Speaker 1: If you want to get the show early and ad free,
Speaker 1: head on over to the Peak Kinyonas show dot com.
Speaker 1: There you can choose from where you wish to support me.
Speaker 1: Now listen very carefully. I've had some people ask me
Speaker 1: about this, even though I think on the last ad
Speaker 1: I stated it pretty clearly. If you want an RSS feed,
Speaker 1: you're going to have to subscribe yourself up stack or
Speaker 1: through Patreon. You can also subscribe on my website which
Speaker 1: is right there, gum Road and what's the other one,
Speaker 1: subscribe Star And if you do that, you will get
Speaker 1: access to the audio file. So head on over to
Speaker 1: the pekan Yonashow dot com. You'll see all the ways
Speaker 1: that you can support me there. And I just want
Speaker 1: to thank everyone. It's because of you that I can
Speaker 1: put out the amount of material that I do. I
Speaker 1: can do what I'm doing with doctor Johnson on two
Speaker 1: hundred Years Together and everything else, the things that Thomas
Speaker 1: and I are doing together on kindinal philosophy, it's all
Speaker 1: because of you. And yeah, I mean, I'll never be
Speaker 1: able to thank you enough. So thank you. The pekan
Speaker 1: Yonashow dot com. Everything's there. Want to welcome everyone back
Speaker 1: to the Pekanona show, Jay Burdens back, Hey doing Jay
Speaker 1: doing well?
Speaker 2: Thanks for having me, Pete.
Speaker 1: Yeah, man, let's uh, let's get in to this. So
Speaker 1: I think I didn't. My reaction last week wasn't to
Speaker 1: write anything. Why. I'm written out too many years of
Speaker 1: just you know, being a part of a blog and
Speaker 1: having to write something all the time. I'm just I'm
Speaker 1: just wiped. I don't want to write anything anymore. It's
Speaker 1: like I sometimes I sit down and it's just like ah,
Speaker 1: but yeah, I understand the impulse of that when something
Speaker 1: happens that you sit down and you write it. You
Speaker 1: know it was my impulse too, So yeah, I guess
Speaker 1: when you know, with the anniversary of nine to eleven
Speaker 1: last week, you wanted to talk about the towers coming
Speaker 1: down and you know how there were bombs in it
Speaker 1: and the planes were holograms.
Speaker 2: Right, Well, this is a funny thing. I also write
Speaker 2: for my day job, or as much as the day
Speaker 2: job as I have anymore. So I got one hundred
Speaker 2: percent get it. And as part of making myself right,
Speaker 2: I've learned the best way to do that is to
Speaker 2: make promises. So I promised the guys at the OGC
Speaker 2: like hey, I'll get you an article by this time,
Speaker 2: and as you can imagine, it was I don't know,
Speaker 2: literally twenty four hours before I had, you know, let's
Speaker 2: just say, forty percent of an article done. And then
Speaker 2: this happened, and it was like, okay, well we got
Speaker 2: to talk about this. And normally I try not to
Speaker 2: talk a lot about the current twenty four hour news
Speaker 2: cycle on my show for a number of reasons, which
Speaker 2: is one, you can find that anywhere. Two, it really
Speaker 2: decreases the shelf life of your product. It's not worth
Speaker 2: talking about. And so fairly deliberately. You know, this was
Speaker 2: written about twenty four hours after the event. So in
Speaker 2: the piece itself, Kirkshot Discourse Killed, which you can find
Speaker 2: on the old Glory Club substack, there's some things there
Speaker 2: that I said that were true. As of the time
Speaker 2: of writing, they had not captured the shooter. There was
Speaker 2: no motive as of yet known. We were just kind
Speaker 2: of speculating, I will say, by waiting twenty four hours
Speaker 2: and having certain baseline knowledge, all of the assumptions were correct, right.
Speaker 2: You didn't need to be no strudamis to figure out,
Speaker 2: you know, why someone went after Kirk and so there
Speaker 2: are a couple things in that right. As you said,
Speaker 2: everyone has written a piece on this, everyone has reacted
Speaker 2: to it. But I think there are a couple things
Speaker 2: really to examine when we're talking about this, which is first, okay,
Speaker 2: what can we learn from it? Obligatory it kind of
Speaker 2: provisos getting those out of the way. It probably won't
Speaker 2: surprise you, Pete. I wasn't a big Charlie Kirk listener,
Speaker 2: you know, he wasn't really in my feed. But from
Speaker 2: everything I've heard about and he was a good guy,
Speaker 2: a nice guy, and what I did see from him
Speaker 2: was refreshingly honest. He got made fun of, he got
Speaker 2: griped infamously over the past four or five years, and
Speaker 2: it seems as if well he took it to heart.
Speaker 2: He changed, he moved on certain issues. And in the
Speaker 2: last hours of his life, what was he advocating for, Well,
Speaker 2: he was going hammer and tongs for this poor Ukrainian girl,
Speaker 2: Arena who was savagely stabbed. He was sticking his neck out.
Speaker 2: He was doing something that other conservatives felt too cowardly
Speaker 2: to do. And I admire his consistency when talking about
Speaker 2: racial discrimination towards white people, something that is not particularly
Speaker 2: common in the conservative movement, so fair enough. Also, I
Speaker 2: realize you've got some kind of former libertarians in your audience.
Speaker 2: Ross Olbricht, he came out after Kirk was killed and
Speaker 2: wrote a very touching memorial piece where he said, look,
Speaker 2: Kirk was essential to getting him pardoned behind the scenes.
Speaker 2: Never came out and took credit for it. And again, look,
Speaker 2: those are two in instances, but I believe that they
Speaker 2: indicate at least a certain amount of this man's character.
