. And well, if you've got the tiger
Speaker 1: by the tail, if you're on top of this very
Speaker 1: kind of unstable game of janga, well that's no use
Speaker 1: to you at all. You're much better served if people
Speaker 1: are very worried about Emmanuel Macron's wife. Right, whatever combination
Speaker 1: of genitalias you have, that's more helpful. And we don't
Speaker 1: even need to bring the AI into it to notice this.
Speaker 1: But once you have that ability to generate basically nonsense content,
Speaker 1: that ability to artificially boost replies, that ability to artificially
Speaker 1: create a conversation, you can see that that is the battle. Right.
Speaker 1: That is the info war, as Alex Jones would say,
Speaker 1: and something to be aware of, because really, what this
Speaker 1: episode you're about to hear is all about is one
Speaker 1: about that dynamic, right, the cognito war, but also this
Speaker 1: problem that conservative movement America's face deep generational divide, which
Speaker 1: was sharply shown by what we saw in Massi's primary.
Speaker 1: His support He's got strong support minus fifty five and
Speaker 1: he loses out plus fifty five. And that's interesting because
Speaker 1: sure we understand old voters show up more. This has
Speaker 1: been a rule in American politics for a long time,
Speaker 1: so it's entirely possible that Massy loses this. There's been
Speaker 1: millions coming in from the Israel lobby, miss millions coming
Speaker 1: in from Miriam Adelson, So it's very possible that he loses.
Speaker 1: But much like the genocibein Gaza, much like the war
Speaker 1: in Iran, a short term victory doesn't solve the very
Speaker 1: real long term problems and very real long term problem
Speaker 1: for Israel's obvious. You know, they're just in a tough
Speaker 1: spot geopolitically, with a lot of enemies around them, making
Speaker 1: more by the day and declining support in America. But
Speaker 1: as regards the conservative movement, they have a platform, what
Speaker 1: they actually do that appeals to a relatively narrow slice
Speaker 1: of the electorate. Sure, they're overrepresented in Republican politics, they're
Speaker 1: overrepresented in their current voters, but their agent and the
Speaker 1: people below them do not share those values. And so
Speaker 1: maybe the idea is just like a shoot bomba ran
Speaker 1: kill the Ietola of whatever, just throw everything at the wall.
Speaker 1: It seems as if there's a desire to sort of
Speaker 1: spin up kind of completely and totally encodate Internet narratives. Oh,
Speaker 1: you know, Massy is a sexual predator. Oh, you're a
Speaker 1: paid agent of Oh this is exactly what the chicoms want. Oh,
Speaker 1: this is exactly what the woke left is kind of
Speaker 1: flailing and who knows. Over the short term it may work,
Speaker 1: although I'm not entirely convinced Massy. That's kind of a
Speaker 1: toss up. But when it comes to the actual fight
Speaker 1: for well, what does the average conservative, right right of
Speaker 1: center guy think? I think they're cooked there. But what
Speaker 1: comes next? This ultimately is a delaying action. It doesn't
Speaker 1: address that core issue, especially if the cost of living
Speaker 1: crisis balloons, because sure they have some ways to address that.
Speaker 1: There's sort of some built in narratives being built, but
Speaker 1: already they're showing signs of weakening. These narratives are not
Speaker 1: holding up, and this could genuinely be and it seems
Speaker 1: to be the beginning of an apocalypse for the American
Speaker 1: conservative movement. I've spoken before of the deep divides running
Speaker 1: through pretty much every conservative quote unquote institution in America.
Speaker 1: One of the big stories over the past couple of
Speaker 1: weeks has been the crumbling of the Daily Wire. They
Speaker 1: lost people that were positive the official party line on
Speaker 1: Israel and Iran is let's put it this way, a
Speaker 1: little off putting to say it mildly, but nonetheless, of course,
Speaker 1: there is a narrative. Oh, it's just the fake news media.
Speaker 1: Oh it's just this, it's just that. But Ben, if
Speaker 1: I can call you Ben, your company's going under. You're
Speaker 1: losing money, handover fist. You've been subsidized by the rest
Speaker 1: of your business for the best part of ten years. Right,
Speaker 1: At a certain point, that ability to spend a narrative,
Speaker 1: if it just does not comport with reality, runs out.
Speaker 1: And I think that's really what we're getting. I've spoken
Speaker 1: before about the paradigm shift right, the previous version of politics,
Speaker 1: the postwar consensus, whatever you want to call it, that
Speaker 1: kind of version of conservatism that has existed since Goldwater
Speaker 1: and really since Reagan. It's past it cell by day,
Speaker 1: and sure it will linger. It is already lingering. But
Speaker 1: you look at Massey's race. If it's plus fifty five, well, okay,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of people that are plus fifty five.
Speaker 1: That's at least for the very bottom of that demo.
Speaker 1: That's thirty more years of voting, which is a long time.
Speaker 1: But that's not entirely how it works, right, because a
Speaker 1: large portion of that is seventy five plus. Another larger
Speaker 1: percentage is sixty five plus, and those people don't have
Speaker 1: that much time. So what becomes of this party, right,
Speaker 1: what becomes of this political tendency, because seemingly it's headed
Speaker 1: for the ground, right, it is poised to destroy itself.
Speaker 1: And I'm up two minds about that one truly, I
Speaker 1: despise the leaders of the Conservative movement. I despise these shills,
Speaker 1: despise these sort of Zionist goods, have no sympathy for
Speaker 1: them whatsoever. The actual people, right, American Conservatives, the Red
Speaker 1: Staters are in my mind, they're the best people in
Speaker 1: this country. They are this country, really, and I don't
Speaker 1: know where they will go. There's no seeming next place
Speaker 1: for them, right, there's no seeming successor to MAGA and
Speaker 1: the Conservative movement, which feels very much as if it's
Speaker 1: on a precipice.
Speaker 2: So I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't know what comes next, but I'm quite confident
Speaker 1: that the conservative movement is cooked. And not to commit
Speaker 1: the cardinal sin of the internet and refer back to
Speaker 1: the death of Charlie Kirk, but to do it? I
Speaker 1: think really if we with Kirk, we saw a path forward, right,
Speaker 1: not necessarily my path forward, but that was something that
Speaker 1: could have been stable. He was flirting with some of
Speaker 1: our ideas. He was reaching out to people under fifty
Speaker 1: five and okay, maybe the party became more like that
Speaker 1: could have worked with that, Well, that's no option. And
Speaker 1: as well, it becomes quite clear that even you know,
Speaker 1: a minorly heterodox conservative is not welcome mass He's out MTG,
Speaker 1: who again not my favorite politician, not someone I have
Speaker 1: a particularly deep affection for, but she's out too, and
Speaker 1: the party line right with they're determined to keep is
Speaker 1: non functional. So what happens? Where do we go? And
Speaker 1: that's really a question I'm interested in. For a long time,
Speaker 1: I've been assuming that the next interesting conversation would be, well,
Speaker 1: what happens with MAGA? Who is the successor? And I
Speaker 1: still think that's an interesting question. Seems like JD has
Speaker 1: been well and truly sidetracked. But in my mind anymore,
Speaker 1: it almost doesn't matter. The point where Trump and by extension,
Speaker 1: MEGA has lost the white working class, that voting coalition
Speaker 1: doesn't really exist anymore. It's not in the same way. Now,
Speaker 1: that doesn't mean, of course, that there is a right
Speaker 1: wing voting block in a mirror that there aren't people
Speaker 1: who don't want the insane excesses of the American left impact,
Speaker 1: and who knows that may be enough to let them skate.
Speaker 1: The redistricting, if it goes through, may be enough to
Speaker 1: let them skate, to let Trump avoid the embarrassment, prosecution,
Speaker 1: and potential impeachment. But again, we're not solving this issue.
Speaker 1: These are delaying acts. These are kicking the can down
Speaker 1: the road hoping it will go away, and fundamentally it
Speaker 1: will not. Because the contradictions of the post war consensus,
Speaker 1: the previous version of politics have become so painfully aware
Speaker 1: and things that are no longer unacceptable to speak about
Speaker 1: in polite society. You can say things that ten fifteen
Speaker 1: years ago would have pushed you out of any normal
Speaker 1: conversation to hit the mainstream. Well, how is that brought
Speaker 1: back in? How do you weld these people back to
Speaker 1: a system of values that are completely, in totally one
Speaker 1: hundred and eighty degrees opposite of what they believe, what
Speaker 1: they hold. I don't think you can, and that's why
Speaker 1: I think this is ultimately doomed, ultimately cooked, as the
Speaker 1: kids would say, So it's an interesting time. It's a
Speaker 1: very interesting time sort of watch things move, I think.
