Speaker 1: Meaning a live man like this man letting butterfly flapping.
Speaker 2: And wing big down in the forest. Man, it gonna
cause the tree fold, letting five thousand miles away. Man,
you nobody see it. Nobody. You don't need to know. Man,
you follow this story and you got backed like that.
Speaker 3: Win man go black and dang on panema Man, Man,
you don't matter. Manka All right, logan Hole, Welcome to
Jay Burden Show.
Speaker 1: How you doing? Then?
Speaker 2: Thank you for having me? I'm good.
Speaker 1: Yeah, dude. So obviously I'm familiar with who you are
in your work, but my audience might not be. So
who do you are and what do you do?
Speaker 2: So? I am a digital strategist for the Blaze. I
do a little bit of everything over there, posting on platform,
you know. I write when I feel like I have
something kind of original to say. I help with some
of the marketing. I do a little bit of everything.
But at heart, I'm just a patriot who loves America
and cares about the country. So, and I was, I
was gonna say, I was wondering. I was like, this
guy is having on all of right wing Twitter except
for me on his show. So I'm glad to finally
be here. Thank you for having me.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Man, it's kind of funny. And there have been multiple
of these where someone's like, hey, haven't you talked to
him yet? And my response will be like, yeah, I
talked to him two years ago, and I'll look at
it that never happened. I just assumed that I did,
because surely I wouldn't have missed this obvious person al
on my show. Look in my defense, my scheduling is
whatever I write down on paper. Hey, so the system
is not airtight. There are is you have no doubt
seen in planning this. There are some errors every once
in a while. But yeah, man, I'm really excited to
have you on. So one of the and I've been
thinking about this because you know, we're kind of approaching
the end of the year, and I think that there
are sort of several identifiable trends, you know, that we
can consider to be kind of prototypical for the year.
And I think one of the most concerning, one of
the ones i've you know, think is the most dramatic
change is that effectively all taboos around political violence are gone,
at least if you're on the political left. We obviously saw,
you know, kind of an earlier version of this during
the rise of Antifa, you know, during you know, the
first Trunt presidency, and then certainly over you know, the
fiery but mostly peaceful Summer of Love. But there's been
a major ramping up in both the complexity and the
degree of violence. Obviously, we don't alcilate based off of
the target, and you know, some other details we don't know.
So I'm curious, man, what do you make of this
sort of disturbing rise in political violence.
Speaker 2: I think, I mean, I obviously think it's frightening. I
after the Charlie Kirk assassination, I think that the right
was very unified, even among like what would usually be
called like the squishes and like the typical kind of
like Republican establishment. Of course, like right wing right wing
people were more they already understood what time it was.
I think this was like a wake up call for
a lot of the normies so called uh and and
kind of the establishment, and everyone was unified. There were
there was a period like two or three weeks, I
think at least maybe a month where everyone's like, okay,
time to like set aside disagreements. We have to fight
the enemy, and we have to understand like the enemy
is the left. And what ended up happening. I don't
know if this was because people had too high of expectations,
or if they kind of just wanted to move on
from the news cycle or change direction. But what happened
was they got even more like they just started like
after about that month, they just started really really kind
of attacking each other and deciding not to be united,
not to be like, Okay, our enemy is the left.
They turned their guns inward, and every faction this so
I'm not saying like one or the other whatever, But
and then all these bizarre conspiracy theory, conspiracy theories. You know,
I'm not one to crap on conspiracy theorists, but all
these bizarre things about how Charlie Kirk died and and
everything else started rising to the top and taking over
the conversation, and and I think we lost focus, and
this was, uh, this was very unhelpful. I think Scott
Greer had a good piece that like, it looked like
this was going to be bad for the left, and
actually it ended up kind of really hurting the right
because I think a lot of people did not recognize
how much of the glue Charlie was holding this whole
thing together.
Speaker 1: And and so.
Speaker 2: Again, you know, I have my criticisms of you know,
I love Trump. I'm a big Trump guy. I'm a
big bag of guy. But and maybe our on our expectator,
like I said, maybe our expectations were a little unrealistic.
Speaker 1: But I.
Speaker 2: Think people were expecting to see some big crackdown on
the left. The you know, I've seen like they did
the Antifa designating it as a terrorist organization and whatever else.
And I understand that these things take time, and so
I'm still holding out hope, but I think people were
were wanting an immediate crackdown on the left, kind of
like in the vein of what they did to January
sixth protesters and everything else. And that's just not what happened.
And so immediately people started saying turning their guns inward
and start saying, oh, we have to attack this group
or that group on the right, and it kind of
just turned into a debacle actually, like they took out
our most like literally our most influential person, especially among
the youth, and then we kind of just decided to
throw up our hands and like kind of attack each
other and destroy ourselves over it. It's just not the
signs of a healthy movement. And so, you know, as
that crackdown did not come, or it hasn't come yet,
we are seeing more and more of this stuff arise up.
That Brown University thing is the whole situation there is crazy.
The police have no idea. I mean, the shooter is
still gone. We wouldn't have even had Charlie Kirk shooter
if his own family didn't turn him in. You know,
it's like, why are we living in this It's like
a kind of a police state where like the cameras
and surveillance are supposed to be everywhere, but we can't
get like a shooter that's targeting an Ivy League university
or something. I don't know, but it's it's very worrying.