Speaker 2: But let's let's go back to initial reactions. Well, I
Speaker 2: think the first thing I thought, and many others of
Speaker 2: us thought, especially on the radical right, is wait, really,
Speaker 2: Charlie Kirk, because from our perspective, well, Charlie Kirk is
Speaker 2: a moderate right. He holds milk toast opinions. From our
Speaker 2: perspective and in the grand scheme of things right, looking
Speaker 2: at the full political spectrum, that is quite true. He
Speaker 2: was not this kind of fire breather. He was not
Speaker 2: this sort of guy that you would expect to kind
Speaker 2: of stick in the libtard Craw. I hate to say it,
Speaker 2: I think the guy's hilarious, But if this had happened
Speaker 2: to Alex Jones, you kind of get it right. They've
Speaker 2: hated him for a really long time. If it happened
Speaker 2: to you know, Candice Owens or Marjorie Taylor Green, you
Speaker 2: could kind of get it right. Not approving of it,
Speaker 2: but just say, like, that's someone who says things routinely
Speaker 2: that are deliberately kind of poking the progressive sensibility right
Speaker 2: in the face. But then you think about it a
Speaker 2: little more and you're like, Okay, well, Charlie Kirk has
Speaker 2: the same politics that my grandma has, right, he has
Speaker 2: the same politics that the relatively apolitical, just kind of
Speaker 2: normal conservatives who I live around, they think the same
Speaker 2: thing that Charlie Kirk does. And we'll wait a minute.
Speaker 2: If he was a legitimate political target, if he was
Speaker 2: someone who it is morally excusable to kill, well, what
Speaker 2: does that mean about not only everyone who agrees with me,
Speaker 2: my grandma, the people around me, but also anyone to
Speaker 2: his right, anyone more extreme than that. And that was
Speaker 2: one of the things that I brought up in the
Speaker 2: piece is that one effectively this has shown you, listener,
Speaker 2: what they think of you. That you are announced, you're
Speaker 2: a fascist, you are a representative of the ultimate evil,
Speaker 2: which our resume is designed to fight, and so killing
Speaker 2: you is morally excusable. You see this in the reaction.
Speaker 2: Look the biggest, you know, most prominent TV hosts. Of
Speaker 2: course they have to do the respectable thing. They have
Speaker 2: to say. Of course, we condemn violence. You saw Obama
Speaker 2: say it, You saw you saw Joe Biden say it.
Speaker 2: Of course they do. It's what you know, soul as
Speaker 2: politicians do. But you go even two steps down to
Speaker 2: someone like Destiny, who Okay, sure he doesn't have a
Speaker 2: network television show, but let's be honest, he has a
Speaker 2: bigger viewership than just about any network television show. He's
Speaker 2: a multi millionaire, he's a very influential person in progressive politics.
Speaker 2: And does he do it? Does he condemn it? Of
Speaker 2: course he doesn't. He refuses to. He sets this sort
Speaker 2: of absurd standard of well, if Trump does exactly what
Speaker 2: I want only them, why condemn it? We know what
Speaker 2: he's doing there, right, we know what he's doing there.
Speaker 2: And then you go beyond that to normal people, right
Speaker 2: to progressive soldiers, to progressive doctors, nurses, teachers, and what
Speaker 2: do we see cheering it on? You know, I'm sure
Speaker 2: you've seen the kind of ghoulish displays, you know, mocking
Speaker 2: Kirk's death, and you realize these people they hate you,
Speaker 2: they hate your grandma, to be blunt about it, they
Speaker 2: hate normal conservatives, and they view them as acceptable targets
Speaker 2: for political violence. And that's a very disturbing thing. I
Speaker 2: think that's why, obviously, other than the dramatic, gruesome footage,
Speaker 2: other than the obvious sensation of a political assassination, why
Speaker 2: this is stuck with people, Because it's a realization that
Speaker 2: the sort of radio Rwanda propaganda we have heard for
Speaker 2: decades at this point, well, they took it seriously. It's
Speaker 2: sort of a miracle that this doesn't happen more, because
Speaker 2: again and again and again in every op ed, in
Speaker 2: every song, and every kind of awful Instagram infok graphic,
Speaker 2: the buried premises people like this are acceptable targets for
Speaker 2: political violence. What do you do you punch Nazis? What
Speaker 2: do you do you shoot Nazis? It's not a dramatic
Speaker 2: rhetorical jump, So that's a big part of it. I
Speaker 2: think another layer to this, obviously, is that well, if
Speaker 2: we're all Nazis, what's the point in playing or there,
Speaker 2: except like, why why do we play to them. Why
Speaker 2: do we accept their moral judge judgment? Why do we
Speaker 2: want their approval? Because if Charlie Kirk is worth getting shot, well, okay,
Speaker 2: isn't everyone? Why are you playing in their framework? Because
Speaker 2: the moment you depart from it, and even as mild
Speaker 2: away as Charlie Kirk does, well you're on the chopping block.
Speaker 2: So to be honest, why moderate? Why play to their sensibilities?
Speaker 2: Because but if you ever are a threat to them
Speaker 2: in even a minor way, well, they understand that you
Speaker 2: were an enemy. And from their perspective, which is not mine,
Speaker 2: what do you do with a political enemy? You shoot
Speaker 2: them in the neck. This is me reading their actions.
Speaker 2: I don't believe I'm acting unfairly putting words in their mouth.
Speaker 2: So what's another conclusion we can take from this? Well, honestly,
Speaker 2: as you can tell in the sort of pithy title,
Speaker 2: a discourse doesn't work because what did Kirk do? Well,
Speaker 2: Kirk did exactly what you were supposed to do when
Speaker 2: we were in high school civics class. How do you
Speaker 2: change people's ideas? How do you change the direction of
Speaker 2: the country, Well, you talk to people, you engage in
Speaker 2: the marketplace of ideas, you go to college campuses, hypothetically
Speaker 2: sit down for an open debate and throw ideas back
Speaker 2: and forth, see if you can convince them that you're right.
Speaker 2: And then as popular wisdom goes, people will look at
Speaker 2: that say yeah, that makes a lot of sense and
Speaker 2: adjust their voting habits accordingly. That's how you change things,
Speaker 2: That's how you do politics correctly. Well, how was Kirk
Speaker 2: rewarded for playing the game as he was supposed to?
Speaker 2: Did he win? Was Charlie Kirk the king of America?