Speaker 1: Is one example, the college student recently killed by a
Speaker 1: sekh in England. Right, this kid was not allowed to
Speaker 1: carry a knife. If you're a sek, you are for
Speaker 1: religious purposes. Stabbed, tried to climb over a fence, stabbed
Speaker 1: in the heart. And when the police showed up, take
Speaker 1: the white kid, the English kid handcuff it because his
Speaker 1: attacker said, oh he was racist. Kid drowned in his
Speaker 1: black right in front of the police. And you look
Speaker 1: at that and you're like, okay, to put it mildly,
Speaker 1: it's not good to a very bad situation, but it
Speaker 1: exposes this fault line quite simply. There are another set
Speaker 1: of rules. And okay, the Republicans can beat their chest
Speaker 1: about rule of law. Fundamentally, we've reached a position where
Speaker 1: many people, not a majority, but enough people are looking
Speaker 1: at and say, well, this is anti white discrimination. There
Speaker 1: is another set of rules. We are second class citizens
Speaker 1: in our own nation. It's one example. Arena Zuritskas is
Speaker 1: perhaps an even more dominant one that this rash of
Speaker 1: killers and criminals being let off on basically nothing because
Speaker 1: they are declared to be mentally unwell, an option that
Speaker 1: is not available to you or I and all of this,
Speaker 1: and it's reached a point where this idea really has
Speaker 1: broken containment. Now we're not populous here, right, We're not
Speaker 1: looking for that fifty one percent to convince everyone so
Speaker 1: we can vote in, you know, mister Basement, to turn
Speaker 1: the cory around, make everything sensible again, to fix it.
Speaker 1: It's not what we're looking for. But at a very
Speaker 1: fundamental level, regimes need buy in. They need a way,
Speaker 1: They need that soft power that doesn't require them to
Speaker 1: have a policeman on every corner people to enforce the morality.
Speaker 1: It's the mandate of heaven, right, that kind of X factor,
Speaker 1: that little squishy thing where everyone kind of believes the
Speaker 1: police are legitimate. So when you see the cherries and berriers,
Speaker 1: you pull over. You don't make a run for it.
Speaker 1: You know, if if one of your friends, you know,
Speaker 1: if a policeman comes to the door, you might tell
Speaker 1: him where he is. Because you have this general assumption.
Speaker 1: Then now this must be serious, and must authorities are legitimate,
Speaker 1: and not to say we fully reach the stage of illegitimacy.
Speaker 1: But that moral distance, which creates that feeling of tyranny
Speaker 1: for the rule that our values are not aligned is
Speaker 1: a deep problem. And it's a particularly deep problem for
Speaker 1: the Republican Party, which doesn't have the advantage of being
Speaker 1: the true deep establishment, that doesn't have the advantage of
Speaker 1: controlling the civil service, of controlling law, of controlling all
Speaker 1: of these other things. They don't have the same well
Speaker 1: of hard power to draw, so they're much more dependent
Speaker 1: on that soft power. And so really they're in a
Speaker 1: bad spot. Not like I feel any sympathy for them,
Speaker 1: And honestly, I've been feeling sort of conflicted about this
Speaker 1: redistricting because on one hand, it's like, I want them
Speaker 1: to face the consequences right here and now. I don't
Speaker 1: want them to kick the can down the road. But
Speaker 1: also redistricting would benefit me, so'll do what every podcaster does,
Speaker 1: fail to make a definite prediction and then declare victory afterwards. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's an interesting, interesting time for them. I don't see
Speaker 1: how they get out of it. So, without further ado,
Speaker 1: kick you over. In the episode Stormy doing some clothing,
Speaker 1: of course, about our gop SAMs an option take from
Speaker 1: last year, proven to be incredibly correct, and then getting
Speaker 1: into the sort of influencer control cognito warfare I mentioned
Speaker 1: at the beginning. We get into it though. Check out
Speaker 1: our sponsor, Fox and Soon's Coffee East Code J Bird
Speaker 1: get fifteen percent off, drank it this morning, yel Salvadorian
Speaker 1: roast the Salvadoran. Is that how you'd say it?
Speaker 2: Whatever?
Speaker 1: The bukeller Land coffee beams pretty good. Liked him a lot,
Speaker 1: single origin, very chocolatey and nice. Did well in my
Speaker 1: Moca pot so, like I said, Code J birden senate,
Speaker 1: tell him I sent you. Find my show anywhere you
Speaker 1: listen to podcast, Apple, Spotify, YouTube and if you want
Speaker 1: the episodes early no ads. Throw me like five bucks
Speaker 1: a month on Patreon, gummot, substack. It's our support myself.
Speaker 1: I need you guys. Guys have been amazing at supporting me,
Speaker 1: and I know the ads are irritating, but that's how
Speaker 1: you get out of them, right, Give me money anyway?
Speaker 1: Your story, Waters, story, Waters, Welcome back to the Jaybird Show.
Speaker 2: How you doing? Man, doing good? Happy to be here.
Speaker 1: It is one hundred percent reime.
Speaker 2: Man.
Speaker 1: It's time for gloating because a while back it was
Speaker 1: November of last year. You and I had a conversation
Speaker 1: let me figure out exactly what episode it was, but
Speaker 1: recorded a podcast where we talked about the Republican Samson option.
Speaker 1: I basically lining out how the Israel lobby was going
Speaker 1: to kill MAGA, the Conservative movement whatever. Rather than relinquished control,
Speaker 1: they were going to push the pillars apart, let it
Speaker 1: collapse around them. And I'll be honest, we were completely
Speaker 1: in totally correct, right. The one of the big parts
Speaker 1: of that was this desire to sort of allow losses
Speaker 1: to happen and then blame the so called woke right
Speaker 1: far right, and uh, well we've seen exactly that, right
Speaker 1: that the setbacks we've seen themestically have been deliberately foisted
Speaker 1: on the grouper's, the Nazis, whatever your slur is there.
Speaker 1: And I think one it's important for us to, you know,
Speaker 1: to take a victory lap right, we were right, But
Speaker 1: also I think that there's an interesting dynamic which is
Speaker 1: effectively Trump may be able to skate more than we
Speaker 1: would have guessed because of redistricting. That effectively, at least
Speaker 1: as far as I look at, as far as I'm
Speaker 1: reading the data, if all elections were done on the
Speaker 1: lines that they are currently done, the Republicans would get demolished.
Speaker 1: They'd lose the Senate in the House. But this recent
Speaker 1: spate of redistricting striking down the Voting Rights Act has
Speaker 1: basically opened the door for the GOP to basically keep
Speaker 1: some sort of a grip on power. So one Starring,
Speaker 1: I'll throw back to you, let you gloat a little bit,
Speaker 1: and then two I'd be curious to get your thoughts
Speaker 1: on that.
Speaker 2: Eat it, suckers. We were right, you were wrong. Okay,
Speaker 2: that's all the gloating I really have. Actually, this has
Speaker 2: been something that not only have I not wanted to
Speaker 2: gloate about, like I haven't even wanted to talk about. Really,
Speaker 2: you know, it's like, oh, you were right that that
Speaker 2: person you know shouldn't have gotten behind the wheel and drove.
Speaker 2: And then you see them all like mangled up on
Speaker 2: the freeway, you know, kids like sprayed all over the highway,
Speaker 2: Like oh are you excited? Like no, no, actually, this
Speaker 2: is fucking horrible and I wish I wasn't right, But
Speaker 2: is that I think that's what being a member of
Speaker 2: the woke right, a woke right nazi of the actually
Speaker 2: a member of the one thousand year woke Reich. This
Speaker 2: I think, how how I like to put it is
Speaker 2: perpetually being right about things you wish you weren't And
Speaker 2: this is, you know, another one in a long line
Speaker 2: of things were right about that we wish we weren't
Speaker 2: right about. And as far as like I think the redistricting,
Speaker 2: I think the Republican redistricting efforts or lack thereof, is
Speaker 2: very similar to what we see in the Senate with
Speaker 2: the Save Act. Right to pass the Save Act would
Speaker 2: be to if not ensure, highly increase the likelihood of
Speaker 2: you know, Republican continuity, therefore not giving you the loss
Speaker 2: that you very much need to basically detonate the GOP
Speaker 2: and reform without you know, the rapidly growing America First faction.
Speaker 2: So when I see like Indiana Republicans this and not
Speaker 2: state Republicans coming up with the dumbest reasons to like
Speaker 2: welch on redistricting, I think, like South Carolina is doing
Speaker 2: the same thing right now, Teamy, like the head of
Speaker 2: the had of the South Carolina what is it the
Speaker 2: state Senate, I can't remember what they have whatever, like
Speaker 2: issued like a joint statement with Lindsay Graham about how
Speaker 2: they don't they think redistricting is dangerous. It's like they
Speaker 2: it's starting to get really obvious that they need to lose,
Speaker 2: like that's what the goal is. And I see Republican
Speaker 2: you know, the type of Republicans you and I despise,
Speaker 2: getting more and more transparent in their efforts to ensure
Speaker 2: an l.
Speaker 1: Well, I think that perhaps one of the most interesting
Speaker 1: races to look at as we head into the mid terms.
Speaker 1: And this redistrict thing really is, in my mind, kind
Speaker 1: of spanner in the works, right. We don't know where
Speaker 1: it's going to go, but is Thomas Massey's run for Congress.
Speaker 2: And so.
Speaker 1: To start this off, I don't actually like Massy particularly,
Speaker 1: and he's kind of ineffectual, a little bit annoying, kind
Speaker 1: of a sperg. But he's been on the right side
Speaker 1: of the war in Iran and several other important points,
Speaker 1: and there's been an effort to unseat him, right, to
Speaker 1: overcome Massey in this this primary, right, and there's been
Speaker 1: some really interesting data in this one. The funding has
Speaker 1: been highly disparate. Thomas's opponent Gallerin, Thomas Ed Galleran, that's
Speaker 1: his name, who is sort of an empty suit chamber
Speaker 1: of commerce type. Has gotten a whole lot of money
Speaker 1: from Mura Madelson, from other prominent figures, and after the
Speaker 1: most recent drop for gallerin which, by the way, I
Speaker 1: assume is how we say his name, I don't know
Speaker 1: anything about him and seemingly neither does anyone else. He
Speaker 1: exists as a body right to occupy that seat. Got
Speaker 1: this kind of latest cast infusion. Well, all of a sudden, this.
