Speaker 1: If you want to get the show early and ad free,
head on over to the Peak Kinyonas show dot com.
There you can choose from where you wish to support me.
Now listen very carefully. I've had some people ask me
about this, even though I think on the last ad
I stated it pretty clearly. If you want an RSS feed,
you're going to have to subscribe your subseck or through Patreon.
You can also subscribe on my website which is right there,
gum Road and what's the other one, subscribe Star And
if you do that, you will get access to the
audio file. So head on over to the peakan Yonashow
dot com. You'll see all the ways that you can
support me there. And I just want to thank everyone.
It's because of you that I can put out the
amount of material that I do. I can do what
I'm doing with doctor Johnson on two hundred Years Together
and everything else, the things that Thomas and I are
doing together on kindinal philosophy, it's all because of you.
And yeah, I mean, I'll never be able to thank
you enough. So thank you. The pekan Yonashow dot com.
Everything's there. I want to welcome everyone back to the
Peaking Yona Show, Shay Burtons Back, Jay, how are you
doing doing well? Pete?
Speaker 2: Thanks for earning me back on always enjoy it?
Speaker 1: Of course I do as well. All right, So I
think when I reached out to you, I said that
I had just been listening to our friend Charles Haywood.
He was doing one of his book reviews, and it
was a book about the how not that liberal liberalism
is dying, but that liberalism is dead. And I thought
we could talk about that, we could talk about conservatism.
But you know, one of the things that mister Haywood
said was that the book did not address what comes next,
and I thought we could finish up talking about that.
But when are you? Are you the same as me
when someone said, oh, says liberalism is dying, you you think, oh,
that's not true. It's already dead. It just doesn't know it.
There are the people who still adhere to it don't
know it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, I mean, if you look at it, right,
who are the liberals? And when we say liberal understand
you know, dear listener, we're not talking about, you know,
the two thousand and seven style liberal Democrats, you know,
Nancy Pelosi and others we're talking about people who believe
in classical liberalism. Effectively, those beliefs are reserved for society's
greatest losers. The conservative movement, the kind of smoldering remains
of the idw people who do not matter. That is
where you will find is kind of reverent references to liberalism,
you know those thinkers. Now that doesn't mean right that
now that we've you know, the liberalism is dead, that
we're done with the left. Those are two different things.
But if you look at the current left, the exciting left,
where the eyes are going, these are profoundly ill liberal politicians.
The conversation around Zohan Zohan Mamdani, it's a Star Wars name.
I'm sorry, I can't say it is largely brain dead,
but very fundamentally he is not a liberal. Sure, there's
a gap between what he says he will do and
what he has already done, but if you look at
what he's saying, he's basically a combination between a kind
of Bernie socialist and a smash and grab third worlder.
More taxes for white land owners, more benefits for new arrivals,
right people fresh off the boat, as it were. Similarly,
if you look at the kind of under thirty crowd.
There was a really interesting interview a while back with
Mark whatever his last name is, the guy who runs
for Resmusen, who's talking about the divide on the right
between the thirty plus and thirty under or the under
thirties on any number of issues, and basically what he
found is that nominal Republican voters under thirty are extremely radical,
for instance, on bombing drug boats. Look, you and I
are probably on the same page that the defense industry
is not exactly telling us what's going on with Venezuela.
But nonetheless, as presented, the idea of you know, blowing
smugglers out of the water is you know, a grave
affront to one you know, liberal aversion to collective punishment,
the idea that everyone deserves trial. Also, you know, the
rules based international order, one of the kind of crown
jewels of international liberalism. And basically people are saying, yeah,
I don't care they got fetanyl on the boats, we
got bigger guns. Blowing up pirates is pretty much all
states have ever done. I mean, go back to Caesar
or even our own you know, war with the Barbary pirates.
And people are saying, well, I don't care, and that
attitude of well, I don't care is sort of common
to both the left and the right. No one believes
these platitudes about liberalism anymore except for the designated losers,
the people we've already mentioned. And look, I don't want
to come across as overly jubilant about that. It would
be very nice to live in a society where politics
was more limited, where it was understood that certain things
were beyond the pale. But quite fundamentally, we do not
live in that world, and we haven't for a while.
The right, you know, the woke right, as we've been
punitively termed, are really not innovators. We are waking up
to a realization that the left made generations ago, that
the system has no enforcement mechanism. You need power to
enforce liberalism, and if that liberalism is unwilling to enforce itself, well,
there are all these different exploits built into the system.
And at a certain point, if you're playing a game
that's been broken, you know, if you're still playing, you know,
the kind of official rules book version of should we say,
boxing or basketball, and you're in a prison yard, you're
not going to have a good time of it. So
even then, right, this, this realization is as well and
truly done. And the problem is, look track a little bit.
The idea of secularism is fundamentally a lie. Every political
project is religious, and this, this liberal system was ultimately
a civic religion. It held certain things to be sacred.
But the problem is, you know, once you have walked
into the holies of holies and you were not struck,
dumb or struck down. Once you have you know, gone
into you know, the glade dedicated to Odin and chucked
a spear at the idol and you're still there, Well,
the magic's gone. Right, You've broken that sort of sacred
aura around a religion, around the system. And to your point, Pete,
I mean, really this system was broken in the sixties.
It just took people a while to realize, and especially
that attitude of well I simply don't care. I would
expect that to accelerate as material conditions declined. Look, you know,
it's easy to kind of, you know, mouth along these
sort of platitudes when everything's going well, when you don't
really have to think about politics all that much. It
seems very distant because you're getting richer. Fair enough, the
job market might not be great, but your portfolio is
going up. You're richer than your parents, so what does
it matter? But in a situation where things are demonstrably
getting worse. Look, everyone knows the economic stuff, but even
on a social level, current estimations are that less than
half of Gen Z adults, which includes people up to
the age of about twenty nine, have ever had sex. Now, look, man,
you and I are shall we say, quite to the
right of the average person. We understand that, you know,
just constant serial monogamy is what the sociologists would call it.
But you know dating, you know, having a large number
of sexual partners is not necessarily a great thing in society.
But as a general indicator of how many people are
interacting with the opposite sex, well we reach less than half.