Speaker 2: Did he turn the country around? Did he turn us
Speaker 2: back to a nineteen fifties version of America? No? He
Speaker 2: was shot. He was murdered in front of his children,
Speaker 2: and four K video extremely gruesome, I might add for
Speaker 2: engaging with the process as he was supposed to, doing
Speaker 2: everything how you were supposed to playing the game by
Speaker 2: the rules. And when we look at this in total,
Speaker 2: I should say, if you listen to Tucker Carlson talk
Speaker 2: about Charlie Kirk, and let's be honest, Charlie Kirk took
Speaker 2: a lot of flak for continuing his friendship with Tucker
Speaker 2: Carlson took a lot of flak for featuring him at
Speaker 2: his events, well, how did Tucker describe his friend. Well, one,
Speaker 2: he said that he wasn't particularly conservative, at least at
Speaker 2: the end of his career. He understood that con inc
Speaker 2: Had sold us all a bill of goods. So fair enough. Again,
Speaker 2: he has moved. But when I call him a good conservative,
Speaker 2: I don't mean to say that he is a house conservative,
Speaker 2: like he's owned, he's on the plantation. What I mean
Speaker 2: to say is he was playing the game by the
Speaker 2: rules as set out for all of us, doing exactly
Speaker 2: what you're supposed to do well, and again he was
Speaker 2: shot for it. So those are the big conclusions, at
Speaker 2: least initially, and I'll throw it back to you after
Speaker 2: this peet that I take from this, which is one,
Speaker 2: we're all Nazis, Two a discourse doesn't work, and three
Speaker 2: we were sold They told us the wrong rules to
Speaker 2: the game, right, that the correct way to do politics
Speaker 2: was never supposed to result in anything other than them waining.
Speaker 2: And obviously, you know a great deal of sympathy for
Speaker 2: Kirk's family. It seems as if his widow is a
Speaker 2: fiery woman who is going after these people looking for blood.
Speaker 2: She's already intonated that she is interested in suing Jimmy Kimmel,
Speaker 2: which good. I hope she takes him for everything he's worth.
Speaker 2: She said that she wants to continue his fight. And
Speaker 2: I think it's also important to note Charlie Kirk wasn't
Speaker 2: talking to us, so I think we miss a lot
Speaker 2: of his impact. But Kirk was incredibly popular with young people,
Speaker 2: and when we talk about the shift of young men
Speaker 2: to the right, you can't talk about that without mentioning Kirk.
Speaker 2: And look, I am not a conservative. I am not
Speaker 2: someone who really has a lot in common with conservatives
Speaker 2: like Kirk. But let's also be honest. We're all on
Speaker 2: a journey. None of us, at least not most of
Speaker 2: us started uber based out of nowhere, just popped out
Speaker 2: of the womb, you know, with Schopenhauer in one hand
Speaker 2: and you know, a bust of the Austrian painter in another.
Speaker 2: We started somewhere. And when I look at people like Kirk,
Speaker 2: I see someone who, in very good faith, was trying
Speaker 2: to move the Overton window to the right, was trying
Speaker 2: to normalize discussion about anti white discrimination, normalized discussions about
Speaker 2: things that just a few short years ago, three five
Speaker 2: years ago, would result in you being kicked out of
Speaker 2: polite society. And we've got to understand, Pete. Look, if
Speaker 2: you and I are the narrow end of the wedge,
Speaker 2: well there needs to be a wedge behind it. And
Speaker 2: that was men like Charlie Kirk. And look in sort
Speaker 2: of a dark sense, and forgive me if I'm out
Speaker 2: over my skis here, but there is sort of a
Speaker 2: dark irony in the name turning Point USA, because even
Speaker 2: if his organization during his life was not a turning point,
Speaker 2: his death certainly was. It feels as if one of
Speaker 2: those many before and after moments where obviously, you know,
Speaker 2: we were kind of joking about nine to eleven when
Speaker 2: we started rolling, but it's always well where were you?
Speaker 2: And it seems as if there was a before and
Speaker 2: after COVID the same thing, and with Kirk, it seems
Speaker 2: as if again there is a before and after a
Speaker 2: turning point, if you will. But I've been going for
Speaker 2: a while, Pete, I'll throw it back to you.
Speaker 1: Well, let me ask you this check the well, I
Speaker 1: don't know if I even have a question. I just
Speaker 1: wanted to point something out. You know, when you talk
Speaker 1: about discourse being dead, I think we you and I
Speaker 1: both know that it's been dead for a long time,
Speaker 1: and when you you have to realize how far gone
Speaker 1: it is and how far how deeply it seeded into
Speaker 1: the regime, when people who celebrated this openly and publicly
Speaker 1: basically start losing their jobs. And I'm not talking about
Speaker 1: like the people who do the TikTok videos of them
Speaker 1: melting down just so that they can get views. I'm
Speaker 1: talking about the people who are genuinely like, well, you know,
Speaker 1: I just lost my job, and you know, I don't
Speaker 1: know what I don't know what's going on. These are
Speaker 1: people who believe that they are so right. When it
Speaker 1: comes to call it the zeitgeist. I know a lot
Speaker 1: of people just hate that term because it's been so
Speaker 1: fucked up. But according to you know, the spirit of
Speaker 1: the age, that of course I'm allowed to celebrate the
Speaker 1: death of a Nazi and nothing is going to happen
Speaker 1: to me. You know. It's like I know that I've
Speaker 1: gotten I know that I've gotten people this I'm speaking
Speaker 1: in the third person for them. I know that I've
Speaker 1: gotten people fired from their jobs because they have Republican views.
Speaker 1: But that's all right, that's the spirit of the age.
Speaker 1: That's what we are. How am I getting fired now
Speaker 1: for this. This is like I mean, and I mean,
Speaker 1: does this escalate because you see people getting fired? I
Speaker 1: mean you, I mean, at least from what I've heard,
Speaker 1: there are groups that are targeting right now because they
Speaker 1: just don't have the manpower to do it. Forty to
Speaker 1: fifty thousand people to have to lose their jobs.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So look, if we were in an ideal situation,
Speaker 2: you know, if if we had Jesus Christ himself as
Speaker 2: the King of America, would we want cancel culture? Probably?