Speaker 2: Most and more, this, more than most, I will say,
Speaker 2: certain rabbit Like this guy like no, no, he is
Speaker 2: running in more closet a campaign than Joe Biden. Literally,
Speaker 2: like we're not exaggerating. He won't debate, He runs away
Speaker 2: from even the smallest town hall questions and has AI
Speaker 2: write his social media posts for him. Like this guy
Speaker 2: is a specter.
Speaker 1: He's not a person, you know, He's basically just a
Speaker 1: like cardboard cutout that they're sitting in the seat. But
Speaker 1: got a lot of money from from the Agelsen's. I
Speaker 1: guess there's only one now. And there's this sort of
Speaker 1: bizarre supposed sex scandal where one of Massey's exes is
Speaker 1: allegedly making some claims. It's actually quite difficult to get
Speaker 1: down to what is actually being claimed that seems to
Speaker 1: be deliberate. Massy, of course, has denied it all. It
Speaker 1: seems like this is a sort of spurious November Surprise
Speaker 1: style random scandal pulled out of a hat. But very
Speaker 1: quickly we see the betting markets swing wildly. And why
Speaker 1: did it swing well because a bunch of money came
Speaker 1: in on Goweran's side against Massi and that distorts the market.
Speaker 1: This distortion in the betting market is then reported on
Speaker 1: as you know, bookies think it's sixty forty. Goweran's got
Speaker 1: this in the back. It's all over. And what's especially weird,
Speaker 1: and I'm not sure if you notice this Stormy was
Speaker 1: that these posts from uh was it Kelshy? And then
Speaker 1: one of the other betting sites I saw, yeah, we're
Speaker 1: promoting these as advertisement, right, like they were paying to
Speaker 1: promote these.
Speaker 2: And then Suza Den Suza just made a post basically,
Speaker 2: you know, dancing on Thomas Massey's grave a little bit
Speaker 2: prematurely in quote tweeting this post that posts and his
Speaker 2: post was also paid promotion.
Speaker 1: Funny enough, right, right, So we're starting to see, oh,
Speaker 1: wait a minute, there's there's something going on. It should
Speaker 1: be known that, according to APAC tracker, Gowerin I think,
Speaker 1: has taken around eleven million dollars from the israel.
Speaker 2: Most expensive congressional race in US history.
Speaker 1: Yes, and when we get down to it, it seems
Speaker 1: as if it is like Gowan does have an advantage
Speaker 1: right in aggregate terms upon first inspection. But the way
Speaker 1: that these aggregates are being conducted, well, they're not particularly fair.
Speaker 1: So I sent you this storm here, but I'll break
Speaker 1: it down or for excuse me, my listeners, this is
Speaker 1: the support by age demo with a hard break at
Speaker 1: fifty five, So seventeen to twenty five Massy plus twenty five,
Speaker 1: twenty six to thirty five Massi's up fifty six points,
Speaker 1: and then up thirty eight and seventeen up to age
Speaker 1: fifty five. And then that's when we see it flip right.
Speaker 1: For every age gap past or for every age group
Speaker 1: past fifty six, Gallerin wins by double digits. Right as
Speaker 1: you get older, that becomes more true. And look, we
Speaker 1: understand old people are overrepresented due to the US population.
Speaker 1: I would say pyramid kind of weird column. Also due
Speaker 1: to the nature of who votes in Republican primaries and
Speaker 1: also due to the nature of the Republican Party, but
Speaker 1: they were massively over indexed in the polling. Right, they
Speaker 1: specifically waited older voters more So, when you take all
Speaker 1: of this at once, it seems as if and forgive
Speaker 1: you know, the kind of direct language, but it seems
Speaker 1: like this is an op right. It seems like there
Speaker 1: is a deliberate desire to engineer a social consensus that
Speaker 1: Galleran is walking away with it. So I threw a
Speaker 1: bunch at you there, Stormy. I'm curious to get your
Speaker 1: thoughts on it.
Speaker 2: Well, it's actually shows us a number of things. Like
Speaker 2: seeing stuff like that, like makes it makes me not
Speaker 2: hate boomers as much because they're just lied to about everything, right, Like,
Speaker 2: it's it's not that they're you know, yes they're selfish,
Speaker 2: and yes they're weak and cowardly, but all of their
Speaker 2: opinions exist in this matrix of unreality. They only know
Speaker 2: what Fox News tells them the other place that money matters,
Speaker 2: and when they this is like the they did. We
Speaker 2: saw a similar thing in the twenty twenty election. So
Speaker 2: seeing stuff like this actually makes me a little bit
Speaker 2: nervous because if you're going to do something really shady,
Speaker 2: and you know you're gonna do something shady, it's imperative
Speaker 2: that you do stuff like this beforehand, right or else
Speaker 2: you know you can't have it be if you're going
Speaker 2: to do something shady, it can't be a surprise, right.
Speaker 2: Everyone has to expect the result that you're going to create.
Speaker 2: That's a result that nobody looks into because why would they.
Speaker 2: The results are just matching what everybody thought they were
Speaker 2: going to be beforehand. Right. So this type of shaping operation,
Speaker 2: which is what it is, makes me nervous. But that
Speaker 2: being said, it also it highlights a point that I
Speaker 2: don't think a lot of people consider our adversaries main
Speaker 2: asymmetric advantage over us. It sures fuck, not numbers, right,
Speaker 2: It sure's fuck not smarts or looks. It's money. And
Speaker 2: what does money buy you? In politics? It buys you
Speaker 2: very specific things, right, Like, when somebody is in power,
Speaker 2: it buys you you know, their power. You can rent
Speaker 2: it and use it as your own beat it like
Speaker 2: a rental car. But when it's on the way up,
Speaker 2: politics uses money very specifically. Right. It's ads, it's ads,
Speaker 2: it's ads, it's ads, right, it is awareness. Money will
Speaker 2: buy you awareness even if people don't want to be aware.
Speaker 2: But what it can't buy you is conversion. Right, So
Speaker 2: you have on one side eleven million dollars being spent
Speaker 2: by people that are probably some of the most contemptible
Speaker 2: human beings alive, and that money is an order of
Speaker 2: magnitude greater than the money on the side that they are,
Speaker 2: you know, waging political warfare against and it's really something
Speaker 2: that's not going to last. Like this asymmetric advantage is
Speaker 2: running out, right, what do what does money buy?
Speaker 1: You?
Speaker 2: Buys you commercials, commercials on what on TV? Who fuck
Speaker 2: watches TV? People that are about to die? Suit? I'll
Speaker 2: so buys you ads while anybody that's Internet native not
Speaker 2: only doesn't engage with ads on the Internet whatsoever is
Speaker 2: so used to promotional content, right that the whole like
Speaker 2: promotional content that's not promotion, you know, the advertisements that
Speaker 2: aren't advertisement YouTube videos they're well aware they're they're Internet cynics.
Speaker 2: So that doesn't work very well either. You could do
Speaker 2: paid influencers, but that really doesn't work either, as we're
Speaker 2: seeing with a couple notable right wing influencers right now.
Speaker 2: Because the Internet is forever right, the only way you
Speaker 2: get influence is saying the right things. And the type
Speaker 2: of things that Jay and I say are the right things, right, Like,
Speaker 2: if you are a Christian, if you're an American and
Speaker 2: decent person like you are going to align with us
Speaker 2: on almost anything. Right. There's very little things that we
Speaker 2: would say that are really you know, things that people
Speaker 2: could disagree with in practicality. You may agree with it
Speaker 2: in principle, but you understand it and you could look
Speaker 2: back on the internet for forever. And Jay and I
Speaker 2: have been saying roughly the same things since we started
Speaker 2: saying things at all. So when there's a phase change, right,
Speaker 2: all of a sudden, Jay has become very, very enthusiastic
Speaker 2: a proponent, if you will, of the nation of Israel,
Speaker 2: I will say, wow, that's crazy. That's a clear and
Speaker 2: distinct change in his opinion based on anything he said prior.
Speaker 2: This is suspicious, and he begs the question, well, why
Speaker 2: have you changed your opinion? And usually you don't get
Speaker 2: a very you don't get a sufficient answer to that. Right.
Speaker 2: So even the paid influencer, right, the long play that
Speaker 2: you can buy with money, that doesn't much work either.
Speaker 2: So the thing that is their greatest advantage and in
Speaker 2: the age of you know, the age of super PACs
Speaker 2: from like the you know, really like the political life
Speaker 2: cycle of the boomers. Politics was a game about money,
Speaker 2: and I don't think it is anymore. I think we're
Speaker 2: in the birth pains of politics. However it ends up
Speaker 2: shaking out where how much money you spend doesn't matter
Speaker 2: as much as it used to. I think the straits
Speaker 2: are too dire.