That's not a good sign alone. Know, the apocalyptic number
of people who are buying a home average first time
home buyer, I think is forty now, and you have
a large number of people who really aren't getting a
lot from the current existing order. They are able to
do things that humans have done throughout time, which is
pair bond pass on their genes. They don't have a
stake in society, a literal ownership piece of culture that
they own that ties them to the existing order. And
so you have this immense knot of people on both
the left and the right who basically say, I don't care,
just change something. I think that Incorrectly, conservatives, particularly the megatypes,
assumed that Trump's victory in twenty twenty four was a
shift to the Republicans. It was not. It was a
rejection of the status quo, a rejection of Joe Biden
for all of the reasons anyone would want to reject
Joe Biden. And what we have seen over the last
fairly disastrous year is that those people were more interested
in that project fixing whatever the big issue is than
they ever were with the Republican Party. Look at again
the swing to Mumdannie. Now, obviously there's a world of
difference between the sort of young people who voted for
Mumdanni or even the young people that exist in New
York and on a national level, we understand that, but
nonetheless there is widespread unhappiness. Going back to this article
I mentioned with the guy from Resmusen, and I realized
that not being able to cite your sources is incredibly
poor form, Pete, but I'll drop you a link after
this recording and so you can actually include in the
show notes so people can check it out. But one
of the other things that he talks about when examining
the under.
Speaker 1: Thirty crabs, it's Mark Mitchell.
Speaker 2: Mark Mitchell, thank you professional podcaster ladies and gentlemen, But
you look at what Mark Mitchell says. In addition to
the kind of disregard for the rules based international order, which,
let's be honest, is always a fiction, but nonetheless it
does hold weight in certain circles, also being very comfortable
with drastic things, for instance, jailing judges Judge Jim Bohasberg
no points for guessing where his parents are from, saying
that that guy should go to jail for what We'll
figure it out later. But one of the most interesting ones,
one that really stuck out to me, was the large
number of people, a plurality of under thirty voters who
were okay with an AI dictatorship. Now, look, I'm not
a big fan of an AI dictatorship, and let's take
the AI out of it, but basically okay with top
down centralized control. The idea of let's throw this whole
system out and have someone who decides something. Look, we're
not populis to here. We understand that broadly speaking, you know,
public perception does not influence politics. But nonetheless this is
a seismic sea change. These people have by and large
completely rejected liberalism. So to answer your question of well,
what comes next, obviously we don't know. You shouldn't bet
on any one thing that I am going to predict here,
But there are a couple of things that I think
are pretty much already done. One is a pivot to
just pure tribal politics, right discarding any sort of niceties
around race or culture. I think a particularly iconic moment
for this is the current kind of protests around immigration
law you have in Los Angeles earlier this year, protesters
waving the Mexican flag and screeching about Larraza the rates.
Clearly those people view themselves as a racial identity group.
This has happened in other places, you know, American blacks,
for one example, for a long time, but it's becoming
more and more naked. The necessity to kind of dress
it up in church, it up in liberal language is
really falling to the wayside I'll reference Mondani as well
as in all things. The Right is a later late
adopter of this. But like him or hate him, the
relative mainstreaming of one Nicholas J. F. Wenttes has shown
that that is no longer a third rail. It is
no longer something that can be completely and totally excluded
from discourse, despite the firm desire of the American conservative movement,
who is by and large completely and totally useless. I
think that that is fast fast approaching. I would also
cite the recent spat of working class white women dropping
the word of power in interactions with you know, diverse Americans.
It's a lagging indicator that there is no longer that
same sort of sacred aura we mentioned earlier about the
ultimate sacrament right, the holy group, which must be protected
at all costs, the ultimate you know, anathema. Saying that
word is still you know, it'll get you in trouble.
Don't walk in there, you know, don't walk into your
corporate office with Burger King crown on. But clearly it
no longer has the same kind of sacred significance it
once did, especially as white Americans become a minority, which
in all likelihood will occur, You're going to lose that
sort of prudish attitude. Look at the boomers, right, they
are perhaps the ones most inculcated in the cult of
Martin Luther King. On the left, certainly no one cares
about him anymore. No one believes in these sort of
bromides about the content of their character. No one really,
even on the conservative side of the argument, believes that
he was a Republican or he was some sort of
you know, social conservative conservative. Really that idea only exists
as kind of a relic, you know, something of a
previous era. So that's one I think that, you know,
the the landscape around identity politics will change to that point. Again,
look at who says that phrase in a negative context,
identity politics. It's losers, right, These are not people who
are in a serious position. I think another one that
is going to happen is I think that we are
in the preparation for an attempted right wing perch. You
don't have to be a genius to figure this out.
Just look at the massive chimp out over the last
let's be honest, six months longer than that over first
Tucker Carlson, than Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes, our friend
Daryl Cooper. All of these incidents were used to or
at least attempts to gin up a perch. Right, what
we did in the eighties, what we did in the nineties,
what they did in the eighties, did in the nineties,
and that didn't work. So I think that that cat
is well and truly out of the back. On another level,
I think that a lot of the economic libertarianism is
going to become a non starter. The boomers hold a
massive amount of property, they hold a massive amount of wealth.
Generation after that subsequently owns less and so has less
and less of a stake in libertarian economics. It just
is not a live issue anymore. You'll notice this talking
to gen xers and boomers, for instance, around Sohon Mamdani.
The fact that he is a socialist to them is
completely and totally beyond the pale. That's the same thing
as admitting that you're, you know, a Satanist that you
you know, dress up as a dog and you know,
want to have sex with men and truck stops. It
should be totally it should be totally, you know, beyond
the pale. But it's not because for people under a
certain age that no longer holds any sort of special
weight to it. It is simply, well, I want to
not be poor. And look, we all understand that socialism
is a bad way to go about that, especially in
the Sohon Mamdani sense. But nonetheless that that ideological commitment
to capitalism, that ideological commitment to liberalism, has gone away.
And so I think libertarian economics are going to become
less and less of a feature in politics. I mean,
look at the MAGA movement itself. Trump from the very
beginning has marketed himself as a protectionist. It shot him
to as of yet unheard of electoral successes. For the
post Cold War conservative movement, that issue as well and
truly dead, I think, as far as others. And this
is perhaps more difficult to speculate, but I think that
within our lifetime, and look, an immense amount of progress
has already been made. Israel is going to become effectively
a pariah among the American public. We're already seeing this happen.