I think I think the left. I saw Matt Walsh
make a good point today too that if the most
prominent leftists in America was like killed on camera, there
would have been under a Democrat administration, there would have
been immediate, immediate crackdowns. And I think like people on
our side, there is some reasonable criticism like oh, you're
not gonna You're just like you're never going to get
mass arrests of leftists. And that might be true, that
might be like a good and unreasonable expectation, but something
has to change. Uh, you cannot have this environment where
conservatives are afraid or worried that they are going to
go out in public and speak their minds and be targeted,
potentially targeted with violence, and nothing's going to have happened.
You know that there has to be in a political system.
You there has to be if you're going to be
loyal to the Republican Party or the GOP or whatever,
there has to be some level of protection that they
provide to their people, Right, But I think I think
some people don't feel like that's that's all there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well one hundred percent. It's like, look like politics
is transactional. Ultimately, it's like, hey, what are you going
to do for me? Like we can church it up.
But that's really what it comes down to. And you know,
all of the things we've been getting out of the
administration have been great, right that Obviously the immigration stuff
is huge. There are things that are were much needed.
But fundamentally, it's like, well, if you can't guarantee my security,
what are we doing here? Right? Because that's very that
is the base of you know, Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
They've heard of it before, Oh yeah, And I think
that additionally, one of the other things about this is
the the incentive creates. Effectively, we have reinforced the message
that political violence works. You can, you know, sacrifice one
guy maybe you know, at least in some situations he
seems to be able to get away and you will
throw the other side into chaos. Right, there'll be a
squabble for that role that he used to have, which
I mean, I'm not trying to be overly cynical here,
but I do think that's a lot of the infighting.
That TPUSA is a giant platform with a whole lot
of money behind it, and so I think it's a
fight for who gets to control that money and that influence,
at least on some level. And you see this in
how many people have thrown their hat in the ring
to replace Charlie Kirk, which I mean, I don't know, guys,
if you're accepting auditions, you know, I wouldn't mind two
hundred and fifty million dollars. I'll you know, be generous
enough to take it. But in all seriousness, right, Like,
what we've effectively taught the radical left is that you
can do this, and you know you'll have to sacrifice
a guy. He'll have to face consequences, but you basically
get what you want. You get to throw the other
side into chaos, you get to take out one of
their key players on the board, and yeah, sure there's
a sort of a typhoon in a teacup. You know,
people get really upset about it for a little bit,
but once that's done, that's done, and the state of
play is basically exactly the same. One of the interesting
elements of this, I think, and I'm not sure if
you've seen it, is this sort of like kind of
smirking face of you know, the Kirk assassin right now
that he's been brought into court. Because one of in
my mind, the sort of open questions of the post
twenty sixteen but really the post twenty twenty era is
basically what is the left wings role for young men,
particularly young white men. That sort of an open question
for a while, like how can you be on side
for a little bit, it seemed like you could be
this sort of like dirtbag leftist Bernie bro Thing that's
been sort of pushed out. Then there was the kind
of debate bro streamer archetype that you could be that guy,
but that's sort of fading in prominence and they've been
replaced by it bizarre gaggle of transsexuals, and so ultimately
it's like, well, you can do that, like that's one
way you can join the coalition, But it seems as
if the other way is you can kill someone, like
that's what you can do to sort of be immortalized,
you know. Aaron Bushnell, like I let himself on fire
is sort of another example. I don't think that's a
great deal. I don't think a lot of people are
going to take them up on it. But nonetheless, you
do see a lot of these like deranged losers basically
looking for glory, and when they are assured that they
will be given that, they have at least some chance
of getting away with it, and that is how you
will win social approval. I don't know, man, that's a
very dangerous situation. Do you see what I'm outlining there?
Speaker 2: Logan one hundred percent. Yeah. Luigi Mangioni was kind of
a part of this phenomenon too, where the left kind
of ended up, uh, just immortalizing this guy because he
took out Healthcare CEO and their big thing is supposed
to be healthcare, which I don't necessarily think that's true,
but you're you're completely right, Yeah, that is. That is
a very dangerous thing to do. But they they've been
doing this for a while. You know, the left actually
ends up rewarding their radicals. You can commit terrorism, literal terrorism,
and the left will eventually, you know, if you make
it out of the Core proceedings and go to prison
for a little while or whatever, they hold you up
as an intellectual. You are a part of their your
you're advancing the revolution. Right, they did this with the
Weather Underground people that if you commit literal terrorism, you
will become You'll you'll you'll be invited, you'll be welcomed
into the fold, You'll be awarded with sinecures and political positions,
and they'll get you a book deal. They truly do
reward their radicals, and this is one of the main differences.
You know, I'm not saying that the Republican Party or
the right needs to copy this strategy necessarily, but if
you're punishing anyone to the right of like William F. Buckley,
per se, and you're saying, like, you know, Pap Buchanan was.
It's a little bit tougher for them to do this
too now in the age of like digital and social media,
But back then they effectively excise Sam Francis and Pap
Buchanan from the movement and they're like, you guys can go,
you guys can go like write at your weird little
like newspapers and whatever, but you are not going to
have any professional standing within the party and within the movement.