Speaker 1: Well, I think that you could even look at the
Speaker 1: sort of last several elections right national level and see
Speaker 1: a sort of similar trend. Although and I don't know
Speaker 1: this pure speculation, stormy, but how much of this is
Speaker 1: still motivated by money but just not in the way
Speaker 1: you can see? Remember when was it Timpoole and Chen
Speaker 1: whatever her first name is? If it's Lauren Chen a
Speaker 1: real one, Chang Chang Chuan, well, because there's there's she is?
Speaker 1: And then is it Brittany Wu who's trans? I always
Speaker 1: get them mixed up.
Speaker 2: All Asian women are trans, the lowest fous sexual dimorphism
Speaker 2: of many people, like they're basically all trades, so it
Speaker 2: don't feel bad.
Speaker 1: So Timpoole and a presumable presumed Asian woman, Uh, remember
Speaker 1: a while back when they got busted for Russia money. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and obviously you don't know how true that is because
Speaker 1: they were, you know, right of center. It was the
Speaker 1: Biden years, right, it could all be to quote the
Speaker 1: man himself from a larkey. But uh, when I see
Speaker 1: things like that, and you know, there are certain other
Speaker 1: things I have seen from other media institutions that maybe
Speaker 1: I'm just too cynical, but you almost wonder if, like
Speaker 1: there is still money flying around, just not the sort
Speaker 1: that gets directly reported as campaign contributions, you know. I
Speaker 1: mean I even think of so much of the negative
Speaker 1: coverage around Massy, like, yes, sure, a big part of
Speaker 1: it is simply, you know, he hasn't done himself any favors.
Speaker 1: He has been kind of annoying, Like I get that
Speaker 1: why people would be you know, kind of motivated to
Speaker 1: go after it. And also, let's be honest, like there
Speaker 1: is a group of people who don't care nearly as
Speaker 1: much about the kind of you know, foreign wars stuff
Speaker 1: and have largely kind of forgotten the situation with Iran.
Speaker 1: But I do always wonder, you know, to what degree
Speaker 1: is is simply the game being played on more and
Speaker 1: more fields all at once in kind of an obfuscated way,
Speaker 1: but maybe it's respiratorials.
Speaker 2: Now, like, who is who is super chatting Ben Shapiro? Right?
Speaker 2: I remember why we have a mutual friend that's been
Speaker 2: on Tinpool. Right. I've heard from him and from somebody
Speaker 2: else that the type of super chats that were coming
Speaker 2: across were like five hundred nine hundred one thousand. There
Speaker 2: are lots of that, right, So what what is a superchat?
Speaker 2: Superschat's a very anonymous way of paying somebody, and it
Speaker 2: actually in how it exists, So like what a superchat
Speaker 2: is like in the way a superchat exists, It just
Speaker 2: so happens to exist in the best way that you
Speaker 2: could want a mechanism to covertly pay somebody, right, small increments,
Speaker 2: just loots.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of noise as well.
Speaker 2: Exactly right, Your money is getting mixed in it literally
Speaker 2: is a bitcoin mixer, right. Your transactions are getting mixed
Speaker 2: with millions of other transactions, right, and there's really no
Speaker 2: way to see what or originates where. And in the
Speaker 2: age of agentic AI, it would take maybe fifteen minutes
Speaker 2: to have you know, two open clawbots set up twenty
Speaker 2: thirty different YouTube accounts, loaded with prepaid credit cards, and
Speaker 2: and they'll just literally that that shit will run an autopilot,
Speaker 2: and you the person, are basically doing the same exact thing.
Speaker 2: Instead of handing tim Pool one hundred grand, you are
Speaker 2: just going to drop into an account that all your
Speaker 2: little open claws share. And you've effectively done the same
Speaker 2: thing but made it not traceable in any meaningful way.
Speaker 2: You've added layers of bob fu station above and beyond
Speaker 2: what even people that are trying to opustate do, just
Speaker 2: in the way that the platform happens to be laid out.
Speaker 2: You would be stupid if you knew anything about money
Speaker 2: and somebody said this is our objective, we need to
Speaker 2: pay these people, you would take one look at this
Speaker 2: and be like, this is how we're going to do it. Right,
Speaker 2: So it's not even like be it's not even like, oh,
Speaker 2: this is a possibility, this is the best tool for
Speaker 2: the job. Right. So if it is a possibility at all,
Speaker 2: which it is, right, we know these people again by
Speaker 2: their opinions changing and always changing on very very critical things, right,
Speaker 2: so they will be you know, call it in a
Speaker 2: meta sense, they will be against you know, Israel. Whateverly
Speaker 2: warded generally in this direction, but then in the one
Speaker 2: critical moment, right in the clutch, they will come up
Speaker 2: with another different reason why they're going to support doing
Speaker 2: the same thing. Right. It's these type of these people
Speaker 2: I've noticed, right, They're only wrong when it counts, And
Speaker 2: if you wanted to pay those people, that is how
Speaker 2: you would do it. That's how anyone with half a
Speaker 2: fucking brain would do it. This is also why I
Speaker 2: see Twitter monetization. I was against Twitter monetization from the
Speaker 2: very beginning. And you know, it's great that guys are
Speaker 2: getting paid and you're able to support yourself, you know.
Speaker 2: And it The reason why I don't talk about it
Speaker 2: that much anymore is because I'm an incredibly privileged position.
Speaker 2: So it's a lot easier for somebody like me to say, no,
Speaker 2: you shouldn't do this, like this is a bad idea,
Speaker 2: don't do this. It's a lot harder for somebody who
Speaker 2: you know, has got two kids, is struggling to support
Speaker 2: himself and in reality probably just lost his job. Like,
Speaker 2: it's a lot different of a thing for me to say,
Speaker 2: I know, you shouldn't you know, you shouldn't let Twitter
Speaker 2: pay you. You shouldn't let YouTube pay you because the
Speaker 2: compromise is kind of built in well, and it.
Speaker 1: Becomes an indirect way to control output. Right, so obviously
Speaker 1: the algorithm does that anyway, just and that could be
Speaker 1: done on the front end, right, you know, withholding reach
Speaker 1: promoting certain things. But also once you add that monetization
Speaker 1: into it, well, all of a sudden you have a
Speaker 1: you have a carrot and a stick. Right, you can
Speaker 1: take that away and look like anyone who and look,
Speaker 1: I have to deal with this, right, There's certain things
Speaker 1: that I have to say and remove later or that
Speaker 1: they talk about delicately, yeah, which means I forget nine
Speaker 1: times out of ten. But I mean it becomes a
Speaker 1: you know, a method for control. And this is something
Speaker 1: that Jack a Little talked about and people who read
Speaker 1: Jack a Little love to talk about. But the problem is, like,
Speaker 1: this is just sort of how human society works. Right,
Speaker 1: there are carrots and sticks. Productive behavior is rewarded, unproductive
Speaker 1: behavior is punished. Like that system is simply human. Now
Speaker 1: the problem is, well, how does that apply to us?
Speaker 1: And how is it being used? And I think what
Speaker 1: we've all seen is the monetization of Twitter has been
Speaker 1: absolutely disastrous, right, it has turned it into a like
Speaker 1: it's just a slop pact and.
Speaker 2: Our own guys are rage basically, Yeah, and postally everyone
Speaker 2: is getting almost strip poll and shaking their ass for
Speaker 2: money at least once or twice a month. I see
Speaker 2: it from so many people.
Speaker 1: Yeah, imagine imagine asking people for money for a service
Speaker 1: you do on the internet. It's it's purely shameful behavior.
Speaker 1: But I interrupted your flow there.
Speaker 2: No, No, I think what you do is far more honest, right,
Speaker 2: I think the subscription model is the only way, it's
Speaker 2: the only honest way that you can compensate somebody. Right,
Speaker 2: It's like you're backing them the person. If they change
Speaker 2: their tune suddenly, you simply stop back from that person.
Speaker 2: But I think things like superchats, things like pay per post,
Speaker 2: this opens the door much more to somebody, to people conditioning.
Speaker 2: And this is the thing like if you got paid
Speaker 2: per post, let's say, or you got paid per superchat,
Speaker 2: with a relatively small amount of money and a little
Speaker 2: bit of dedication or a little bit of automation, I
Speaker 2: will slowly and I guarantee you I would be able
Speaker 2: to not even hypothetical, I guarantee you I could carrot
Speaker 2: and stick you into changing your opinions about certain things,
Speaker 2: because first I'll change the way you talk about them.
Speaker 2: When you talk about it away, I like, you'll get
Speaker 2: paid when you talk about it away that I don't like,
Speaker 2: money will be removed from the table. And over time,
Speaker 2: this is why people talk about this in the shape
Speaker 2: and everyone will acknowledge audience capture exists. Okay, Like you
Speaker 2: identified a mechanism, Well, you don't think anybody's going to
Speaker 2: pick it up and optimize it? How Please tell me
Speaker 2: how somebody is not going to take a mechanism that
Speaker 2: we all know exists. Isn't like I could probably shape
Speaker 2: Tinpool's opinions on a lot of things without even Tinpool
Speaker 2: knowing it.