And again we understand that public opinion does not yield
political results, but effectively, what we're seeing now is politicians
like Ted Cruz are being roundly mocked by their own
voter base, by the people who one would expect would
vote for conservatives. This kind of slavish deference to Israel,
that's becoming more and more of a negative. Now, look,
where do these people get their money from? Will they
give that up?
Speaker 1: Likely?
Speaker 2: No. But additionally, it's also important to remember that as
America Brown's, as it changes, the blood libel, the historical
guilt narrative, you know, kind of placed on the heads
of you know, white Americans, becomes less and less effective because,
to be quite honest, what does a guy from elsalvad
Or care? He doesn't. So I think that that kind
of social dissolution will affect that issue as well. One
last point, if I can, I think that what we're seeing,
and you can look at the writings of Josh Neil
as well as others, is a complete and total fracturing
of any sort of cohesive American culture, American narrative. Amongst
my generation gen Z, there is no mass culture. There
are thousands and thousands of algorithmically driven subculture, and so
really no one has a cohesive narrative on anything. And
so I think as well, and we're already seeing this
with figures like Candice Owens as well as others. Ian
Carroll is that there's this sort of populist conspiracy culture,
you know, which is not really directed in anyone in anyone,
you know, particular Vein. It is simply broad distrust of
any official narrative, any elite group whatsoever. Really, I think
that is the fault of you know, the liberal establishment.
I think that is the fault of the expert class.
They have allowed their expertise to wane. But I think
that's a major problem as well. That, you know, as
the Internet completely fractures any sense of culture, it will
become very difficult to even say what does X y
Z demographic think because all of those traditional social groups
which defined people are being replaced with decentralized sort of
algorithmic tribe. So I think we're also going to see
a r andr this rise of this kind of you know,
mass conspiracy culture.
Speaker 1: Three.
Speaker 2: I've thrown a lot out at you, Pete. I'll let
you respond after my diatribe.
Speaker 1: Okay, let me go back to the beginning talking about liberalism.
You mentioned the rejection of Joe Biden and you know,
mostly Kamala Harris, Kamala Harris too. A lot of people
may say, oh, that's that was you know, Joe Biden
and Kamala Harris are liberals. That was a rejection of liberalism. No, No,
the rejection of liberalism. I'll go so far as to
say the rejection of conservatism. And although even further to
say the rejection of how the United States has been
operating for eighty years was in twenty sixteen when Trump
was first elected. Now, we like to say Trump Trump,
the man doesn't really we don't know what if it
means anything, but his election, the fact that he would
get elected means that to me that liberalism, conservatism, that
the way things have been running have been rejected. And
what you saw with them jumping back in and you know,
whatever happened with the election in twenty twenty, don't believe
Time Magas, don't think believe a word. Time Magazine says,
apparently that was like a last gasp to try to
force back in the Nuremberg regime, the New Deal regime,
and they just they went so far and it was
so obvious that the president wasn't running the country, that
not only are people rejecting liberalism, not only are people
rejecting conservatism. Not only are people rejecting the way things
have been done for one hundred years now, but they're
also basically rejecting what they're being told. You know, I've
said this recently that you know, you talked about Israel
and the whole thing around that and how much you know,
less than fifty percent of the population is now is
now anti Israel. When it comes to the Zoomer generation,
that number, you know, goes much lower, or that number
that is pro Israel is much lower, And you know,
I've said that, you know, really the only way they
could possibly get it back is like this huge, massive
false flag. But then when you look at the way
things are done now, most people will be like, no,
that was a false flag, that's bull crap. So it's
also a rejection of the reality that we've been sold
to the point where where people don't know what reality
is and they're willing to listen to someone like Kansas
Owens talk about like Egyptians flying around them planes on
the day that Charlie Kirkid shot.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's really it's a valid point, and I think
it's it's important to bring up the degree to which
and you mentioned it earlier that you know, we really
do live in the decaying remains of FDR's world Nuremberg regime.
And there's certainly a very real ideological component to that,
the anti fascism of the American Empire, but we also
have to understand that it is fundamentally a managerial regime.
FDR is sort of infamous for his brain trust, right,
the idea of collecting a bunch of experts together, putting
them into some three letter government department, and then they
become the kings of agriculture or you know, the kings
of the environment, and this administrative state to you know,
sort of bar borrow a word from ur in here
has grown massively, but that depended on trust in the
experts and COVID the pandemic, which you can really look
at as kind of the last gasp of that system,
was a desire to bank on the one area of
expertise that most Americans still believed in the medical establishment
or science. And while surely there are still, you know,
lunatics wearing masks in the year of our Lord twenty
twenty five, that's a distinct minority. And even if someone
hasn't gone down the same rabbit holes that you or
I have pete. The general consensus was, I speak to
people about this quite often. Well, that was a giant
waste of time, even if they don't necessarily have the
correct opinions on you know, where a virus would have
come from or anything else. Nonetheless, a crazy amount of
social capital was spent both with the pandemic itself also
in the twenty twenty the election. Using the language of
the experts, have decreed this is simply the official narrative,
and people have reacted by rejecting that, not at all
in any cohesive direction, in millions of different directions, most
of them very very stupid, so okay, not ideal. But
again we have to understand that that social element has
been massively weakened again. Right, if we look at the
you know, the cases of these two women, the cinnabon
worker and then you know Shilah Hendrix using that word,
it's important to remember that those people have been made
relatively speaking, quite wealthy. They've gotten a lot of money
for it. And well why is that. Well, sure, it's
because people feel bad for them. They say they were
in a bad position. They want to help out. But
also every dollar given to them is a rejection of
the regime, a rejection of expertise, and also a rejection
of a previous order where it was understood that identity politics,
that arguing for your guys, regardless of what happened specifically,
is just not something done by the maturity population. That's
for them, you know, Al Sharpton can do that, but
we would never dare. And again, that was received wisdom,
handed down by the experts, by the education system, by
effectively every American institution. And again, I don't want to
overstate the case here, there are still a vast number
of people for whom that word, that phrase is a
deal breaker. It's just a circuit breaker ideologically, that flips
and they're done. But we're talking in relative terms here.