And so this is this is the result of this
is that the country and all of politics, all of
our political conversation always moves to the left. It always
moves to the left because if one side is always rewarding,
always advancing their revolutionaries professionally, politically, and if one side
is always punishing, they're not even revolutionaries. But just like
people who held the same opinions that like an American
from like the early nineteen hundreds held, then you are
you are an outcast. And this is part of the
issue within and this is this is part of the
larger debate. I would argue within like the Republican and
conservative and right wing is where do we draw that line?
But also like you can't just you're not going to
cancel these people, like we're done with that, if you
That's one of the weirdest things too, is like, oh,
we're against like cancel culture and whatever until it's time
to destroy like someone who goes off the reservation a
little bit. It's very weird.
Speaker 1: Well, and in the immortal words of uh, you know
Mark Levin, Hell, yeah, we canceled jo so Soberin.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Uh, you know, he may he may have a different
opinion on any number of issues than you know, me
or my guest here. But point is right, you're one
hundred percent right about that trend line. If you are
constantly purging yourself according to the moral precepts of your
alleged enemies, where do you think that will bring you?
It isn't to fighting them harder, it's to being more
like them. Uh. I have an unfinished piece. It'll probably
come out roughly at the same time as this uh
this episode. Uh talking about a piece that Day French
wrote in the New York Times and is a David
French piece. It's not very good. And when he's basically
doing yeah, yeah, I know, I feel I feel a
little dirty for doing this, Like I can't help myself.
You know. It's like you know, an alcoholic you know,
has a bad day and starts hitting the bottle. It's
like for me, it's like, oh, David French wrote something new.
But point is, you know, he has this whole he
has this you know, this argument where he basically is
is kind of molding about being called gay by a
bunch of like magazoomers three years ago and is still
upset about it. Uh. And he talks about, you know,
like the fact that you know, the core complaint of
you know that what he calls the new right is
that things are getting worse and they have gotten to
such a state that we need to abandon the kind
of legacy conservative movement, their way of going about things.
And he says that that is, you know, that's wrong,
that's you know, things are actually getting much better, and
that really the problem is people are just upset about nothing.
You know, the algorithm made them mad. And look like
there are a couple of problems here, which is one,
like things have gotten pretty rough, Like we've mentioned there's
been a spate of you know, left wing political violence,
and we mentioned the assassinations, this brown shooting, which we
don't know but we can suspect. But also like, look
like there were like twelve guys who like set up
an L shaped ambush outside of an ice center in Texas,
Like that's kind of that. That is unprecedented in recent history.
Things like that didn't used to happen. This is setting
aside immigration. This is a setting aside the job prospects
for young white guys after twenty fifteen. There are many
measurable ways and which you can say, like, look like
things aren't doing well. And again, you know, the assumption
is ultimately that because of you know, the GDP, because
of you know, the market price of a flat screen television,
or you know, your life expectancy when you have terminal cancer,
not only is the state of America positive, but by extension,
ultimately left wing political goals are legitimate. That is the
purpose of the conservative movement to do those same things.
And so, and I'm picking on Friendship particular because he's
fun to pick on, but there are many people in
this It's like, well, look, man, if you agree with them,
and we really dig down to it, if you believe
that the past is horribly and irredeemably tainted that you know,
we just need to go into this future of extending
you know, more and more privileges to democratic client groups,
like like you can just join their party, like and
just go all the way. You know, you don't have
to have this sort of embarrassing you know, halfway position,
one foot in each door. And I think that you
know that sort of you know, con inc as Paul
Godfried would say it, right is truly the people who I,
almost more than anyone else, have grown to detest in
all of this because again, right, like, the consequences for
you know, refusing to bend the knee are dramatic. The
reaction that I and many other people on the more
radical end politics had towards the assassination of Charlie Kirk
was an initial shock, like, wait him, like, he's the
he's the fascist because you know, from a relatively more
right word perspective, he looked very moderate. And then you're thinking, well,
wait a minute, if he's a Nazi and we shoot Nazis,
it's what you do. Well, one, what does that make me?
And who what does that make everyone else? Right, people
who are either between me and Kirk are between me
and Chairman Mao, like what does that make them? And
the answer is apparently right for political assassination, let alone
the kind of direct threats of prosecution leveled towards the
Trump administration. Right, We're gonna send hag Seth to the Hague.
Trump will go to jail. And if this is the consequence, one,
clearly things are not going well in America. That would
seem to be a negative indicator. But also like what
if this is supposedly an existential threat. Your career will
be over, You'll be in jail, you might be dead.
Like where's the lack of action coming from? Because I
would assume, even just off of selfish you know, motivations,
you would say, well, I don't want to go to jail.
How do I make that not happen? Or I don't
want to be shot? How do I keep that from happening?
And I see from a lot of the conservative movement
a lack of even just basic self preservation you'd expect
out of like a c slug or something.
Speaker 2: Yes, no, absolutely, And kind of going back to a
little bit of what we're talking about, what happens is
the Republicans, like the David French's for instance. They they
are allowed a spot at or at least you know,
for a while, they're allowed a spot at National Review
or The New York Times or whatever else. So he
understands that moving to the left and saying, Okay, my
job is like to hate red America. I'm never going
to be like an MSNBC. It might be a guest
or something, but I'm like, my job is to sit
there and crap on red America. The Democrats do not
have this sort of arrangement. The Democrats if the minute
that you get out of line, that like someone like
Tulci Gabbert for instance, the minute that they get out
of line, they're like, you are gone. RFK Junior. The
guy's freaking family is they were before Obama. They were
the Democrat prominent, premier Democrat family, like they were the
ones who every Democrat in America be like, we love
the Kennedys, we love that, we love Ted, we love
He was called the line of the Senate after he
literally killed a woman and they they did not. They
were like, oh, this is this is terrible and professional behavior.