Speaker 1: There is a take a while, Yeah, but I mean,
Speaker 1: I mean what it uh? Well, and this is I
Speaker 1: think this is another part of it as well, that
Speaker 1: when you are primarily in a media ecosystem, and to
Speaker 1: go back to the results of Massey's primary, what we're
Speaker 1: seeing there is really two different information systems born out,
Speaker 1: you know in that data plus and minus fifty five
Speaker 1: seems to be the breakdown, and those people are still
Speaker 1: getting information but from radically different sources. The cliche is
Speaker 1: to say, social media and traditional media. But let's be honest,
Speaker 1: very few people really use traditional media anymore. I mean
Speaker 1: even the quote unquote boomers, I know, they don't really
Speaker 1: have TV. You know, some of them do. It's much
Speaker 1: more common than for people our age Stormy. But a
Speaker 1: lot of this is vectored through like big conservative Facebook accounts,
Speaker 1: you know, Like I mean, honestly, a lot of these
Speaker 1: people do have podcasts as well. It's just the like
Speaker 1: hyper produced.
Speaker 2: You know, just on the Internet.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly, So I think that's that's part of it, right,
Speaker 1: that we are seeing a breakdown of information system. But
Speaker 1: also at the same time, there is an interesting and
Speaker 1: I am not immune to this because of the way
Speaker 1: that content creation in the algorithm works, there's this need
Speaker 1: to move on to something fresh. So one of my
Speaker 1: worries with the war in Iran is that effectively it
Speaker 1: would fade into the background in the same way that
Speaker 1: you know that Iraq and Afghanistan did. Now, due to
Speaker 1: the kind of geopolitical consequences of where Iran is, that
Speaker 1: will be much harder to do. But it does already
Speaker 1: feel as if you know Iran is and part of
Speaker 1: that's due to this weird kind of cease fire question
Speaker 1: mark that we're in. But nonetheless, right, I do wonder
Speaker 1: as well if a lot of this is just a
Speaker 1: desire to constantly move on to the new thing. And
Speaker 1: you know, much of the content you see people making
Speaker 1: fun of, oh you still care about Epstein, Oh you
Speaker 1: still care about the war in Iran, it's you know,
Speaker 1: a new America, baby. I mean, I think that that
Speaker 1: is reprehensible and wrong. But like from the perspective of
Speaker 1: I need something new to talk about, you know, you
Speaker 1: can pick up an audience by zigging when you know
Speaker 1: enough people zag and you know, by being that Wow,
Speaker 1: that's so shocking, that's so daring. You can sort of
Speaker 1: accrue Internet clout to yourself while and you know, sort
Speaker 1: of get a head start on whatever the next thing is.
Speaker 1: And maybe that's maybe that's too simplistic of a model
Speaker 1: at social media are even aside from any kind of
Speaker 1: sinister desire to change people's opinions, but they are changing
Speaker 1: people's opinions.
Speaker 2: Hey, bro, I don't think that's too simplistic at all.
Speaker 2: I'm just talking with somebody on the Inquisition about this
Speaker 2: very thing last night at length. It's there's two things.
Speaker 2: The online right, for whatever it says its preference is,
Speaker 2: is the most egalitarian sphere in politics. It is the
Speaker 2: left has a mechanism for establishing hierarchy, and whose opinion
Speaker 2: matters it Usually, you know, revolves around how many foreign
Speaker 2: objects you can cram in your ass, divided by the
Speaker 2: color of your skin, and the binary of whether or
Speaker 2: not you're fucking a deformed triple or whatever. But it exists.
Speaker 2: But on the right it does not, and this will
Speaker 2: lead over time to exactly what you're talking about. Right, So, like,
Speaker 2: my opinion about let's say, capital markets is weighted the
Speaker 2: same with someone who is an assistant manager at an RB's.
Speaker 2: Arby's is great, by the way, but in any reasonable
Speaker 2: you know, the social system when it comes to capital markets,
Speaker 2: my opinion counts more than yours. It's informed by a
Speaker 2: tremendous amount of experience and a desire to transmit useful
Speaker 2: information to people. I don't really get anything out of it.
Speaker 2: None of you guys have enough money for it to
Speaker 2: make a difference whether I talk my book or not.
Speaker 2: All of you guys jumping in my positions or whatever like,
Speaker 2: isn't going to make the position, isn't going to make
Speaker 2: the stock go up. Is just not enough of us
Speaker 2: man and somebody like let's say, I mean, we can
Speaker 2: talk about this pretty much every topic, but basically the
Speaker 2: anonymous nature of our communication and the high disagreeability of
Speaker 2: the individuals that make up our sphere, and the very
Speaker 2: high I guess you could say autism, right, right, which
Speaker 2: is great, Like guys with autism, like white guys with autism,
Speaker 2: built the modern world. Right. But if you put them
Speaker 2: all in a room, they will agree about ninety five
Speaker 2: percent of things, disagree about five percent, and because of
Speaker 2: their personality type, the ninety five percent that they agree
Speaker 2: on is gone, and one hundred percent of their cognitive
Speaker 2: focus is on the five percent that they disagree about.
Speaker 2: It's also why we suck at organizing, right. But so
Speaker 2: then how do we optimize? Well, we optimize on what's
Speaker 2: more entertaining. If the army's managers take is funnier than mine, right,
Speaker 2: it is going to go further and farther then mine will.
Speaker 2: We have no way of examining things by their fruits.
Speaker 2: Everybody is the same, right, which makes this space, like
Speaker 2: I said, the most egalitarian space ever. Everyone's opinion matters.
Speaker 2: Everyone needs an individual snowplake. Literally every one gets a
Speaker 2: gold trophy, everyone gets a say, which makes us extremely manipulatable. Right,
Speaker 2: This is going to sound insane, but I think it's
Speaker 2: a good thought experiment. None of us were on the
Speaker 2: bus that Irena Zurutska was stabbed in, none of us.
Speaker 2: What we saw was a ccv TV video of a
Speaker 2: young woman get murdered. So we saw something horrible, and
Speaker 2: how could you not talk about it really over anything else?
Speaker 2: And if somebody was nefarious in the future, I'm definitely
Speaker 2: not saying this is the case with Areona. I want
Speaker 2: to make this perfectly clear, right, lest the listener get confused.
Speaker 2: If someone saw our reaction to that and had, let's say,
Speaker 2: the ability to produce video with extremely high production value,
Speaker 2: let's say you're an organization like the Mega Group, Right,
Speaker 2: So not only does it include all of the people
Speaker 2: currently arrange themselves against that have rained themselves against one
Speaker 2: Thomas Massey, right, miss Adelson, mister Singer, and that other
Speaker 2: fagot I can't remember, right, Also in the Mega Group, right,
Speaker 2: they're called the Megagroup because the Israel Mega donors is
Speaker 2: Steven Spielberg. Steven Spielberg can produce some shit. Right, So,
Speaker 2: at any moment in time, if you wanted to distract
Speaker 2: literally all of your online critics, right like your point, Jay,
Speaker 2: all somebody has to do is drop in a stimulus,
Speaker 2: and now everyone has to talk about this new thing.
Speaker 2: And as long as you have you know, very deep
Speaker 2: pockets and a very deep magazine of current things, of
Speaker 2: new things to fire into the discourse, you can pretty
Speaker 2: much guarantee that everyone is going to be talking about
Speaker 2: everything except for the thing you don't want them talking
Speaker 2: about about. Epstein, case and point. You can basically ride
Speaker 2: things out. I can give you stimulus after stimulus after stimulus,
Speaker 2: and then six months down the road, you've talked about
Speaker 2: two dozen topics right that have dialogue, that have dominated
Speaker 2: the discourse, and you have stopped talking about the thing
Speaker 2: I wanted you to stop talking about. And now so
Speaker 2: much time has passed to even bring it up as
Speaker 2: it's kind of cringe, it's not cool anymore. It's tremendous power.
Speaker 2: And on that is, we can't manage our emotional state.
Speaker 2: We can fall victim to this repetitively well.
Speaker 1: And the other thing I think about is the ability
Speaker 1: to promote a sort of limited hangout. The idea being
Speaker 1: that you take an idea that is correct, launder it
Speaker 1: through someone who is patently ridiculous, and then by association
Speaker 1: that idea becomes ridiculous. So, for instance, the kind of
Speaker 1: loose change theory of nine to eleven, like, oh, hey,
Speaker 1: there's something going on here. Oh do you think what
Speaker 1: this lunatic does. Surely you're not one of those retards
Speaker 1: that believes X, Y or z. And then the whole thing,
Speaker 1: the whole truth or movement as it were, becomes sort
Speaker 1: of smirched by association. It's a tar baby, effectively, and
Speaker 1: there are there are many figures, I think who operate
Speaker 1: like that. You know, the kind of extreme lunacy we
Speaker 1: see around you know, Epstein is a great example, you know,
Speaker 1: other kind of property, yeah, Charlie Kirk, where reasonable questions
Speaker 1: are swallowed up by the sort of most stupid takes imaginable.
Speaker 1: You know, the idea that the homosexual president of France
Speaker 1: himself shot Charlie Kirk and look like you know, it's
Speaker 1: a little bit funny, but all of a sudden, that
Speaker 1: is what the conversation is. And again, if we're talking
Speaker 1: about the ability to control to control funding, right, either
Speaker 1: directly or indirectly right through kind of algorithm control, Like
Speaker 1: you can see that happening, and Stormy, you did an
Speaker 1: episode a while back about cognitive warfare and it's really
Speaker 1: stuck in my head and I kind of can't stop
Speaker 1: seeing it. You know, the idea that things can be crafted.