The amount of people who feel that that is no
longer disqualifying to you having any sort of life whatsoever, well,
there's a lot more people who say, yeah, I don't
care whatever, it's fine. She doesn't deserve to have her
life ruined. And that's a huge problem. That's a major
problem for regime because again, if we look at Machiavelli, right,
the classic distinction between foxes and lions, you know, the
sort of sneaky manipulative leader versus the man of action
who sits at the top and say, you know, do
what I say or else well or elites are all foxes.
Look at the nudge units in the UK. Look at
effectively the whole Obama regime where that book Nudge Right
became so popular as a way to influence public opinion.
Is that really they're not particularly comfortable with force making
people do something. They want to engineer public opinion. Those
circuits are still there, you know, there still is, you know,
the blue and on voters. They've been able to engineer
this sort of campaign of stochastic terrorism by activating sleeper
cells of you know, deeply mentally unwell sexual degenerates. That
still is there, That still exists. But if we're looking
at trend lines, THEIRS is going down. That ability is decreasing,
I think. But again, if we're talking about predictions for
the future, things are likely to get pretty nasty as
far as political violence is concerned. A while back on
a show with Carl Dahl, I read a piece from
Wired the hard Left shooters leading a gun culture Revolution,
which is basically about autistic men who are both really
into customizing weapons and also into customizing their own bodies
and dressing up in skirts odd people, and the content
of it is really not that great. He went to
some you know, shooting competition where there was a you know,
a fire accidentally started, got closed down, so we didn't
even actually do anything. But he talked to a number
of these activists, members of the John Brown Gun Club,
Carl Cassada, who sort of Internet old heads will remember,
has been a laughingstock for decades now, but you know,
interviewed him as well as a few other people. And
what's really striking about the article is the framing of
the whole thing, the framing that conservatives' fascists, right, the
designated Satan of the state cult, are out to get minorities,
to get particularly intersexual minorities, and so those people are
justified in preparing for violence. They should be arming themselves
to protect themselves from the Gestapo. They should be preparing
for and this is a phrase that appeared in that
article multiple times, a new years of lead anticipating a
return of political violence not seen sense post War Italy,
right when any number of hundreds of people were murdered
in Tit for Tat violence. I think that there's a
very real chance that in several years we will look
back on twenty twenty five and say, well, that's where
it started. Obviously, the assassination of Kirk, the attempted assassination
of Donald Trump, the number of kind failed terrorist attacks
on ICE facilities, and you know DHS personnel, and I
think that is another trend that shows no sign of abating.
I don't want to get too tinfoil hat here, but
one of the other narratives that's being floated. You've seen
this on billboards and major urban areas. You've seen this
from the you know, the dramatically named seditious six is
this threat of political reprisal. For instance, Rep Rimila Jaya Paul.
I think that's how you say her name again, another
star Wars name out of Washington, A Democrat, if you
believe it. She made this explicit speaking to the to
the House of Representatives. She basically said, and remember, if
you violate the law, we're gonna get you. Paraphrase but
pretty close to what she said that Mark Kelly and
others have have intimated the same thing all the way
up to the point of saying or advising for us
servicemen to disregard their orders. Remember, if you violate the law,
if you violate the constitution, we can get you sort
of laying the groundwork for seemingly a coup. Now it
might not happen, of course, but that's worrisome, right, the
fact that they're at least floating that kind of language
around a sort of military resistance to you know, Donald Trump,
who admittedly is you know, I'm no fan of as
we've said before, but still that is an inclination that
political violence seems in the offing. Again, I don't support that.
I don't want that to happen, and I think that
a well run society would not tolerate it. But yet
here we are. I think that's another sort of very
tepid prediction I can make.
Speaker 1: Let's go back to Uh. You had mentioned gen Z earlier,
and you've we've done an episode, we've done an episode
on gen Z, just concentrating on gen Z before, and
you've said that it seems I mean, I don't know
that you've said this officially, but only like privately, you've
said it seems like gen Z is either far right
or far left, like there's no middle ground. Yeah, yeah, yeah,
if if, if they're basically far right or far left,
that is a clear sign that they've rejected everything. They've
rejected what they've been sold liberalism, conservatism, progressivism, whatever it is,
and they're sort of without even maybe knowing it, maybe
not from maybe not from reading books, but maybe from
listening to podcasts, or maybe by just being in the
Zeitgey said, they're existing in, they're accepting, they're looking at
back and they're going, Okay, So we live in a
time where we, you know, what we believe. If we
believe something, we could be attacked over it, we could
lose job over it. I'm never gonna be able to
own a house. I'm never gonna be able to this.
All of this kind of economic horror is being showered
down upon us. So what historically have is there that
we can use that to use to fight with? And
it seems like they're one group is saying, well, we're
going to run all the way to the far left,
and the other one is saying we're going to run
all the way to the far right. I guess depending
upon there. I mean some metaphysical definitely like something about
them metaphysically and biologically genetically also, I believe that I
believe that's passed down. But it seems like if they're
going either far left or far right, there is by
the time they come to power to have power, which
is going to happen at some time or another, whether
the money is there or not. You know, it's like
you need in order to become political, you have to
be supported by money, and which there's another reason why
conservatism is dead and liberalism is dead if gen z
is either far left or far right, and the boomers
who are classical liberal whatever, conservatives whatever they are, and
then you have the progressives that aren't willing to go
as far left as some people are willing to go
and have historically, it seems like if they come, if
they get to a point where there's no hope, well
we're going to see history repeat itself because the only
thing that they're going to have is action. If you
without fed posting.
Speaker 2: Well, and this is this is a big problem really
the Republican Party, Donald Trump in particular, have to borrow
a phrase from the youth fumbled the bag here because look,
you know, a large part of the reason that people
were dissatisfied with Joe Biden. Other than the obvious was
that everything kind of sucked. The economy wasn't working great.
Everyone felt just uneasy and unsecure. And so to be
in power for a year now and to repeatedly say,
you know, the economy is better than it's ever been.
Trump recently rated his economic performance as a plus plus
plus plus plus despite you know not, despite additionally remarking
that affordability is a quote Democrat hoax, not once, but twice.