Now maybe he won't be president, but he'll be in
the Senate for like forty years, and we'll keep him
in a prominent position within the part. The moment that
you step off the reservation there, the moment you like
starts being like, Okay, maybe we don't need to just
like advance this permanent revolution thing. They get you out, okay.
And what happens is the Republicans do the exact same thing,
except in reverse. So if you don't hold the same
opinions that a lot of the that would be respectable
at the New York Times or like make you be
able to appear on MSNBC as a guest, they're like, Okay,
this person is a little bit wacky. We're going to
have to like purds to them. Make sure they don't
have professional employment, they don't have advancement. So it's it's
just it's it's literally crazy. And what happens is even
Hillary Clinton's views from fifteen years ago, ten years ago,
Barack Obama, his views from ten or fifteen years ago
are unacceptable in today's Democrat party. So this is what
it's just, it's always even like and and then the
Republicans the conservatives say, yeah, you know what, you're right,
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton opposed gay marriage. You know what,
we're gonna, We're gonna h But now they love it,
so now it's time for us to adopt that position
as well. It's it's it's crazy. I don't know. I
think social media is starting to in the rise of
podcasting and sort of the the death of legacy media
is starting to change this where people are like whoahoa, whoa.
I I am not on Like, I don't want I
don't care about what people on MSNBC think. I'm gonna
have my own opinions, in my own views, and like
that's my right as an American. But again, and when
people start getting a little bit like Charlie Kirk started
to he had a change too, and he started to
move a little bit to the right. And as soon
as you do that, as soon as you someone with
like prominence like that starts to move a little bit
like drift from Okay, I these aren't opinions you'll ever
hear on the New York Times or MSNBC. He's a
threat the people, the old like who we're talking about,
the David Frenches of the world. They're like you said,
they're numerous of these people that still are pretty well
entrenched in conservative politics. The moment that you kind of
get away from that, they the left is like, okay,
this is a target. This is someone who is not
is not someone that we can just like welcome into
our coalition to crap on red America anymore.
Speaker 1: Well, and the thing is that, look, we've run this
playbook over and over again. It's not like, you know,
the secret has just been discovered. You know that if
you play, if you play to the center constantly, you know,
if you adopt, you know, the liberal values of ten
years ago, if you know vainly try you know, election
after election to appeal to demographics that vote against you,
you know, ninety three to seven, right to quote the
results of win some series in a recent election. It's
not like you do that, and that's the silver bullet.
You get it, you get into power forever. We've been
trying this for generations, longer than you or I have
been alive, and it doesn't it doesn't yield a victory.
And many people, you know, many of the new reactionary
as well as others, have pointed out the fact that
effectively the Republican Party doesn't actually exist to win right,
it's it's they are the fail sons of the political order.
They exist so that guys in the Republican Party get
to be this sort of like Retardo Baron of backwater America,
and they get to enrich themselves and they get to
stay in power for a long time and you know,
become multimillionaires more than that, and they get to be respected,
and they still get to go to all of the
same parties and that's it. It's an easy deal and
nothing is really expected of them. And we've seen that
change a little bit, right, you know, sell you about Trump,
but he has introduced the concept of winning into the
mind of the American conservative, which, if nothing else, Man,
we got to give him an award for that, because
that was that was all of the lesson But nonetheless, right,
you mentioned earlier the kind of protection racket offered by politics. Right, effectively,
what are you getting in exchange for your support? And
for a very long time, the political formula of the
Republican Party was basically, well, we'll leave you alone for
as long as we're in power. We won't ruin your life.
And okay, that's certainly better than having your life ruined,
you know, given a binary choice, but that is not
the same deal offered to shall we say, other interest groups, right,
offered to other you know, clients of the regime. You know,
for instance, you have this guy out of Portland too,
you know, crazy homeless drug addicts. Right. I'm not gonna
pretend to either. One of these guys are upstanding citizens.
But you know there's an altercation. You know, a dusky
gentleman stabs a white guy and after being stabbed, the
guy who has got a knife in him uses a
racial epithet right for black Americans, which you know, I'm
not gonna morally excuse, but like, the guy's been stabbed,
you know, clearly this is not a great moment for him.
You know, it's not like a premeditated hard r you know,
full eye contact and everything. Yeah, but this this stabber
has been let go. The jury equits him because of
that detail. Right, It was sort of this like you know,
pre crime. You know, he he knew in his heart
that he was racist and stabbed him and it confirmed it.
But look like that's an incredible piece of patronage there.