Speaker 1: And it's funny because many social media platforms, including YouTube,
Speaker 1: have literally allowed producers to use this feature where you
Speaker 1: can ab test a different thumbnail, a different title right
Speaker 1: to see which one does better. And if you imagine
Speaker 1: if I, you know, with a small YouTube channel, have
Speaker 1: access to that, what more does someone with a much
Speaker 1: bigger platform or someone looking to act nefariously And also
Speaker 1: the back end biometric data from the device you're looking at,
Speaker 1: you start to think, well, you could very quickly manufacture consensus.
Speaker 1: You can very quickly if you wanted to overload someone
Speaker 1: with stupid ideas is on a subject and get them
Speaker 1: to drop it. Like you wouldn't even need to be
Speaker 1: particularly intelligent to figure that out.
Speaker 2: Not only can do shakekitting census, but people will go
Speaker 2: around and force it for you. Yeah. A good example
Speaker 2: of this is I guess, I guess we can talk
Speaker 2: about the the incredible amount of engineering that can go
Speaker 2: into this. But one really interesting way of pointing it
Speaker 2: out how pernicious it is is kind of setting how
Speaker 2: they how they're able to because this is something that
Speaker 2: money does by Like I said, like you can get
Speaker 2: people to become aware of things, and it doesn't mean
Speaker 2: they're going to get them to disagree. Like I know
Speaker 2: who Ed Gallerin is. I don't watch TV, I don't
Speaker 2: you know, listen to any of their you know, aligned media,
Speaker 2: but I still have to know. Like the one thing
Speaker 2: there to add by it was able to do is
Speaker 2: put this you know, automaton in front of my face,
Speaker 2: and I became aware of it. Right And unless you
Speaker 2: are aware of what you know Jay's talking about, that
Speaker 2: alone is enough, right. And I'm sure some I know
Speaker 2: that some of your listeners, Jay are in you know,
Speaker 2: my my distant homeland of England, and this will hit
Speaker 2: particularly home to them if I know that a whole
Speaker 2: bunch of if I've made a whole bunch of really
Speaker 2: bad decisions, let's say, running your country, bad financial decisions
Speaker 2: that I know are going to hurt you in about
Speaker 2: six months, I need to get out in front of
Speaker 2: that quickly and I need to control how you examine
Speaker 2: all these new stimuli that you're to get, like the
Speaker 2: things that you see in the news about you know,
Speaker 2: the market going down, or the stimuli you get when
Speaker 2: you try and pay for something and you receive the
Speaker 2: tab of how much it costs. These are stimuli. I
Speaker 2: need to control how you interpret, right, paradigm, So paradigm
Speaker 2: isn't just what you think about something. If people misunderstand
Speaker 2: how important paradigm is, and it's the most overused, least
Speaker 2: understood concept, I think that what an egg grigore is.
Speaker 2: But I'm glad people shut the fuck up about that.
Speaker 2: Finally it seems to have died.
Speaker 1: Course heard is the freezing gnostic, which seemingly exists exclusively
Speaker 1: so that I can say something is icky and gross. Yes,
Speaker 1: there are certain things that actually are a gnostic. Right.
Speaker 1: You could look at humanism, right, the idea that I
Speaker 1: mean the flesh is weak, you know, like, okay, maybe
Speaker 1: something there, but just pulling that term out of your
Speaker 1: back pocket as a you know, sort of catch all, Right,
Speaker 1: it's irritating.
Speaker 2: But can you even call trans people? You can call
Speaker 2: trans people and transhumanist gnostic? Everything else you're wrong? Oh,
Speaker 2: I thought you were.
Speaker 1: Going to say you can call trans people in quotes
Speaker 1: like the people.
Speaker 2: Oh no, you cannot. You cannot do that anyway. Sorry,
Speaker 2: in fact, to try and insinuate that they are in
Speaker 2: fact people. That's gnostic.
Speaker 1: But the funny thing is that's actually a better argument
Speaker 1: than almost anyone you'd read on the internet. If we
Speaker 1: get distracted on this, will never actually get to your
Speaker 1: point without.
Speaker 2: It, without a doubt, like I actually want to not
Speaker 2: I am going to resend my stack rank I would probably.
Speaker 2: I think gnostic is at the top of misunderstood things.
Speaker 2: Paradigm is second, and uh aggrigor is a distant, distant third.
Speaker 2: But all of your English listeners are going to hear
Speaker 2: or going to know about the cost of living crisis
Speaker 2: cause he lives, as I believe you guys refer to it,
Speaker 2: the cause he lives. Oh look, I can't buy this thing.
Speaker 2: Oh I can't afford to buy a house. Oh well,
Speaker 2: I can't afford to go halfs with you on this,
Speaker 2: or we can't afford to go on vacation, you know,
Speaker 2: cause he lives. Guys, the regime handed you a filter
Speaker 2: before you know you needed one, right before you knew
Speaker 2: that you needed to think critically about something. Somebody framed
Speaker 2: that for you and said, this is what's happening. And
Speaker 2: now what is deliberate theft and malice that's been done
Speaker 2: to you and your financial future, your children's financial future
Speaker 2: has been framed in a way that has been taken
Speaker 2: up by your entire soustet society as a force of nature.
Speaker 2: Nothing could be done about it. It's just this thing
Speaker 2: that exists. It's the cost of living crisis. And now
Speaker 2: since that framing has been internalized, now every bit of
Speaker 2: new information is going to be held up to it
Speaker 2: and then dismissed accordingly. Oh look at this terrible thing.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, well bro, like cost of living crisis? Like
Speaker 2: what are you talking about? Like we all know this.
Speaker 2: It's just like the rain. That's just the one that
Speaker 2: sticks in my head the most. But I can we
Speaker 2: can point to thousands, right, just in the last five
Speaker 2: years where we are given a framing of something right
Speaker 2: before that thing happens. Right, the Charlie Kirk thing is
Speaker 2: especially interesting, right, Like everyone's like I have to I
Speaker 2: have to say, like, well, you know know, it's really
Speaker 2: foolish of me, Like I am. I had this argument
Speaker 2: with Andrew Isker Andrew, I love you. I love you. You're
Speaker 2: a great guy and you are my friend. But I
Speaker 2: had I had to I had I had to do
Speaker 2: you like Lenny and Myson of mice and men, and
Speaker 2: I didn't want to want you to know that. But
Speaker 2: telling young men that the insinuation that Charlie Kirk was
Speaker 2: murdered by someone other than some stupid true, which I mean,
Speaker 2: following the case, there's a good chance the fucking troom
Speaker 2: gets off, which is kind of crazy. They can't eaven anyways,
Speaker 2: saying it is anything other than the fbon's official narrative
Speaker 2: is to both hurt the GOP and make the left
Speaker 2: win in the midterms and make young men disengage from politics. Well,
Speaker 2: that's retarded. And I've heard this out of the mouth
Speaker 2: of dozens and dozens and dozens of the prominent light
Speaker 2: wingers right, And I don't think like I think. I
Speaker 2: don't think there's any malice behind what andrews saying. I
Speaker 2: don't think he's you know, on the like, it's benign.
Speaker 2: What Andrew has just told me is the exact same
Speaker 2: thing as me going like an English guy going to
Speaker 2: another English guy going, hey, like we are about to
Speaker 2: like hit the fucking skids financially and dah da da da,
Speaker 2: and that person going, yeah, bro, cause he lives, Like
Speaker 2: what do you want to like disengage from politics about it?
Speaker 2: Like what can you do? I think that was a
Speaker 2: framing that was given to him because I don't have to.
Speaker 2: I'm not a judge, I'm not a jury, I'm not
Speaker 2: a prosecutor. I am a political activists. I guess we
Speaker 2: one way to put it right, and my goal is
Speaker 2: total delegitimization of the regime right. And to me, whether
Speaker 2: somebody thinks it's the French fucking homosexual prime minister or
Speaker 2: president whatever is less effective to me. But I'll take
Speaker 2: it as what my actual enemy is, which is what
Speaker 2: that narrative was from the very beginning. Right. The counter
Speaker 2: narrative was the Israeli state, and people don't understand what
Speaker 2: Israel is, and maybe we can clear that up now.
Speaker 2: What is Israel is Israel. The homeland for the Jewish
Speaker 2: people doesn't seem the shuttle. They all seem to want
Speaker 2: to live here instead. In fact, life is pretty good here.
Speaker 2: You could argue that no place on the entire planet
Speaker 2: has been better for them. They've never lived as high
Speaker 2: on the hog as they live here. I've never been
Speaker 2: to Israel, but I've talked to a bunch of people
Speaker 2: that have Israel's a shithole. Why would you want to?
Speaker 1: So?
Speaker 2: What is Israel? Then? Because I don't see a lot
Speaker 2: of people from the Middle East coming over here and
Speaker 2: influencing my politics. I don't what do I see? I
Speaker 2: see people that live here, in most cases were born here,
Speaker 2: influencing my politics and the excuse that they wield. Just
Speaker 2: like Kusey lives is Israel, I think Israel is the
Speaker 2: exact same paradigm, right, the same perception tool as Kazi
Speaker 2: lives as don't question Charlie Kirk's you know, assassination. I
Speaker 2: think that was given to the Jewish people in America, right,
Speaker 2: because that's where the hustle is. So is it bend
Speaker 2: de Binnett Yahu and Israeli intelligence officials, you know, exerting
Speaker 2: control on my government. No, it's a bunch of people
Speaker 2: with American citizenship that live here, right. Lex Wexer's estate
Speaker 2: is like thirty six thousand square feet. I don't think
Speaker 2: that a single place exists in Israel that's as nice
Speaker 2: anywhere in the entire state. Why the fuck would he
Speaker 2: want to go there when all the money and all
Speaker 2: the power and all of the young luxuries are here.