You have a number of people who are saying, well,
what are my options here? Like I want to get
a start, I want to contribute. I want to index
with society. Do the things that my parents and grandparents did.
You get a decent job, support yourself, meet a woman,
and own property. And when you very cleanly first left
then right, been shown that well, there is no option
for me within the system. There is no solution. Well,
people are going to look elsewhere, particularly if they have
nothing holding them back. If you've got a wife, you're like,
I don't want to do that. It'd probably be hard
for her if I go to jail. If you have
a house, you're like, I'll not there to make the
house payment. And if I lose my job, that's kind
of tough. Whereas if you have a group of people
who quite literally have nothing to lose. Historically, this is
what revolutions were made of. You'll remember there were a
number of kind of ironically enough, kind of morally high
handed essays that came out during the Global War on Terror,
particularly the late parts, talking about how bad Islamic society.
These are, Yeah, Islamic societies because of you know, polygamy
and all of these other issues, have this mass class
of uh, effectively loser virgin young men who can't get
a wife, can't get started because those resources are being
held by a small population of hyper successful men on
a genetic level, right, these kind of patriarchs, And so
that's what that's what creates Ghati's people who have nothing
else to do, basically biological cruise missiles. And Okay, maybe
the moral can't was a little bit much, but that
argument holds up. Right, that does not a successful, happy
society make Like I don't have the same you know,
punitive view of Islam that some of our more Zionist
compatriots do. But nonetheless I don't really want to live
in Afghanistan, to be really honest, it doesn't sound that fun.
Speaker 1: And I don't want I don't have one Afghanistan to
come here. I don't have a particularly poor I don't
have the poor opinion of Islam that a lot of
people do, even people on our side. But that doesn't
mean that I want them here. I just want to Yeah,
I want them to live their lives where they are.
Speaker 2: And five and so you know, if we're looking at
that accurately identifying that mistake and then not ten years
later running the same playbook, like oh wow, that really
messed up your society, What if I try it? It's like, well,
what do you think is going to happen? Okay, maybe
we don't have the sort of Inceel Taliban, you know,
running around, you know, blowing people up in car bombs,
But you think that's going to lead to a stable
society where you hypothetical boomer conservative can have a pleasant retirement,
Like you really don't think that there will be negative
externalities to doing this? And I think that you see
this on both the political right and the political left.
I mentioned this sort of Trantifa sleeper cell network, you know,
like the guy who shot Kirk, the guy who you
know took a shot at Trump the sort of again,
but for their political ideologies, the kind of stereotype of
you know, the right wing an on obviously not based
in reality in that case, but the the you know,
the shut d loser who's got nothing going on, who
just wants to strike out at the system. And there
really is a sort of horseshoe theory there.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: You can look at the I can't remember, I think
it was the Dallas Fort Worth shooter, right, he killed
you know, thirty people, I believe because of the great replacement,
you know, and then you look at the guy who
shot Kirk because of the rising tide of fascism. You
dig down and like, really, neither one of those guys
is particularly ideological. You know, that Dallas Fort Worth shooter
has a manifesto, but it kind of all over the place.
You know. You can tell he read a few books,
you know, absorbed some four Chan memes, and then most
of it is just him talking about how generally angry
he is. Similarly, we don't know as much about the kirkshooter,
but you know, by every available information, yeah, sure he
was into some weird sex stuff, but wasn't all that
political until relatively recently. He's just a loser that didn't
have much going on. And look, there's a certain amount
of that happens in any society. We understand that the
male of our species has high variability, more geniuses and
more idiots, So there's a certain amount of that that
will happen. But to sort of lean into that, to
deliberately create people who in another society would be successful,
would be helpful, would be building something, and push them
to the margins, I mean, dude, that's a huge problem.
I think. Another interesting development, and we've been seeing this
for a while, is that globalism has really come home.
So previously the crimes of globalism, you know, destroying the
American working class, destroying the rost belt, we're sort of
hidden by the fact that those people weren't particularly wealthy.
They weren't you know, the culture bearing class as it were.
It was you know, working people. And if you are
as our dearly departed friend zy Men said, one of
the cloud people right, who descends onto earth, that doesn't
affect you. You don't really like the chuds. But all
of a sudden, globalism is coming home. And it turns
out that you can pay a guy from India who
says he has a degree to do a lot of
these sort of laptop jobs, and so I think that
it will be interesting to see which wins out, the
immediate economic interest of not wishing to be replaced in
your job, or the kind of social patronage network where
people are paid off not directly, but by feeling better
than their parents, by being seen as morally superior. I
don't know which one will break first. That sort of
social conditioning is very, very deeply wired, and we talk
about the Nuremberg regime. A big part of that is
social engineering particularly, I think, and I've been talking to
our mutual friends Stormy Waters about this, the kind of
you know, a hypothetical kind of you know, laptop American woman, right,
someone who makes you know, one one hundred and twenty
a year at you know, some sort of you know,
to be honest, completely pointless laptop job.
Speaker 1: One.
Speaker 2: Guess what, by the raw economic calculation, you're working class
now you're not middle class anymore. And you are also okay,
sure there's you know, some purchasing power. Some there's a
hell a lot of threat to your purchasing power, you know,
your actual economic standing, setting aside the cost of living,
which in many of these areas is extortionate. But also
now you are right for replacement, right you. Your job
can be done by you know, Vivek. It can be
done by you know, a a guy from somewhere else.
And that's sort of a question mark for me because
I genuinely don't know which will break first. You know,
when it comes to issues of security, it certainly has
not gotten bad enough to produce some sort of meaningful
change there. You know, the meme of you know, the
progressive woman being accosted on the safety or on the subway,
you're writing an angry post about men writ large and
then voting for Zoorhan Mandani. That is accurate. But I
wonder if we will see a political realignment in the
same way we saw a political alignment among you know,
the American white working class who are historically Democrats since
you know, basically the Great Depression, and yet and as
they were sort of cast aside, a new political I
guess you could say a new political coalition was formed.