Speaker 1: Not right.
Speaker 2: It's not cool, as Sam Hide said, it's kind of scummy.
Speaker 2: But fundamentally, this didn't come out of nowhere. It's not
Speaker 2: like right wingers woke up in the Year of Our
Speaker 2: Lord twenty twenty five and said, hey, guess what, We're
Speaker 2: going to start calling people's jobs and getting them fired. Uh. One,
Speaker 2: we're really late in this. I use the example, you know,
Speaker 2: speaking on the good Old Boys, saying like, look, if
Speaker 2: you're if you're in a professional wrestling match and you're
Speaker 2: a jobber, right, you're the Brooklyn Brawler, and you know
Speaker 2: you're getting beat up, and then all of a sudden,
Speaker 2: you know you're wrestling a partner pulls out a switch
Speaker 2: blade and stabs you in the gut, like, wait a minute,
Speaker 2: this isn't what we were supposed to do. And you
Speaker 2: can choose two ways to react from that, which is
Speaker 2: one you can complain and say, well, this isn't the rules, right,
Speaker 2: this isn't governance, this isn't politics as I was taught
Speaker 2: in civics class. Or you can basically say like, all right,
Speaker 2: like we're going to have to fight. Then then this
Speaker 2: has become existential. You have threatened who I am what
Speaker 2: I am. And when we talk about that reaction, when
Speaker 2: we look at the left and the way they talk
Speaker 2: about Nazis and an existential threat to our democracy, that
Speaker 2: is implicitly a call for political violence, because what they
Speaker 2: are saying when they call you a Nazi is they're
Speaker 2: saying you are an existential threat to democracy, to me,
Speaker 2: to our nation. And look, you don't have to be
Speaker 2: a legal genius to figure out what you're supposed to
Speaker 2: do to an existential threat. Like if the crackhead with
Speaker 2: a switchblade comes out of the ally Ali is an
Speaker 2: existential threat to you, you are justified in mowing them down, right,
Speaker 2: that is what you do to protect your existence. If
Speaker 2: you will. And so if we find ourselves in that position,
Speaker 2: if we find ourselves in a position where we are
Speaker 2: being threatened and have been threatened first economically and now physically, well,
Speaker 2: to be honest, man, turn them out is fair play.
Speaker 2: We are we understand the stakes of this game. And
Speaker 2: I think that this is a very encouraging sign when
Speaker 2: we look at the right for my entire life really
Speaker 2: before Donald Trump, and I don't want to kind of
Speaker 2: give the man too much credit, but I think it's
Speaker 2: fair to say the right has been the designated loser
Speaker 2: of politics in America. That the game, the system as
Speaker 2: it was assumed that progressives would ultimately get what they want.
Speaker 2: The joke is right, Conservatives are merely progressives driving the
Speaker 2: speed limit. They would get in power, pull their foot
Speaker 2: off the gas, but keep going in the same direct action,
Speaker 2: and ultimately they would faithfully, again like you know a
Speaker 2: job or in wrestling, lose and take their pay day.
Speaker 2: Their pay day was whatever they could collect from Red America.
Speaker 2: That was what they got for playing. The mark for
Speaker 2: getting beat up is they got to, you know, live
Speaker 2: out their life comfortably off of the spoils of the
Speaker 2: other parts of America. Well, look if you're going to
Speaker 2: actually turn that around if you say, no, we're not
Speaker 2: playing to collect the consolation money after we lose, but
Speaker 2: we're playing to win. You've got to understand this becomes
Speaker 2: an actual fight then, right, this becomes this becomes a
Speaker 2: real wrestling match, right, not one with you know, shoots
Speaker 2: and ladders and you know a fire extinguisher. It's an
Speaker 2: actual fight, and that, I think is what is what
Speaker 2: is happening in politics. So we look at this, right,
Speaker 2: we look at cancel culture and we say, well, guess
Speaker 2: what we can do that too, And some of it
Speaker 2: is nakedly political. Right, you're going to take a hit
Speaker 2: for this. You took one of our guys. We're going
Speaker 2: to take you out. Another element of this that can't
Speaker 2: be overstated is I don't actually want someone who thinks
Speaker 2: it's cool to dance on someone's grave, operating on me,
Speaker 2: enforcing the law, teaching my kids, even making my food. Like, really,
Speaker 2: do you trust someone who is that cracked, who is
Speaker 2: that morally depraved, to handle your sandwich? It is quite literally,
Speaker 2: and you may have heard this phrase before. You may
Speaker 2: have freedom of speech, but you don't have freedom from consequences. Sorry,
Speaker 2: someone decided that was a cool way to organize society.
Speaker 2: Someone decided that's what we were going to do. We
Speaker 2: were going to bring a shank to this match. And
Speaker 2: guess what. As you know many have said in condemning
Speaker 2: Charlie Kirk, you live by the sword, you die by
Speaker 2: the sword. And in an ideal society, in a society
Speaker 2: that had a certain element of moral consensus, in a
Speaker 2: society that had a culture that was in some way unified,
Speaker 2: we probably wouldn't need to do this. But here's where
Speaker 2: we are. Someone some half of politics decided we were
Speaker 2: going to play revolution. And this is the consequences of
Speaker 2: those actions. And when I say escalate, I'm not one
Speaker 2: of these you know, boogaloo seventeen seventy six will commence
Speaker 2: again civil war types. But I think you'd have to
Speaker 2: be an idiot to look at American politics and say,
Speaker 2: I think things are going to cool down in the
Speaker 2: foreseeable future. I think we're going to return to normal.
Speaker 2: I think it's going to be just like it was,
Speaker 2: you know, right after the Cold War ended. Things are
Speaker 2: just gonna be hunky door like. Clearly not things are
Speaker 2: heating up. And let's not forget that before you know
Speaker 2: Kirk was killed, there was another example of that Ukrainian
Speaker 2: refugee arena. Well, when she was killed, what was the reaction.