If you're a client of the regime, you can stab
someone and you can get away with it. We've seen
this in other cases as well, right the you know,
the the whole you know, this whole sort of affirmative
action apparatus, you know, disparate impact. All of these are
basically rewards offered for your loyalty. And you look at
you know, what has been offered, and basically we're looking
at sort of a civilizational dispossession. You know, it's kind
of slow marched over seventy years, and you start to
say like, well, wait a minute, this is possible. I
see other people getting something, so why not me? And
you see this sort of fury from the kind of
conservatives or yes of yesteryear, you know, the old the
old true neo cons you know, Crystal and French and
others who basically want to put that genie back in
the bottle to say like, well, why can't we go
back to the good old days where I didn't have
to do anything that was a lot more fun. And
when I say I didn't have to do anything, I'm
not saying that. You know, the people currently empower the
you know, the the Maga block, whatever you wanna call it,
are like the best political actors possible. But to say
I think that is an interesting an interesting change is
sort of how nakedly political many things have become where
it's not necessarily like we're resorting and it still happens,
but to kind of this like you know, high minded idealism,
it's a lot more of like, well, what's in it
for me? I don't necessarily think that is a sign
of a healthy culture, but it is where we are.
And I think it's interesting to watch those kind of
you know, country club conservative types grapple with that.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, and I, uh, I will say, just with
your last part there, I am a huge golfer, so
I love I have nothing, but I understand the uh
the that that is just kind of a way to
talk about them. But I love the country club conservatives.
I would say, I would say, actually, this might be
a little bit controversial, but country clubs are like one
of the last places in America where you have a
selective process of who gets to come in. That's like
almost lost everywhere else. So you know, it doesn't have
like diversity quotas at you like, your local country club
is not like you have to let in like a
certain amount of like X number of people every year.
It's like no, you can actually just like let in
some like respectable members of the community or people who
are willing to pay their way in and show off
good behavior and whatever else. I understand. I didn't mean
to take that much issue with that, I understand. I
just I wrote an article specifically about this, so I
wanted to kind of get a shameless plug in there.
But but no, you're right that the main question that
we're kind of getting at is what do I receive
in return for my loyalty to the Republican Party, And
it's a lot less than what Democrats get. Now, I think,
like you said, Trump kind of has broken that open
a little bit because he's one of the few people
like he's like, hey, drink COVID. Let's like send out
like one time stimulus. Let's just as like give people
money and say, like, you know, you get your check,
and then it says from President Donald J. Trump, you
know that's a that's a form of patronage that like
the Republicans are would typically not usually be on board with.
Same with what he's talking about with Obamacare and healthcare,
He's like, I want the money to go directly to
the people. This is like a very populous thing, right,
This is like kind of what separates him from some
of the other Republicans, where he's like, I am willing
to give you something in return, even if if even
if it's just a small, like monetary stipend. He's like,
here is what you get. You vote for me, you
get X number of dollars. You'll get these Trump savings accounts.
That's another big thing.
Speaker 1: Like I have.
Speaker 2: A son on the way, my wife's our first son.
My wife's do it in February, and I now have
access to this like government program where my child is born,
I get a thousand The Treasury Department will deposit one
thousand dollars into a savings account for my retirement account
for my son. And that's like, you know, that's not
necessarily like a traditional Republican thing, but as like someone
who you know understands you need to get you know,
as much ahead as you can before you enter the workforce.
That's a good thing. You know, I'll be able to
sign my kid up for that. It's like that that's
a form of patronage, right, And so I think Trump
is somewhat changing this this mindset, like but again and
it's still woefully, woefully short of what the Democrats get
for their loyalty.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: It's literally like, if you go vote Democrat, we pay you.
And it's it's also tough to This is part of
the issue with patronage too, is because the Democrats are
always going to promise more and and so I think
we have to be like practical in the way we
do it. But even just offering like hey, you're going
to have basic security would go a long way. But
you know, you'll have safe streets in America. You can
walk in a city and not have to be worried
about getting stabbed or your murderer being let off because
you used a racial slur after you got literally stabbed.
Speaker 1: You know, Like.
Speaker 2: It seems like there there are some forms of this
that could be just so simple. And you know, I
think Trump's trying to He's trying to do that too,
but you can only do so much. Like you know,
he's trying to send some of the National Guard to
the cities and whatever else. I think all the cities
probably need that, but that's probably another discussion. But he's
I think he is changing it for the better. I
just it's going to be interesting to see where this goes,
because it does seem like there's a coordinated effort to
reinstall the kind of politics where you tell Republicans like
the slow burn that you're talking about, like you're going
to lose your society, but we'll do it a little
bit slower. And I think I think that mindset is
hopefully changing. It's certainly changed among a lot of young people,
I think.
Speaker 1: Well, and I think that that's that's what's incredibly frustrating.
And I mentioned it with win some Earl series, but
we're seeing it currently with the Indian diaspora, which is
the way that conservatives and will bend over backwards to
try and appeal for groups which vote against the met
dramatic rate. So for instance, Uh, you know, Rod Dreyer
had a piece out a while ago. What I heard
in d C Uh it was also not very good. Uh,
it's funny. It's funny, Logan, you're sort of getting the
citations for every article I've written in the last three months,
but you know six of my brain the where you know,
he he's quoting this unnamed you know, uh, Republican staffer
right as we were assured a young person of color.
Uh you can figure it out. Uh, But basically this
kid is saying. He's like, oh, well, like, you know,
the problem with these you know, new you know, radical
right wingers is that they're you know, they're abandoning you know,
these these you know outreaches to you know, groups like
the Indian diaspora, who he describes as you know, natural conservatives.
And he says, don't you know in the last election,
almost forty percent of them voted for Trump. So we've
got to keep doing that. We've got to keep appealing
to them, to keep bringing more of them. And look, man,
I'm not a quant but uh is not more than half.