I don't know on that front. That's sort of an
open question for me. But I think if we were
looking for an area to make headway, and look, you've
been to the same political conferences I have. There's a
whole lot more people with laptop jobs there than there
used to be. I wonder if that is a possible
area of expansion for the true or as you've said,
the serious right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I think what it leads to is
what I've been saying, you know for a while now,
is the reaction to what seems like to it talitarianism
and an attack on who you are, an attack on
your being, the social engineering you talked about. Once people
realize that, then the reaction is going to be right
wing or left wing authoritarianism. From a historic standpoint, It's
not going to look exactly like it is because I mean,
this is the United States. It could be fragmented. It
could be certain parts turn out that certain parts embrace
it really hard, or are place is just completely reject it.
But if you if you understand that the answer historically
the answer to what we've been dealing with for the
last eighty years, and even on a small scale, you know,
you could just look at the the inter war periods
of how countries reacted to what was becoming the spirit
of the age at that point, then it's going to
go hard one way, or it's going to go hard
the other. And you know, at that point you either
hope to be someplace where you can influence it, someplace
where you can actually have some kind of leadership or
thought or a part of the thinking of it, or
you're just praying that it goes in the direction that
you that you would like to see, whether you're a
left wing or right wing, because if it you know,
if it doesn't, then you know, I mean, I actually
I agree with Heywood. There will be violence in the
United States in the future. It'll be there'll be pockets
of it. It won't be widespread. It won't be all
of the South. You know, the North invades all of
the South. But you know it will be cities and
suburbs and x you know, cities against suburbs and exurbs,
or I mean, it could be the national Guard or
you know, actual troops against states, or you know, the
national guard in a state against some part of the
state that wants to break off, or something like that.
But when you when you take into account how what
gen Z looks like, when you take into account the
that millennials are, I mean, we don't even really know
what millennials are gen X is just being passed over
because the book won't leave. So you know, one the
next generation behind that basically gets left out, which I'm
fine with as a gen x er, But I don't
know how it isn't It isn't authoritarianism, especially when liberalism
is being rejected, when conservatism is being rejected, it is
going to be something more akin to the ideologies that
World War Two were fought over.
Speaker 2: Look, Pete, as I've been reliably informed by our social betters,
when fascism comes to America, it will be draped in
the American flag. To that point, I actually think that
you're you're correct in your discussion of gen X and
the boomers, and I actually wonder if there is a
possibility that a similar thing will happen to Gen Z
and millennials, where millennials are am which bigger generation. I mean, look,
gen X had Gen Z, that that's who their parents are,
and so look, we're we're all aware of the relevant
trends in demography. No one is having kids, and when
you take an already small generation they produce children, it
will be smaller. So I think there is a there's
a chance for that to happen, right, that simply that
the millennials assume their role as the new boomers, and
it's just will be you know, cheering why you won't,
but I might when a ninety year old AOC finally,
you know, shuffles off to a nursing home, and that's
just the new world, which I'll be honest, is a
fate worse than death. The idea of you know, an
eighty year millennial Reich, it just sounds like a hell
on earth. But just an aside there to your to
your point about about violence, I think that as well,
we're much we're likely to see the increased assuming you know,
that the kind of current situation with the border does
not last, which if we have another democratic administration, which
we will, that will not last. That there's very likely
to be an increased presence of organized crime, particularly in
the kind of southern area in the US. But I mean, look, man, like,
there are cartel hits out where I live every once
in a while, because there's a highway that's a major
fentanyl trafficking line. So you know, as the either you know,
because they can't stop it or simply they care not to,
that's likely to become a feature of American life, particularly
as the kind of a narco tyranny kicks up. One
of the interesting things that you can kind of glean
from South Africa is there's actually a point at which
a state becomes so stupid and left wing and corrupt
that it literally just can't do anything. And so, you know,
talking to you know a few of our buddies there,
it's one of the things they say, which is, like,
the weird thing is we're way more free than you
are because there just is there are not the resources
to tell you not to do something like I'm not
going to get able to trouble, but like South Africa
has pretty dur cronian firearms law technically, but also like
who's checking it? Owe how many people get murdered? And
so I think that will be an interesting element as
well to see at what point the monopoly on violence
starts to collapse in certain areas that is sort of
default already the case. Now, a large part of that
is is patronage. You know, you basically give you your
clients a badge that says the police won't bother you,
not necessarily applied to others. San Francis, you know, an
arco tyranny, all of that being given, but I think
that will be an interesting thing to watch. Right, at
what point do you know our leaders lose the ability
to monopolize violence in their own state, in their own
nation state. Rather because it has already been proven numerous
times that for the American Empire, they care way more
about foreign policy than they do what happens domestically. And
obviously domestic stuff matters. You know, you need your guys
in seats, which is at least nominally collected to connected
to domestic politics. But I think the story of what
we've seen with Trump two point zero is that the
Empire basically made a deal and said, all right, like
you canort you deport someone's gardener, we can you know,
throw some people in planes, but we still keep what matters.
And what matters is foreign forever wars for the benefit
of a certain Middle Eastern democracy, Right, That's what actually matters.
And so I think it's reasonable to project that trend
into the future and say, well, you know, could there
be a world in which there is widespread lawlessness. The
resources are simply not there. They are still being shipped
to forever wars for Israel. I don't think it's one
hundred percent. That would be an interesting possibility that that
is what the state that the Empire cares about, you know,
instead of what happens to you or I. Others kind
of trends that are interesting to see. You've seen elsewhere
across the West, particularly in the UK, but also more
recently in Australia, a desire to clamp back down the Panoptacon,
to put the genie back in the bottle, to kind
of persecute a right wing movement. Who knows if they'll
try that here. I mean they will try, but how
far it will get, particularly because one of the things
that you've heard oft repeated, and I mentioned this earlier,
you know, the idea of you know, Nuremberg, I right,
punishing you know, servicemen who were seen to be you know,
supporting the president and his policies too much. But let's
also acknowledge the fact that you know, many of these
people have said we are going to put people in
the Trump cabinet in jail, you know Pete Hegseth in particular,
but others as well. That could be an interesting destabilization,
Like if we just go full banana Republic, right, if
it just becomes Brazil where you lose an election and
you go to jail, that could be interesting. I don't
really know what would happen or if they're serious about that,
but they sure seem to say it a lot, and
generally when they say things a lot, they tend to
happen one of the advantages of being in power. But
that could be another kind of, you know, variable to
throw in the mix as well.