Speaker 2: Was it just that charge Kirk was such an execrable
Speaker 2: political figure who was so hated that people wanted to
Speaker 2: dance on his grave. No, this poor Ukrainian woman was
Speaker 2: stabbed for the crime of being white. And what did
Speaker 2: we see, effectively the exact same response, which is either
Speaker 2: I don't care or good I got a white girl.
Speaker 2: To quote aspiring astrophysicist De Carlos.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the uh what people? I don't think what people
Speaker 1: are realizing? They don't the more so arena than Charlie,
Speaker 1: or maybe maybe equally, but at least there is a
Speaker 1: picture of it. The picture of that. Is it a
Speaker 1: subway car? Is it a tram? What the hell is
Speaker 1: it that she's in?
Speaker 2: They said it was like light rail, So I guess
Speaker 2: like a street car. I don't know.
Speaker 1: Okay, so light rail, let's call it light rail. You
Speaker 1: see a picture of who she surrounded by, and what
Speaker 1: you realize is that the people who could have came
Speaker 1: to her aid all look like the person who perpetrated this.
Speaker 1: And you realize that the people who could have come
Speaker 1: to her aid didn't identify with her. They identified with
Speaker 1: the guy who did it. So not only do you
Speaker 1: have this group of what Thomas calls you know, and
Speaker 1: I'm leaving the whole Israel thing out of this because
Speaker 1: I'm gonna need to see a whole bunch more evidence,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm before before I go down that road.
Speaker 1: And if I'm saying that, yeah, but when.
Speaker 2: You're saying infamous fan of Israel quanonas.
Speaker 1: Yes, yes, yes. What Thomas said last night when we
Speaker 1: recorded the episode we dropped last night was basically, you
Speaker 1: have a group of people who everything surrounds their genitals.
Speaker 1: That's what the gay lobby, the trans lobby, all these people,
Speaker 1: it's just the abortion lobby. It all is around their
Speaker 1: genitals and it has to do with sex, and they're
Speaker 1: willing to kill people who say, you know, it shouldn't
Speaker 1: be all about that. There's actually some other things out
Speaker 1: there that might be important. Then you have a whole
Speaker 1: nother group that we see who it's all about their identity,
Speaker 1: it's all about their skin color, and it's all about, hey,
Speaker 1: that guy looks like me. He may have just done
Speaker 1: something really messed up. He may even just killed that girl.
Speaker 1: But I'm not stepping into help. I'm not stepping into
Speaker 1: help at least until it's too late. And the question is,
Speaker 1: when you see Charlie getting killed and you see Arena
Speaker 1: getting killed like that, and you can focus on two
Speaker 1: groups within your society, how do you go forward as
Speaker 1: a society when everybody when when people are literal enemies,
Speaker 1: when they are literal enemies who are willing to not
Speaker 1: only kill, but to you have a group around you
Speaker 1: that is going to that is going to surround you
Speaker 1: and go, yeah, you know that person, the system failed
Speaker 1: that person. You know it's because of four hundred years
Speaker 1: of slavery and they, I mean, how there's no way
Speaker 1: to go forward. If there's anything that we've learned in
Speaker 1: the last ten days, it's that we have warring factions
Speaker 1: in this country who are literally willing to kill and
Speaker 1: nobody's going to stop them because they have radical in
Speaker 1: group preference and they're in groups are numerous and in
Speaker 1: some cases politically powerful.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that when we talk about why the
Speaker 2: Conservatives are ultimately losers, it's because they see a path
Speaker 2: forward of using the established rules of a functional version
Speaker 2: of our system to fix the current problems. They assume
Speaker 2: that well, if we simply act like things worked, they
Speaker 2: will start working again. It's really not the case. This
Speaker 2: is actually, weirdly enough, a problem you see both with
Speaker 2: people who are into peaceful parenting and libertarians is that
Speaker 2: they seek to act as if their desired end state
Speaker 2: is already achieved. Well, I'll act like I live in
Speaker 2: a high trust society that will produce those results. Clearly
Speaker 2: that is not the case. And that's the problem when
Speaker 2: you have no moral consensus where there are two diametrically
Speaker 2: opposed factions. And this is really what we see when
Speaker 2: we talk about politics, like what is capital p politics, Well,
Speaker 2: it's when you have two groups where they cannot both
Speaker 2: live life as they see fit. The classic example I
Speaker 2: stole this from Wade Stotts, who's a very talented rhetortician.
Speaker 2: He talks about if you're Amish and a gay land
Speaker 2: developer wants to put in, you know, a gay club
Speaker 2: in the middle of your community, Well, all of a sudden,
Speaker 2: you have politics. Those are mutually incompatible goals. You cannot
Speaker 2: both have an amish community and a thriving gay nightclub. Right,
Speaker 2: one must give. And it's a silly example, You know,
Speaker 2: I bring it up because it gets laughs. But either way,
Speaker 2: that's what we have on a societal level, that you
Speaker 2: cannot have both of these visions. And look, that's been
Speaker 2: the case for a while. Let's be honest. The two
Speaker 2: stories of America that you can read about in Yarvin
Speaker 2: have existed for a very long time. But if you
Speaker 2: have that conflict, but it is being sort of worked
Speaker 2: out between a winner and a paid off loser, well, okay,
Speaker 2: even if those two parties don't technically agree on the
Speaker 2: ground level, it doesn't really matter. There's no real struggle
Speaker 2: for control, simply a debate over how long it takes
Speaker 2: for one side to win. But the moment that the
Speaker 2: loser looks around and says, well, honestly, man, like, why
Speaker 2: do would I keep taking this deal? You're going to
Speaker 2: drive me to the end of my rope and leave
Speaker 2: you with nothing. I think I'd like to win for once. Well,
Speaker 2: all of a sudden, that becomes a real deal conflict.