It's actually a little bit less. So that is a
losing game, especially because again talking about things we've done
over and over and over again, this idea of you know,
the soo so called you know, quote unquote natural conservative
often just deployed by group Bro.
Speaker 2: I promise this time they're gonna they're gonna help us.
I swear yes.
Speaker 1: And it's like, look like, certainly, you know Hispanics, especially
if they've sort of you know, been around longer, have
moved towards the center. But still it's not the majority
dramatically so and so it's especially frustrating when it seems
as if you know, the conservative the right is is
loathe to handout patronage when it is a group that
actually supports them, a group that actually votes for them.
And you know, by large numbers, I think, next to
Black Americans, white American evangelicals are the most monolithic voting group, right,
the bull, the lone bull exactly. And so it's like, well, okay,
like you seemingly can can throw money around, you can,
you know, like Greg Abbott sort of wheel yourself into
a dwale and you know you can do that for them,
who again vote against you roughly you know, sixty forty
seventy thirty depending on what sort of election it is,
but still majority. But for your guys, right, the guys
that put you there, that sort of effort is is absent.
And I think that, you know, particularly as we sort
of head towards a like majority minority society, absence some
dramatic change. It's like the idea and you see this
again echoed by many of the very very good conservatives,
a lot of them actually who attack you guys over
at the Blaze, you know, one Jimbo Lindsey as well
as others, you know, it's this idea that oh, no,
you know, we're the right is embracing identity politics just
like the left. Isn't that horrible? They've gone woke? And
the problem with that is, like, look, man, like everyone
else is playing identity politics. And there are two solutions
to that, which is one either you know, you say,
all right, turn about his fair play, or h you
remove identity from consideration in politics there is only one
identity in the polity.
Speaker 2: Which, ironically, I am sure ironically it's also a lot
easier to do that when you have a homogeneous country,
isn't it.
Speaker 1: Well, And that's that's that's what I'm saying, right, either
that or you create a homogeneous country. And I'm quite
sure that our former massage therapist friend and others are
not advocating for that right full total remigration. And so
to me, that's one of those other things where I
almost view that as sort of an inevitable kind of
the physics of politics like that, that it's sort of
a you know, like a social technology, right, like once
some person discovers it becomes the new way you play.
Like I don't know if you ever I'm not a
huge gamer, but you know, I played a.
Speaker 2: Lot of Uh, that's that's terrible.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but I played a lot of fighting games in
high school and college, and there's sort of this power
creep as for as long as a game is around,
right where like when it first comes out, you play
it like how you're supposed to play it, and then
people very quickly discover exploits, Like in the the Super
Smash Brothers series, there's this mechanism called wave dashing where
you can kind of like you know, mess with the
buttons and shoot across the screen. And then once that's discovered,
once that's discovered, that's just how you play. And if
you don't play that way, you were going to lose forever.
And so look, identity politics isn't quite the same because
that's just how politics works. But ultimately, this kind of
like nakedly racialized politics, like it was an effective tool.
One party figured it out, and the two options were
either stop existing as a political force, which is just
not how it happens, uh, or revolve. And so so
many of these people who I see is kind of
like sticks in the MUDs, you know, whining about like
the you know, the resurgence of like quote unquote identity politics.
It's like, well, if you didn't want that to happen,
there was a time and place for that to be
headed off at the past. It's well and truly past that.
It is sort of the the nature of the beast.
And I am kind of curious how long the National
Review set will hold on because genuinely, I do not
know who their audience is. It doesn't seem to be liberals.
They don't seem to like them. Their own base I
think at this point has fully and totally discarded them.
So is it just that, like there's a bunch of
money sitting in the trust account, they keep getting their
paychecks paid in the audio and the newspapers read by nobody.
Is that just the answer? Yeah?
Speaker 2: I think that's part of the issue, is like we
have and you will like understand we the Republican Party
does have patronage, but it's for people who exist to
not represent Republican voters. That's the that's like the issue, right,
Like this is part of the problem is that you
have think tanks. I lived and worked in DC for
like probably like three three and a half years when
I was young, and it's you know, it's a great experience.
It's good for young people, but for me, it created
this just huge disillusionment because you meet people and you're like,
what is your job? You know, like that's just kind
of a small talk at like a you know, at
cocktail hour or whatever, and you talk with them and
they're number one. They don't really have any beliefs. It's
like they don't they don't have any Like it's like, oh, yeah,
I'm like from like Maryland or Virginia or whatever. They
don't really have a lot of beliefs. And then also
a ton of them are just like not from they
don't have that love for Red America that a lot
of like they view their their role as being what
is acceptable within the liberal order. Right, they kind of
know that they're there too, Oh well, well you know,
we're here for the mid terms, or we're here to
like be a consultant for this, like for winsome Seers,
or like for this this conservative Somalian in Minnesota, right,
And it's like they operate they're so kind of captured
by the system. It's like, well, what about like the
guy in West Virginia who like it lives in like
rural nowhere West Virginia and like he thinks you're representing him.