Speaker 1: I think about something that our mutual friend Luthemplar said
at the beginning of the year when he came on
Pony Express radio very close to after the inauguration, and
he was he just started in with, Okay, if this
administration does not destroy our enemies so that they never
can take office again, they are going to take office again,
and they are going to come after us. It will
be the punishment that you see them talking about. Pete
hag Seth is going to have to go before tribunals
and you know they I've seen me of you know
them on the you know, people in the administration on
the gallows, which makes no sense to me because I'm like,
they're not doing nearly enough. So I mean, it's like
what is this all about, which lets you know exactly
how serious they are. But also that leads to if
you're you know, if in twenty twenty eight there is
a Gavin Newsom or someone worse it gets into power
and they do start coming after people, then I think
it goes back to our mutual friend Thomas's right, that
it's going to start breaking down to tribing up people
moving into the moving into the same area, people just
deciding that this doesn't work. You know, it's globalism versus
the resistance, and we're the resistance at that point point,
and the only way the resistance is going to survive
in this country is through just basically rejecting the regime
and seeking to nullify anything that they do. Because, let's
face it, our enemies are as much as we hope
and as much as we look at, you know, some
of the people that we know who may share our
sentiments and that they have they could have the ear
of power. We just know that that whole meme of nothing,
you know, nothing ever happens, is always just hanging there
and sometimes it's just really hard to escape.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I my main hope with the likely political repression,
I mean, be kind of nice if we're in the
same cell block and lib turd gitmo, right, that might
be kind of nice.
Speaker 1: Alternatively pushing a button.
Speaker 2: Yeah, think about how embarrassing it would be to be
the guy who doesn't get black bagged. Right, everyone else
gets gone and you're like, oh, really I did say
anything radical enough?
Speaker 1: No, obviously you're the Fed, right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, exactly. They will leave you out just to
be tarred and feather as a federal agent. But in
all seriousness, uh, in this one specific instance, you know,
louth Templar is entirely right. I think his his takes
on on Southern history are rancid and and horrible, to
put it mildly, But yeah, he's great.
Speaker 1: I love that guy, and he's almost gotten muted a
couple of times. Yeah, I just now.
Speaker 2: I I use social media much less than just text him,
which is way better because it means that in order
to talk to him, I don't have to sift through,
you know, a million spurgouts about how you know the
South would have gone communist if they won. Uh, Hank
Hank Junior would disagree, And that's enough of a source
for me. But in all seriousness, I think that this again,
is the nail in the coffin of Donald Trump in
the MAGA movement. Is that exact point that you have
to understand, And they showed it last time in between
his two terms in power. They're going to ruin his life.
They debanked him, they debanked his wife, they debanked his son,
they went through his wife's underwear drawer. They charged him
half a billion dollars for a piece of technical fraud,
and they tried to throw him in jail. That mugshot
is iconic, and apparently the lesson from that is well,
I don't think there was a lesson from that for him.
It was simply, well, that was unpleasant. Anyway, Let's run
the same playbook all over again. It is not serious
the consequences, even if they are simply legal. Setting aside
what almost happened to him twice, what happened to Charlie
Kirk has happened, you know, to any number of ICE
or CVP agents. Is that to be blunt, they're out
to get you, and they're not particularly interested in being
subtle about and by hooker by crook, they will enact
their revenge. And so you got a countdown at the
very least I mean, who knows, it might only be
till the midterms, but yeah, you got a countdown and
then they're gonna come after you. And I would have
assumed that out of self interest, if nothing else, just
simple selfishness, the Republican Party would have adjusted their strategy accordingly.
Would have said, well, I don't really like doing anything,
but I guess I have to do something if I
don't want to go to jail for the rest of
my life. And it turns out that their laziness extends
even to that point, right, that even to save themselves,
they will.
Speaker 1: Not act.
Speaker 2: As regards I think that point. I think there's an
interesting scramble going on for the future of the MAGA movement.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: This is the kind of, in my mind, real motivation
behind the whole woke right debacle. You know, the idea
is effectively to blame you know, the radicals on the
conservative side for ruining our elect ability in twenty twenty
six or twenty twenty eight. And you know, the idea is, well,
we need to purge these people, you know, in return
to the sensible, you know, kind of middle path. I
view that as almost a non starter, even if they
can accomplish their immediate goals in purging people, that party
will be ungodly unpopular. No one actually cares about that,
and so maybe that is what kills the Republican Party.
That would make my day. Even if you did get
sent to libtard Gitmo, it's like, yeah, well you know
they're dead too, So that's better than when I say
they're dead. I mean the Republican Party, not any elected official.
I want to clarify that. But who knows, man, So yeah,
those are kind of my broad predictions about what is
to come next. Now what emerges out of this at
the end, To be honest, man, who knows? Legitimately? Who knows?
It seems as if we were at kind of the
brink of something dramatic. Right, history really has resumed, you know,
Francis Fukiyama btfode, You know, this sort of economic liberalism
will not take over the world, And this pivot away
from liberalism and from ideology writ large has already We
already have early adopters like what is the ideology of
Xijingping like Jieism? It doesn't even sound right, Like what
is the ideology of Putin?
Speaker 1: Like?
Speaker 2: I mean, I guess it's that kind of dusty old
academic that they bring around every once in a while
and say he's hit Hitler, well FORDI and Slivet there
he's Putin's, you know, court philosopher. No one believes that,
or even you know Boukele, who you know, people can
have their opinions on, but he's not really a particularly
ideological figure. He's sort of a you know, doctor Phroncia,
as you know South American big man. So yeah, I
think that in sort of an apocal sense, we are
witnessing the death of the Nurrenberg regime and more broadly speaking,
the death of ideology, the death of some totalizing system
by which you organize a human society. And I just
want to say, there's a lot of negative things going on.
You know that the lack of seriousness from the Republican
Party is concerning, especially because you know, for figures like
you and IP who have associated our names and faces
with controversial online statements, there might be some consequences for that.