Speaker 2: And I think that's what we're seeing is people are realizing,
Speaker 2: especially normal conservative people, that the terms of the game
Speaker 2: are not simply the kind of negotiated defeat they are
Speaker 2: used to. But it is a genuine existential struggle. It
Speaker 2: is genuinely if we don't win, we will be treated
Speaker 2: like this. This is how this is what our life
Speaker 2: will be. We will not be They will not extend
Speaker 2: the same gracious attitude that conservatives had often in victory
Speaker 2: quote unquote victory if you will. And so I think
Speaker 2: that's why so many people are disturbed by this as
Speaker 2: they are realizing the stakes of politics. And look, it
Speaker 2: didn't have to be like this. It was a it
Speaker 2: was a series of choices. It was a series of
Speaker 2: human actions that led to this situation. But looking at
Speaker 2: the situation, looking at the situation, the state of play
Speaker 2: as it is, you're one hundred percent right, there is
Speaker 2: no compromise on this. One side will have to be defeated.
Speaker 2: And when I look at people like is Stephen Miller,
Speaker 2: who is is impressive to cram so much rage into
Speaker 2: such a small man, going just hard in the paint, saying,
Speaker 2: you know, the West must be saved. Burn these people
Speaker 2: to the ground, you know, going after these groups with
Speaker 2: rico charges, basically saying we will prosecute these people to
Speaker 2: the fullest extent of the law. I see someone who
Speaker 2: realizes what time it is I see someone who realizes
Speaker 2: the threat that this sort of violence presents to to
Speaker 2: be blunt about it. And on the other hand, if
Speaker 2: we want to talk about old the old style conservatives,
Speaker 2: the beautiful losers, as Francis would describe them, well, there
Speaker 2: are a few better examples than someone like Bondie, right,
Speaker 2: someone who is saying just this kind of incoherent nonsense
Speaker 2: about hate speech and how we really want to secure
Speaker 2: people's rights to printing out photos of Charlie Kirk. It's like, well,
Speaker 2: this is one a horrible misdirection. This is really not
Speaker 2: what anyone cares about. But also you're missing the stakes
Speaker 2: of this game. You're missing that this is not simply
Speaker 2: my ability to go to Pop Copy and demand they
Speaker 2: print whatever I want. But this is a blow struck
Speaker 2: at the core of what it means to be, let's
Speaker 2: be honest, a sovereign niche. If you do not have
Speaker 2: the monopoly on violence, if you cannot say extra judicial
Speaker 2: killings are inappropriate, they are sanctioned, they will be pursued
Speaker 2: to the end degree or are you really a government anymore?
Speaker 2: And to me, I think that those two figures signal
Speaker 2: the divide between those who realize that they are in
Speaker 2: a real deal political capital p conflict, or those who
Speaker 2: want to go back to kind of sleepy, humdrum version
Speaker 2: of DC politics where conservatives, where right wingers simply bide
Speaker 2: their time until they're out of power, raking in donations
Speaker 2: from from flyover America and fiddling while Rome burns.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the whole thing, would Bondy really just that triggered me.
Speaker 1: It triggered thoughts in my mind about just how how different,
Speaker 1: how many different factions you have, even within people calling
Speaker 1: themselves maga. You know, I made the point on Twitter
Speaker 1: today that the Bondy puts hell, I don't want to
Speaker 1: take this in an opposite direction and just point out
Speaker 1: how out of the game a lot of people are.
Speaker 1: The Bondi and Patel are clearly Desantus loyalists anything you
Speaker 1: could see, because they it seems like they're working to
Speaker 1: destroy the Trump White House. And yeah, I also make
Speaker 1: the point that Desantus is obviously a big friend of Israel,
Speaker 1: and then someone says, well so is Donald Trump. It's like, yeah,
Speaker 1: there can't be factions. It's not like there could be
Speaker 1: actually factions within those things working against each other. You know,
Speaker 1: like there could be some that have certain interests because
Speaker 1: ignoring Stephen Miller, you know that his background and everything,
Speaker 1: he seems to be the most base person out there
Speaker 1: who's saying the right things, who's in in the administration,
Speaker 1: and you're right, Miller is speaking the language of what
Speaker 1: Sam Hide said. And Sam Hyde, you know, is another
Speaker 1: one who I can't believe that Thomas had to address
Speaker 1: this last night that there are people who were saying
Speaker 1: that Sam Hyde was not sincere in his sentiment towards
Speaker 1: Charlie Kirk, like that his tears were insincere. It's like,
Speaker 1: if you think that you really shouldn't have anything to
Speaker 1: do with politics, you've either been doing this too long
Speaker 1: and you've just you've lost your you've lost your humanity,
Speaker 1: or you you know, we live in the age of
Speaker 1: total politics. There are people who are paying attention to
Speaker 1: politics who don't have don't have the temperament for it,
Speaker 1: don't have they don't have the constitution for it. And
Speaker 1: that goes for people who've been talking about commenting on
Speaker 1: politics for a really, really long time, like people on
Speaker 1: our side of the Great Divide who celebrated Charlie Kirk's
Speaker 1: death because Israel, because that's the only thing that they
Speaker 1: can concentrate on. That is there one thing that they
Speaker 1: don't that they I'm going to go down a path.
Speaker 1: But the what Sam Hyde said was, and when he
Speaker 1: said it, I agreed with him. You literally have like
Speaker 1: two weeks of momentum and if there isn't if steps
Speaker 1: aren't taken to basically go full And I hate to
Speaker 1: say this because it was a failure, you know, rooting
Speaker 1: out terrorist cells like Iraq or Afghanistan here at home,
Speaker 1: where there are people who know where they are. Local
Speaker 1: law enforcement knows where these people are, knows where they're
Speaker 1: hold up. If they're not willing to go and do that,
Speaker 1: and if you're not willing to see anything within the
Speaker 1: next two weeks, even if it doesn't accomplish anything long term,
Speaker 1: it's pretty much done. And this administration is pretty much,
Speaker 1: in my opinion, to be ignored. And you know, maybe
Speaker 1: there's some people in the administration who are doing good work,
Speaker 1: but the administration as a whole, there's no real points
Speaker 1: to support it, to support anything they're doing.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that there, I get it right. A
Speaker 2: Rico case takes a long time to put together one
Speaker 2: hundred percent understand but also from my perspective, I feel
Speaker 2: like I've given the Trump presidency the benefit of the
Speaker 2: doubt a lot. I'm not one of these reflective Trump haters,
Speaker 2: and so in a situation like this, where it is
Speaker 2: a I mean, as awful as the event is, it
Speaker 2: is about the best political opportunity you could hope for
Speaker 2: being given to you on a silver platter, where it's
Speaker 2: Trump's would be gold in that case if you fumble that, look, man,
Speaker 2: I'm not going to give you, as we did in Charlotte,
Speaker 2: your fifteenth chance. You know, sorry, man, I could notice
Speaker 2: a pattern, and it's especially frustrating for a man like
Speaker 2: Donald Trump, who sort of built his media reputation on
Speaker 2: firing the wrong people and hiring the good ones, for
Speaker 2: him to be so unwilling to fire these incompetent members
Speaker 2: of his own cabinet, right BONDI, who has been largely
Speaker 2: shooting herself in the foot for oh, I don't know
Speaker 2: about the last nine months, just over and over and
Speaker 2: over again. At a certain point, I'm not being cynical
Speaker 2: when I say that this seems like, if you were
Speaker 2: not taking an action, this is part of the plant.