Here are you representing his? Like does he have any
representation in Washington, DC? I don't think so. But this
is sort of the issue. And and when you're talking
about it, like the identity politics thing with mass democracy,
like it is a numbers game. And if you start
doing this like mass democracy plus mass immigration, and you
think that you're not going to get identity politics, that's
like you are. That's more absurd than like, you know,
people who believe in Bigfoot are less like and I,
you know, I believe in Bigfoot. But aside the point
people who believe in Bigfoot.
Speaker 1: My favorite Republican Republican ever, Denver Riggleman, bigfoot believer. But
no point is you're you're one hundred percent correct because
like look like you know, much like a fighting game
or whatever, it's a system and ultimately you're playing within
certain constraints and systems will be optimized. And so as
you've said, if you combine mass migration and mass democracy,
all of a sudden, you've got a win button and
you can just keep pressing that button forever, especially if
you have what and sorry for you know, tarnishing you
by using poor language, but the retardedest idea ever birthright citizenship,
and so you combine that and it's like, oh, well,
you can just literally invite everyone here, wait for someone
to get pregnant, and bam, you have a new patron.
You're rather yeah, just as American as anyone else, as
Ben Shapiro actually today has has told me that, you know,
it's all.
Speaker 2: Sorry, I keep going, no, no, finish that thought.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 2: The vakroate a piece today in the New York Times
too that said, what is an American? It says anyone
who believes in the creed and anyone who does it
the right way and gets citizenship is just as American
as a mayflower.
Speaker 1: To send it, I feel like there's some motivated reasoning
for our young biotechnical founder. I'll leave it at that. Yeah,
obviously it's it's completely totally disingenuous, and I think that
that is you know, really, I think that sort of
one of the start questions, and this has been going
around really for a lot this year, which is like, Okay,
who is an American matters? But also what is the
purpose of America as a country? Like what you doing
here because you have wildly different takes and it's like, well,
you know, I have a relatively constrained vision of that
which I think is a home for Americans to them
to live. You know, I don't know, crucify me, I guess,
but like generally it actually is when you compare it
to ideas even from the nominal conservative movement, as you
mentioned with Favek, right, if America is simply something that
you can repeat to yourself three times in the mirror
and then you're American, it's like, well, okay, like one,
well can't they just do that over there and be
just as American? And surely that's the secret formula to
making whatever that place is nice? You know, they just
become Americans. Oh great, awesome.
Speaker 2: It's if it's an idea, why can't they do it
anywhere else?
Speaker 1: And we know why, we know exactly why, because that
is a tactical move right, that is to get you
to you know, let your let your arm, your guard
down so they can do what they wanted to. And again,
like that's why I think again it's so funny to
watch the kind of like like of the you know,
the good conservatives, you know, people who are maybe involved
in IDW or whatever, because that idea of the propositional nation.
It's really the only people who sincerely believed it were
American conservatives acting as sort of Charlie Brown running up
to the football again and again and again. And you
have a you know, a small splinter group basical saying like, hey, man,
look like we've fallen flat on our back like thirty times.
I think it might happen again. Yeah, And you have
Charlie Brown kind of looking up from his back be like, no,
this time, it'll work, guys. And it's like it's funny
to be because darkly right. Obviously it's sort of a
you know, a depressing thing, but it's like, genuinely the
only people who actually believe those sort of liberal promites
are like deeply unfashionable conservatives. The progressive left obviously doesn't
you know, they say that just to do what they want,
but they know it's not true. And it's sort of
like the one person in the world who still believes
in Santa Claus, but he's like thirty and you're like, guys,
come on, like, sorry, I guess it's good. I should
be bad talking Sanna. I feel like I shouldn't. But
you know what I mean, if you're eight years old.
Speaker 2: This BLUs to Christmas, it's not good.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I have teptic faith, but you know what I mean, right,
someone who is held on to it an obviously absurd
belief well past that point. And in the case of
Shapiro and Viveck, there's some motivated reasoning there. We I
we can assume that they know what they're doing. But again,
it is incredibly irritating to see these sort of like
political myths like well past their cell by date still
trotted out again and again with the idea that this
is the secret formula to winning well.
Speaker 2: And you know, the the reason that this is still
popular is because so many of our people, you know,
Trump is good at this, like and he has done
a lot to advance this, but so many people that
are nominally on our side are just afraid to say, like,
America is a nation. We have people that built this nation.
They've been around here, they have their own way of life.
They've been around here for three hundred plus years. They
have their own way of life, they have their own culture.
And the reason that this is so because they are
so afraid of being accused of racism that they cannot say, like, hey,
I prefer this like culture of like Evangelical Protestants to
like whatever they have going in Somalia. It's like this
is it's actually pretty easy to say that, but they're
so afraid to like stand up for their own people.
Speaker 1: This is.
Speaker 2: It reminds me of the I'm sure you've seen The Incredibles,
the Disney movie, but the the the villain in that
movie he says, well, whenever he's like trying to give
power to everyone, he says, when everyone's super, no one is.
And that's kind of what's happening here. Like if everyone
and anyone from anywhere in the world is just as
American as like the sons and daughter of the American Revolution,
then you've brought the definition down to such a point
that it doesn't mean anything anymore, right, And it's like,
so you can't quickly I think this is a stupid
idea that's also like being repudiated, and nobody really believes
anymore except for kind of those idw types and foreigners.