I don't want to you know, don't want to downplay that,
but I think generally, as in economics, we are consent,
we are considering trend lines, and there the regimes line
is trending down. No one believes in their magic anymore
for a multitude of different reasons, and relatively speaking, the
serious right is on the rise.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 2: Look, that does not preclude any number of the nasty
things you and I have mentioned from happening. That does
not mean that twenty twenty eight is when we sweep
into based world. But you know, when you talk to
the old heads, the guys who've been around for a
while about what the resistance used to be like, it
was a much lonelier affair. And I think that there
is a real opportunity for much needed change coming from
the political right. Not an easy road, but a road, nonetheless,
which is much better than what we've had for this
point generations.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you uh, when you when you talk about the
woke right, I mean that's to me, that's the last gasp.
It's the it's still this is how we're going to
hold on to it. We're going to make these people
who are historically right wing, we're historically the people using
the term woke right are historically left wing. We're historically
right wing. And what you understand is is that you
can say that the woke right or the people throwing
around the term woke, right, are you know very huge
fans of this uh, this country in the levant that
has a lot out of power over the United States.
But if you would say that, basically, you are going
back to what Constantine kiss And said. And Constantine Kissing
understands this better than everybody, and by explaining it, he
let the cat out of the bag. This is a
myth war. We are seeking to destroy myths, and the
myth that we're seeking to destroy is the myth that
they hold onto the dearest, and that is World War two,
and that is Nuremberg, and that is anti fascism. And
by seeking to but by saying, oh, they're just like
the left because they want to destroy myths and myths
are important. They're saying, our myth is the right myth.
It's the only one that counts. But then when you
start studying their myth, you're like, okay, so your myth
led us to this. It led us to if you
have a kid, you do not want to send them
to school. If you live in Charlotte, you do not
want to ride the light rail. This is what your
myth has led us to. And we are going to
destroy your myth and that's the only thing they have left.
So what is the future. The future is new myths.
But those myths are going to have to have they're
going to have to work in reality, no matter how
they're structured or who's structuring them.
Speaker 2: And that's another, in my mind note of kind of
positive progress. For a long time, people on our side
of things have talked about the need for art, right,
the need for cultural expression, and slowly there's been more
and more of a concerted effort to accomplish that. And
in my mind in the last years where we started
to get things that were not just good for a
political book, not just good for a novel written by
you know, a right wing anna, but properly good stuff.
In our mutual friend John Slaughter his book Crimson Tied,
Carl Dahl, who you and I have really abused and
recorded just hours with with no compensation, you know, his
book on the Spanish Civil War faction with the Crusaders,
or most recently you know Andrew Edwards, right, crowbar All
of these are to be honest attempts at making a myth.
You know, sure, there's no crowbar Ism ideology. You see
a different world there, you see a different vision of
what is possible, a different vision of what is laudable.
And look, kissing is and this is the only time
you will hear me say this, kissing is entirely right.
Humans are mimetic, we think in mimetic ways. And it's funny.
After that that interview came out, there was a meme
going around with you know, Javier Bardem from No Country
for Old Men saying the classic line, if your rule
brought you here, what use is the rule? And all
of these eternal political losers, right the James Lindsay and others,
we're saying, ah, we got you. You're identifying with this
guy who killed people in a movie, You idiot. One.
If you have a problem with right wingers identifying with
people who killed people in movies, have I got something
to tell you about the movie American Psycho. But also
it completely missed the point there. The point is, and
this is really that I don't care mechanism we talked
about earlier, which is for people of a certain age,
these things are sacred, and we know that they're sacred.
We know that this God is real because look at
all of the benefits he gave us every time we
prayed he sent us rain my house is worth two
million dollars. How can the values that let me hear
be wrong? The problem is, man, that's a zero sum game,
and for all of those wins, there's been a corresponding loser.
And you have a group of people who are sitting
there saying exactly what Javier Bardem said, If this rule,
if this myth is so great, why are we here.
It's the same idea you see in that iconic image
of you know, a young man storming the beaches at Normandy,
you know where. It's like, this is what they had
in mind, and the thought bubble over their head is
some horrendous piece of modern degeneracy. And it's a bitter
me right. We understand what's being expressed there that, you know,
our culture blew itself up, expended blood, lives and treasure,
and for what, and for what to benefit other people's children,
to fight more pointless wars. It's no shock that people
are rejecting that. And if we look at our project,
we are iconic class. We are smashing balls or the
big ball, if you will, maybe literally, I guess, but
that is what we are about. And sure you know
that's really the mode that the right has existed for
a very long time, a culture of critique, someone might
even say, constantly tearing down that narrative. And there is
still work to be done there. I think Darryl Cooper,
I'll mention it for the second time, is doing Yeoman's
work there, attacking that central myth of one of the
most murderous empires in history, right, the Nurnberg regime. It
is socially engineered people across the planet, including you and I.
But we're just starting to see the birth of that
second part of what comes next first in cultural output,
And man, I think that's really exciting because it's something
we you and I both have been waiting for, like
come on, like when are we going to get it?
And I don't think we're there yet. You're starting to
see that, like, oh wow, that was really good. It
wasn't some political diatribe, it wasn't some manifesto. But the
values in this the framing of that story are profoundly illiberal.
I want to say illiberal. That makes it sound like
it exists in opposition to liberal but unrelated to just
a completely different set of values. And I think that
is what needs to happen now. The disparate nature of
culture that I mentioned earlier is kind of algorithmically driven.
Atom is still applies. You know, there are a million
different ways to attack this kind of godless globalist empire.
But and this is again a point from Carl dol,
there is a need for this sort of you know,
big tent opposition to that, you know, the the great
Satan as someone might say, And we have historical examples,
the Spanish. You know, a few others have managed to
do it. It can be done, and it needs to
be done. And I think that it is certainly still nascent,
but it is alive. And that's pretty much all I
can offer as far as hope goes speed.
Speaker 1: Where can people find your work and work can they
support you?
Speaker 2: You can find my work the Jayburden Show, Apple, Spotify, YouTube,
anywhere you listen to podcasts, much like another show you
may have heard of. You want the episodes early in
ad free left, Throw me a couple of bucks, it's
what I do. I appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Oh.
Speaker 2: Also, I've been writing more on substack, writing more in general,
so you can check me out on substack. All the
essays are free, I just do them. For personal gratification.
And maybe soon you'll see my writing somewhere else. I'll
be sure to promote it when it happens again. Pete,
I appreciate him.
Speaker 1: Man, thank you, Jack. I appreciate you.