Speaker 2: From your perspective, this is a feature, not a bug.
Speaker 2: When we look at these organizations, we've understood people like
Speaker 2: you and I. I'd also recommend the work of Mike Shelby.
Speaker 2: You can find him on Twitter, who tracks Antifa. These
Speaker 2: organizations have been around for a very long time. They've
Speaker 2: organized in public on places like red it around, you know,
Speaker 2: the SRA, the Socialist Rifle Association, the John Brown Gun Club,
Speaker 2: and others, but also on Discord, which, again, if we're
Speaker 2: talking about living in the greatest you know, digital panopticon
Speaker 2: the world has ever seen. The fact the administration cannot
Speaker 2: do something to discourse a discord rather is absurd. So
Speaker 2: let's examine discord. A lot of people use it. It's
Speaker 2: sort of ubiquitous as a chat app. When I was
Speaker 2: in high school. Is the way that you organize playing
Speaker 2: games with your friends. It's still predominantly what it's used for,
Speaker 2: but for those who aren't familiar, it lets you have
Speaker 2: your own private group chat on a server, right, you
Speaker 2: can make channels. People use it for work. Most people
Speaker 2: just use it to hang out. It has sort of
Speaker 2: taken over what forums were in a previous version of
Speaker 2: the Internet. And also in addition to that, Discord is
Speaker 2: the center of not trying to be grotesque here, but
Speaker 2: of child exploitation and grooming on the internet, so much
Speaker 2: so that a Discord moderator for people under about thirty
Speaker 2: is shorthand for a pedophile is It's almost a hackneyed
Speaker 2: joke at this point, every joke that you know, my
Speaker 2: parents' generation made about Catholic priests, their children are making
Speaker 2: about people who spend a lot of time on Discord.
Speaker 2: And in addition to that, obviously you have the you know,
Speaker 2: the grotesque crimes against children, but you also have a
Speaker 2: large portion of the trans community. I realized that as
Speaker 2: a Venn diagram that might just be one circle. But
Speaker 2: point is, there's a lot of trans stuff that goes
Speaker 2: on there, much of it connected to grooming. But also
Speaker 2: these antifook groups, right, these violent terrorist organizations, many of
Speaker 2: whom are doing things that are incidentally very illegal anyway,
Speaker 2: And well, what is to be done? It seems as
Speaker 2: if the administration, the previous administration, has largely done absolutely
Speaker 2: nothing about Discord. And look, you could say, well, it's
Speaker 2: not really Discord's fault. Look at all the crimes that
Speaker 2: are planned over the phone. Maybe they just don't know,
Speaker 2: all right, Well, how does Discord treat the problems they
Speaker 2: do care about? For instance, dangerous right wingers. Are you
Speaker 2: in a private group chat with your friends dropping the
Speaker 2: hard r instant ban You're done forever? Are you organizing
Speaker 2: a right wing event? Well, just mysteriously accidentally, we didn't
Speaker 2: do it on purpose. All of your names and identities
Speaker 2: have been linked to the press. So they do have
Speaker 2: the ability to do that. They do have the ability
Speaker 2: to act and to take things down or to forward
Speaker 2: them to the authorities. And so again, even if it
Speaker 2: was not deliberately endorsed, was not planned by the staff
Speaker 2: of Discord, well, it certainly has their tacit approval because
Speaker 2: we've seen that they can act when something violates their
Speaker 2: internal moral code, and they have not acted in this
Speaker 2: case or in many others. They have not acted against
Speaker 2: the you know, the shadowy you know Discord groups connected
Speaker 2: to you know, passing around like gore and stuff films
Speaker 2: or you know, footage of child sexual abuse, any of these,
Speaker 2: you know, horrible things. But when our friend Thomas creates
Speaker 2: a discord, it's down in two days. And look, you know,
Speaker 2: Thomas's fans can be a bit rowdy, but I doubt
Speaker 2: they're doing anything like that. Again, it's clear that this
Speaker 2: is another institution which is completely and totally ideologically captured.
Speaker 2: And if you are the regime, if you are the president,
Speaker 2: if you are the most powerful man in the world,
Speaker 2: and you allow a company, even a big company, to
Speaker 2: thumb their nose at you and to say no, I'm
Speaker 2: not gonna do anything about it. No, the terrorists, the
Speaker 2: violent lunatics killing your young fathers in public, I'm not
Speaker 2: gonna do anything about that. Well, are you really president?
Speaker 2: And it seems as if no, because you don't have
Speaker 2: the monopoly on forced you don't have control. And again,
Speaker 2: I think it's important to say, when we're talking about retribution,
Speaker 2: we're not talking about violence, right, We're not saying that
Speaker 2: people who wish death on Charlie Kirk should be you know,
Speaker 2: dragged out into an alley and beaten. We'll go with that.