Speaker 2: So what is Israel? Why is this issue important? It's
Speaker 2: important because what Israel is to Jewish people is the
Speaker 2: same exact thing that all of these other paradigm tools are.
Speaker 2: A way to focus and direct our conscious efforts. What
Speaker 2: Zionism was was a way to take a disparate group
Speaker 2: of diaspora people that can't agree on anything and find
Speaker 2: a thing that you can bind them together and their actions, right,
Speaker 2: roll them all up and swing them like a political
Speaker 2: cudgel to gain political control and there for financial control
Speaker 2: and legal controls and like law enforcement. Right, because you
Speaker 2: don't get rich by enforcing the law, you get rich
Speaker 2: by not enforcing it in certain directions. Right. So political
Speaker 2: power is financial power wielding that cudgel on the West
Speaker 2: for the extraction of frankly the greatest prize. No one
Speaker 2: in the history of the world has amassed more wealth
Speaker 2: than Britain and the United States. That's what Zionism is.
Speaker 2: So the narrative of whether or not Israel has something
Speaker 2: to do with the killing of a prominent political leader
Speaker 2: should be the number one political question of our time
Speaker 2: at this moment in anything that runs contract to their narrative. Sorry,
Speaker 2: I just got off on a really long tangent. Thanks
Speaker 2: you for being We need to get like a buzzer
Speaker 2: to stop me from doing that shit.
Speaker 1: No, No, there's there's a lot to that, and that's
Speaker 1: why big picture, I think, and this has been the
Speaker 1: subject of several of the last few monologues I've done
Speaker 1: that seems to me we're in kind of a time
Speaker 1: of burnout of politics. And I've been around doing this
Speaker 1: on the internet long enough to have seen this cycle
Speaker 1: before where it feels as if it's gotten stagnant, it's
Speaker 1: gotten boring, and most of all, has just gotten depressing.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: You know, obviously, the fact that the big story is Iran,
Speaker 1: that both isn't going well and isn't going quickly. It's
Speaker 1: kind of stuck in this weird in between space is
Speaker 1: part of it. But I think another one is the
Speaker 1: feeling that there's quite simply nothing to be done. You know,
Speaker 1: there's no place for our energy to go to. You know,
Speaker 1: it feels as if it's sort of disconnected. You know,
Speaker 1: it's like those little shopping carts at the grocery store
Speaker 1: that are shaped like a spaceship, you know, with steering
Speaker 1: wheels on them, are connected to absolutely nothing.
Speaker 2: I'm familiar with this analogy.
Speaker 1: Yes, and you know that. I mean, look like that's
Speaker 1: from a certain perspective what a lot of politics is.
Speaker 1: But nonetheless, right, it feels kind of hopeless from a
Speaker 1: certain perspective. And honestly, you know, this race in Tennessee
Speaker 1: I think is interesting because you know, you and I
Speaker 1: and others have been talking about this generational divide for
Speaker 1: a long time. And okay, let's say that polymarket is
Speaker 1: exactly correct, that the Adelson's bunny wins them that seat. Well,
Speaker 1: what's lost in the big time? I believe it is
Speaker 1: a it's an Amish family out of Allentown, Pennsylvania. It
Speaker 1: is not That is a joke for the the you know,
Speaker 1: slightly autistic in the audience. But right, let's say a
Speaker 1: political ally of Miriam Adelson. Yes, let's say that you
Speaker 1: know Matthew's wet out of politics.
Speaker 2: Well, what do we lose?
Speaker 1: Well, to be honest, you know, if he wasn't in,
Speaker 1: we probably never have gotten the Epstein files. All Right,
Speaker 1: that's not ideal, but it a like if we zoom
Speaker 1: out a little bit, that doesn't change the underlying core issue,
Speaker 1: which is, to be honest, conservative under fifty five are
Speaker 1: not going for this anymore. And one of the things
Speaker 1: that I have long wondered is you and I have
Speaker 1: been talking about, you know, what comes next for Maga,
Speaker 1: who's the successor? He's advanced? Is it Rubio? What direction
Speaker 1: does this go to? But I think that there's a
Speaker 1: very interesting possibility that whoever picks is simply unable to
Speaker 1: connect to the base. Right, that they find Marco RULEO,
Speaker 1: they find another version of Ed Gallerin, and it's only
Speaker 1: someone who can connect with plus fifty five voters. It
Speaker 1: just kills the whole thing. And okay, that would be bad, right.
Speaker 1: I don't necessarily want Kamala Harris or Gavin Newsom to
Speaker 1: be in charge, but that's a sort of adapt or
Speaker 1: die moment, and I don't know. I think that this
Speaker 1: is an interesting I want to say opportunity, but it is.
Speaker 1: It seems as if this unstable system has continued to
Speaker 1: become unstable, and the thumb on the scale in this
Speaker 1: race is incredibly, incredibly obvious. This is exactly what you
Speaker 1: don't need to be a genius to figure out what's
Speaker 1: going on. And I'm not going to pretend that most
Speaker 1: people know who Thomas Massey is or care about any
Speaker 1: political primary at all. This is politics nerd stuff. But
Speaker 1: the lobby has been forced to be more and more
Speaker 1: direct over the last three years. The mask has slipped,
Speaker 1: and we're already in a position where we're seeing the
Speaker 1: vast majority of young people and by young, I mean
Speaker 1: under fifty five, absolutely despise the state of Israel. And okay,
Speaker 1: what happens if present trends continue?
Speaker 2: You know, we lose.
Speaker 1: The current old people and we replace them with you know,
Speaker 1: the middle aged people. If yes year, does that idea stick?
Speaker 1: Because seemingly the coordinated media effort to reform the image
Speaker 1: of Israel and the Israel Lobby has just absolutely failed.
Speaker 1: Like I'm sure you saw, and this is incredibly grotesque,
Speaker 1: so I'll speak about it generally, but the report from
Speaker 1: the New York Times effectively accusing the government of Israel
Speaker 1: of using animals in sexual violence, specifically dogs, which is
Speaker 1: that has been an accusation for a long time. You know,
Speaker 1: if you're been in the anti war movement, spoken to
Speaker 1: those people, you will have heard that before, but the
Speaker 1: New York Times is the paper of record, and to
Speaker 1: put it mildly, that's gross enough. You don't forget it, right,
Speaker 1: that's horrible enough that it isn't simply you know, a
Speaker 1: bomb that went off. Course, I don't understand how, to
Speaker 1: be honest, the Zionist faction in American politics keeps going
Speaker 1: past a certain point, and you know, I may be
Speaker 1: wrong there, but it feels as if the politics of
Speaker 1: the twentieth century the previous instantiation is I mean, just.
Speaker 2: Like what they What do they really want though? Do
Speaker 2: they care about the US to pay the State of
Speaker 2: Israel or sorry, the nation State of Israel, or do
Speaker 2: they care about the untouchable status that that State of
Speaker 2: Israel gives them in America?
Speaker 1: Mm hmm, right, the Bolton line. They can basically exactly
Speaker 1: any inner all consequences.
Speaker 2: Exactly exactly, because I don't think again, like what you
Speaker 2: can't be anti Zionists right without also being anti Semitic.
Speaker 2: They are. The left is slowly going to learn this lesson,
Speaker 2: but we need to learn it quickly because what is
Speaker 2: Zionism Zionism in the Middle East is unfortunately Jewish supremacism,
Speaker 2: in America. Right, That's what it works out to, and
Speaker 2: you can do a lot of mental dancing around it,
Speaker 2: but it is privilege. And I think even if the
Speaker 2: American state or American support for the nation state of
Speaker 2: Israel goes away, what they're really trying going to try
Speaker 2: and hang on to is the nation the supremacist nature
Speaker 2: of our government. That's what they really care about. None
Speaker 2: of them, if they all cared about Israel, they would
Speaker 2: all go live there. They really don't that much. They
Speaker 2: like Israel because of what it allows them to do
Speaker 2: in the United States. Right, if you ask any of them,
Speaker 2: they are wherever they are. Israel, right, Israel is just
Speaker 2: unknew for a rapidly atheizing cohort. It's just the new religion.