But it is one of those things where it's like
the fact that it's still around that people that are
supposed to be on our side are still saying it
is absurd. The other thing I think that you're kind
of tapping into and getting at is that America is
supposed to be a home for Americans. Well, what you know,
I know our friend Orin talks about this a lot,
But we are supposed to be a home for Americans
and we're supposed to be a sovereign nation. But this
is kind of impossible if we are running an empire,
which is what we are doing. You know, we have
I saw something today like Trump is meeting with the fallen,
like fallen troops in Syria, like American troops in Syria.
It's like, why do we why do we have troops
in Syria? Are we the World police or what? Like
what's going on there? I have my gripes about that too.
But then like the same thing with Gaza, you know,
they're like, oh they have like they have this certain
amount of American hostages. It's like if they're American hostages,
did they pluck them from our soil? Like did did
the Goazains come over here and like pluck them from
like Ohio or something? Like why are they why are
they all the way over there? If they're American hostages.
This is part of the issue is we have diluted
the definition so much that people are starting to ask.
And this is one of the things that Charlie said too,
like a couple months before he died, he said, like,
we're gonna have to figure out, like, what is the
answer to this question? What is an American? And I
sadly I don't think, you know, the Democrats have an answer.
Their answer is anyone from anywhere in the world. The
rest of the world is just potential undocumented Americans. And
the conservatives, you know, the ones who say it's an idea,
tend to agree with that. But the ones who don't
are starting to ask, like, Okay, are these like Somalians
in Minnesota, these ilhan Omar they come in, they clearly
hate our country. They're just scamming the welfare system. They don't,
They're just here. They see it as an economic zone.
They see it as a way to increase the power
of their co ethnics at expense of the actual Americans
in Minnesota. Are they they have papers, they've got paperwork,
they have citizenship. Are they as American as you know,
someone who's been in Minnesota for two hundred years their family.
I don't know, but I think a lot of people
are starting to reject that. But that is kind of
the question, and uh, we're gonna have to look upon, uh,
some some ancient wisdom, I think to figure it out. Well, certainly.
Speaker 1: And that's sort of another you know, interesting sort of
battle waged earlier in the year is over the term
you know, who is an American and you know, paperwork American?
And I've been reliably informed that that is a phrase,
you know, the paper work American, uh, taken from a
prominent Austrian painter's book. And that's the only reason anyone
cares about it is because they're you know, they're secretly uh,
you know, big fans of that guy. Yeah, which is
of course a disingenuous barb. But nonetheless, right, that is
a very important question because how do you run a
society when it is very difficult to determine who actually
makes it up?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: Like who is under your jurisdiction? Who is your guy?
Who do you have to from who?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 1: And if you can't answer that again, it's like, well, okay,
like is this even really a country anymore? Or is
it just sort of a strip mall with nukes, and like,
I don't want that to be the case. I like
living in a place I don't have anywhere else to go,
and I see other peoples who have that. I see
you know, situations where our government is you know, expending
their their lives and their treasure to ensure that privilege
for others. And so I think it's reasonable to say, well, like,
I pay my taxes, I live here, Like should I
not get the same level of deference you offered to
foreign nations? That seems to me to be sort of
a baseline. And again I think that is why, you know,
far from you know, simply being algorithms, that so many people,
particularly young people, are are sort of upset, even if
it's not expressed as cleanly as that, but it's this
feeling of dispossession of like, well, like, well, what's mine?
What can I give myself too? Because you know, there
are very few ways to index with the system, and
when that system, as it were, is telling you, you know,
you are this sort of fount of evil. You know,
you are the reason for all of these problems and
nothing is yours. Your one acceptable role is to at best,
you know, either trun out or kill someone and you're like, well,
that doesn't seem like a good deal. I would like
a different one. Like that is why you are seeing
the rise of you know, radical politics among young people
because and I put every one of those words in
scare quotes, but it's like you, ultimately, again, if politics
is transactional, when you're giving people a particularly raw deal,
they are going to cast around for alternatives. We've seen
this on the international stage. Right countries at sort of
the fringes of the Empire are starting to look around
and saying like wait a minute, like let me click
up with China, like maybe with Russia they're offering us
a better deal, and like yeah, sure, the great game
on the international scale is on one level different. But also,
you know, politics is the science of human order, organization,
human nature is real, and the same incentives play out,
and ultimately, largely the conservative movement has created this incentive.
And so when they're whining about it, like oh, why
can't we just go back to the good old days,
it's like, well, you your why, You're right, there are
no longer those good old dates.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: You were complicit, You went along with it, You wrote
articles where you referred to you know, drag Queen's Story
hour as the Blessings of Liberty, and then you wonder
why everyone's like, well, hey, you know, I don't I
don't like that guy. I'm doing what he says anymore.
It's like, well, no shit, to be brutally honest. But Logan,
we're fast coming up on time. Man, it was great
to have you on. I'm glad that we finally did
it after some scheduling conflict. But dude, where can people
find you? Ah?
Speaker 2: Yeah, go follow me on X Logan Clark Hall on
there and follow the Blaze.
Speaker 1: Sure thing, man, highly I will drop both of those
links there. As far as my stuff, Jaburden Show, Apple, Spotify,
YouTube to support me and this is what I do,
throw me a few bucks. Get the episodes early in
AD free. Check out my sponsor, Axios Remote Fitness Coaching. Logan.
It was great to have you on, man. Thank you
everyone at home, keep your head up. I can't last forever.
Good night,