Speaker 2: That's it. Hold on one second, I have to fling
Speaker 2: that call. Way to go, JP Morgan, Way to fuck
Speaker 2: that up for me? I want to I want to
Speaker 2: touch on something really quick. I think you hit something
Speaker 2: really valuable, because what does it look like if Thomas
Speaker 2: Massey loses more confirmation that they're that we can exert
Speaker 2: no political control over all levels of our government. Because
Speaker 2: that's the big thing about Trump, Like Trump wasn't our
Speaker 2: last hope. It was their last hope. Right, you blow
Speaker 2: it with Trump. And I know this is how a
Speaker 2: lot of Americans feal like, all right, fine, we'll vote
Speaker 2: for this guy one more time. But it's not we're
Speaker 2: going to you know, we're going to try him one
Speaker 2: more time. If you looked at them, at the rates
Speaker 2: of voter turnout before Donald Trump, like these people were
Speaker 2: fucking done voting and after everything they've seen, right, especially
Speaker 2: like the process supposedly working. We elected a guy to
Speaker 2: do all of these specific things, he does none of
Speaker 2: them after promising like all these things are just telling
Speaker 2: people we have control over the process of democracy. Right,
Speaker 2: They are telling you you can't vote your way out
Speaker 2: of it. Not you. We see the meaning everywhere, like, oh,
Speaker 2: you can't vote your way out of this. No, it's
Speaker 2: not us saying that. Thomas Massey being defeated is them
Speaker 2: saying it. So then what And this is why all
Speaker 2: of the guys doing respectability politics afread to say certain
Speaker 2: things or you know, trying to weave a line. The
Speaker 2: public is further ahead than you. It's very like if
Speaker 2: your top of funnel and the public moves further to
Speaker 2: the right than you. Right, it's no longer effective, and
Speaker 2: Tucker is perfect example of this. He has had to
Speaker 2: move to match people, right, Don't I think these are
Speaker 2: conclusions he's coming to organically through his conversations with regular people.
Speaker 2: But bro, I was checking out at the grocery store
Speaker 2: and the cashier, who is like fifty year old, you know,
Speaker 2: blonde lady probably maybe she's sixty years old obviously made
Speaker 2: some bad retirement planning, cracked a six million joke at
Speaker 2: my receipt. An old lady at the grocery store cracked
Speaker 2: a six million joke to me a stranger, like, that's
Speaker 2: where we're at now, And I don't these people are
Speaker 2: not intelligent people. They run on an algorithm, right, Like
Speaker 2: is this good for Jews in the specific? And more broadly?
Speaker 2: Does this protect Jews in the specific? And more broadly
Speaker 2: they will only like those are their prime directives first,
Speaker 2: which works really really really good on the way up right.
Speaker 2: It gives you a solidarity advantage that nobody else has, right,
Speaker 2: But it also doesn't have any breaks because a smart
Speaker 2: person would let Thomas Massein win. You need us to
Speaker 2: believe that we can vote our way out of it.
Speaker 2: You need it, right, because every vote that I cast
Speaker 2: is a tacit admission of my consent. Whether I win
Speaker 2: or not, I'm consenting to the system. So when people
Speaker 2: stop voting, the government loses all legitimacy. Then it can
Speaker 2: get real follow the Soviet Union real quick. And these
Speaker 2: people don't really have a break mechanism. So I get
Speaker 2: really annoyed at people trying to look at our political
Speaker 2: system as it is now and how to orient themselves.
Speaker 2: You're not going to be a staffer. You're not going
Speaker 2: to get elected congressman one day. At the rate we're going,
Speaker 2: nobody's going to give a shit about Congress. It's going
Speaker 2: to mean nothing. It will mean as much as blockbuster video.
Speaker 2: People will just move past it. People will just turn
Speaker 2: their backs on it. That goes to the state. WAW,
Speaker 2: that goes at the state level too. Right, government only
Speaker 2: works if people don't turn their back on it. Delegitimization
Speaker 2: is non violent political revolution. Right, what did the Soviet
Speaker 2: How did the Soviet Union collapse? Collapsed in three days,
Speaker 2: the thing that every intelligence agency in the country said
Speaker 2: was going to last another fifty to seventy five years,
Speaker 2: and it trying to enforce itself. And this isn't this
Speaker 2: is a nation. This is a nation that used force
Speaker 2: on its population liberally, right, even in the eighties. It
Speaker 2: had no problem with putting a bullet in the back
Speaker 2: of your head for you making a fuss. Right, So
Speaker 2: unlike our society, unlike our government, which has a real
Speaker 2: low mandate for using force in the population, almost none
Speaker 2: because they haven't because they've been so sparing with its application.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: But even a government that had a strong history of
Speaker 2: using force in's population tried to use force in his
Speaker 2: population for a rather small protest. And the people on
Speaker 2: the ground, right, not the guy in the control room,
Speaker 2: not the guy in the polyp Buro, they all said, yes,
Speaker 2: use force. It was the chud right on the lack
Speaker 2: of a better term, frontline that bucked, and within three
Speaker 2: days of that moment, the thing that was supposed to
Speaker 2: be around forever was gone. As soon as people turn
Speaker 2: their back on these institutions, they don't mean anything anymore.
Speaker 2: So if they keep taking your away your ways to participate, right,
Speaker 2: you want that process to speed up, not slow down.
Speaker 2: I like to hear what your thoughts are on that,
Speaker 2: because I mean, we're we see so many guys try
Speaker 2: and basically orient themselves on how things are now and
Speaker 2: not where things are going.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, so the problem is and I was.
Speaker 1: I spoke with Dan Tubb of the Lotus Edars yesterday
Speaker 1: and we were kind of messing around the same idea
Speaker 1: because look, man, like, there are races that measurably, measurably
Speaker 1: impact your quality of life, right, Virginia Gubnor, great example, Right,
Speaker 1: my quality of life went down because of that election
Speaker 1: pretty measurably. Okay, that's that's rational self interest, right, I
Speaker 1: get that. But then there's the kind of multiple iterations
Speaker 1: of the game, which is like do I want to
Speaker 1: support bad behavior? Do I want to provide you know,
Speaker 1: positive reinforcement for bad behavior? It's like, okay, well, if
Speaker 1: that's the position you're in, like you're just a slave effectively,
Speaker 1: here's the battery. You're not really doing anything or extracting
Speaker 1: anything out of the system. And I think as well,
Speaker 1: I've been really encouraged by the rise of Restore Britain
Speaker 1: Right Party out of the UK because there is an
Speaker 1: opening for that, right there is. There has been a
Speaker 1: desire for those sort of policies for a very long
Speaker 1: time unmet. And look, I understand UK politics and American
Speaker 1: politics works differently, the systems are balanced differently. Okay, one
Speaker 1: hundred percent, right, But to me that's really interesting because
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, it's like, Okay, there's something worth
Speaker 1: worthy of your right, your offensive energy, not simply they
Speaker 1: like I got to do something or else I'm gonna
Speaker 1: get really screwed this time of Like no, no, you
Speaker 1: can actually like do something on the political level.
Speaker 2: And so I don't know if I actually represents your interest.
Speaker 2: It actually represents your interest, right right? Right? Who runs
Speaker 2: the GOP? Oh, that's right, it's these people, so any
Speaker 2: like me, me pushing for their wins just further's a
Speaker 2: system that is excluding me.
Speaker 1: And you know what if they've got you in a
Speaker 1: situation where you really would get screwed for not voting
Speaker 1: for them, I mean, I guess it's like a guy
Speaker 1: with a gun to your head asking for your wallet.
Speaker 1: You know, it's like, okay, I mean you're gonna get
Speaker 1: screwed either way. One's just marginally worse than the other.
Speaker 1: So like, I wouldn't blame anyone in that situation, but like, yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, these these people need to hurt. And I
Speaker 1: think that very clearly. The op that you and I
Speaker 1: were were kind of predicting that sort of woke, right.
Speaker 1: I don't think that's worked at all. Nope, I don't
Speaker 1: think that that that rhetoric carries. I mean I think
Speaker 1: that especially.
Speaker 2: We called it on the first show that it wasn't
Speaker 2: gonna work.
Speaker 1: And I think that especially if we see you know,
Speaker 1: continual sort of malfeasance from deep red states, like the
Speaker 1: Mississippi governor is cucked on redistricting, at least to the
Speaker 1: maximum extent, like they might not be out of the
Speaker 1: woods yet, particularly if the what's the name the Kusey
Speaker 1: Libby that would English lives lives. That's that's the stupidest term. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know what, I hope gas is twelve dollars a
Speaker 1: gallon or twelve pounds a liter. There purely out of
Speaker 1: spite for coming up with that stupid name. It was
Speaker 1: too nice to the Britge yesterday. So but it's that
Speaker 1: they there, it's because they started the language. It's very formal,
Speaker 1: so I think they have a compulsion to scilify everything,
Speaker 1: make everything silly. Yeah, it's it's highly inappropriate. But Stormy,
Speaker 1: we're we're past time. It's been an interesting episode, obviously,
Speaker 1: people can find you on Twitter. They can find you
Speaker 1: on substack, where you put out the Inquisition, unless you
Speaker 1: doubt that that Stormy just abuses me constantly. Before we
Speaker 1: went live, he said, hey, can you edit a podcast?
Speaker 1: I'm like cash share. I'll edit a podcast for you
Speaker 1: if he has four hours. So yeah, you know those
Speaker 1: Inquisition episodes you listen to, I edit them. You're welcome.
Speaker 1: You can check them out all Stormy substack.
Speaker 2: Speaking of slaves, I'll leave that there.
Speaker 1: There's a joke, but you know what, and we've spent
Speaker 1: the entire time talking about how they control you right
Speaker 1: by your monetization, and it would have been funny, is
Speaker 1: all I'm going to say. But to everyone, know, keep
Speaker 1: your het up like it last forever. Good Night. That's
Speaker 1: that's that's not the Bagariagary Program.