Speaker 2: We're not saying that because look, let's draw a distinction
Speaker 2: between force and violence. Violence is basically force in a
Speaker 2: state of failure. If you have control, you don't need
Speaker 2: to get violent. Sure, ultimately, you know, if someone is convicted,
Speaker 2: there may be you know, a form of corporal punishment.
Speaker 2: That's not what we're talking about here, effectively, what we
Speaker 2: are asking for what ought to be done. The just
Speaker 2: thing to do is for these people to meet righteous authority,
Speaker 2: to meet the consequences for their actions, either in coordinating
Speaker 2: for this murder, either in celebrating this murder, or in
Speaker 2: when I think this is very important, I included this
Speaker 2: in my piece for creating the conditions for creating the
Speaker 2: rhetoric which led to this climate of violence, which led
Speaker 2: to someone feeling that Charlie Kirk was a fascist, that
Speaker 2: Charlie Kirk was so dangerous to his community of button
Speaker 2: married freaks that he needed to be shot with a rifle.
Speaker 2: And again, this is not this is not you know,
Speaker 2: pie in the sky thinking. We're not asking for something
Speaker 2: that hasn't been done, We're not asking for something that
Speaker 2: isn't reasonable. What we're asking for is simple justice, the
Speaker 2: kind of justice that rulers from time in memoriam have understood,
Speaker 2: which is that if you are to be in control,
Speaker 2: you must be the final decision maker, you must have
Speaker 2: the monopoly on violence. And sadly enough, it seems as
Speaker 2: if the administration, it seems as if Trump is unwilling
Speaker 2: to stand up and accept that responsibility. My only hope
Speaker 2: is that he changes his mind.
Speaker 1: Well, not only does not going after the disco, going
Speaker 1: after Discord and their servers and these people specifically, Yeah,
Speaker 1: what it does is it lends them legitimacy. In their
Speaker 1: own minds. They they're like, oh, well, these people who
Speaker 1: these geniuses who started this platform, you know, and who
Speaker 1: are becoming rich off of it, they're protecting us from
Speaker 1: the government. And in their ssri addult freak show minds
Speaker 1: they're like, oh, wow, no, because this because these private
Speaker 1: people have here, this private business which they're not supposed
Speaker 1: to like, protects us and is giving us cover. That
Speaker 1: means we're the good guys. That means we're the legitimate
Speaker 1: ones and everyone else isn't. And that is people don't.
Speaker 1: People don't understand that how important legitimacy is in the
Speaker 1: minds of everyone that's alive. People you instinctively still you
Speaker 1: hear something, You hear about a story somewhere, and you're like, Okay,
Speaker 1: where's a good where's a legitimate source that I can
Speaker 1: get this from, you know, And that's just it's what
Speaker 1: we look for. And people have no idea that by
Speaker 1: not taking down, by not taking down these networks, not
Speaker 1: only discord by not taking down the networks, by not
Speaker 1: taking down anti fib By not taking down at this point,
Speaker 1: looks like the DSA is involved. By not taking them down,
Speaker 1: you're just legitimizing them, and their members feel more legitimized
Speaker 1: by it. Now they could become radicalized if you take
Speaker 1: it down. But I mean, how much more radical can
Speaker 1: they get than they are now? They're fucking shooting people.
Speaker 2: Well, I think it's important to mention that obviously this
Speaker 2: is a dramatic escalation in violence. But you know, let's
Speaker 2: look back what six weeks ago to the ambush on
Speaker 2: an ice facility in Texas where ten Antifoo aligned shooters
Speaker 2: basically set up an ambush and a parking lot. I
Speaker 2: was talking to our mutual friend Clay about this, and
Speaker 2: he said it was about as perfectly planned not executed
Speaker 2: as you could hope for. You know, in a situation
Speaker 2: where you have rifles, you have optics, and you're attacking
Speaker 2: guys with handguns. Well, they stuck them in the middle
Speaker 2: of a brightly lit parking lot at night and sat
Speaker 2: one hundred yards away, right too far to reliably hit
Speaker 2: under pressure with a handgun unless you're really talented. Where
Speaker 2: you have a perfect rest, you can see them, they
Speaker 2: can't see you. You've got ten people there. Okay, fair enough.
Speaker 2: They weren't that good at it, you know, they hit
Speaker 2: one guy, didn't kill him, and then seems to have
Speaker 2: lost their nerve, ran off and all got captured. Okay,
Speaker 2: so it wasn't the most successful thing in the world.
Speaker 2: But that is a major escalation from anything we'd seen previously,
Speaker 2: you know, going from you know, throwing a piss bottle
Speaker 2: at a cop or maybe a molotav at a platation
Speaker 2: up to you, a ten person l shaped ambush like
Speaker 2: guess what, bucco, we're in Vietnam. Like, that's a major escalation. Similarly,
Speaker 2: when we're talking about legitimacy, there are a couple things here,
Speaker 2: which is one and I think Hyde made this point,
Speaker 2: and Hyde's show on this was excellent. I consider it
Speaker 2: required viewing for any of our guys. I am a
Speaker 2: fan of his stuff and have been for a long time.
Speaker 2: But even if you aren't, check this out. It's hided
Speaker 2: as best unusually serious and very poignant. But one of
Speaker 2: the things he was talking about is that, look, obviously
Speaker 2: the person who did this needs to be punished. And
Speaker 2: after I make this point, I'll return to why I
Speaker 2: think he should be punished to the fullest extent of
Speaker 2: Utah law. But it's almost more important that the person
Speaker 2: is caught quickly and competently, right, that they understand that
Speaker 2: if you try to do this, there is no chance
Speaker 2: of you escaping, where in this case the FBI seems
Speaker 2: to have sort of fumbled the back. They've bumbled, they
Speaker 2: didn't what they were supposed to, and so fair enough,
Speaker 2: I guess it took less than two full days for
Speaker 2: the guy to be brought to justice. But how was
Speaker 2: he brought to justice? Well, basically it seems as if
Speaker 2: his dad and maybe a pastor or a priest were
Speaker 2: not entirely sure recognized the photo and said, hey, Bud,
Speaker 2: you got to turn yourself in. This is not exactly
Speaker 2: a no knock rade. So because why does that matter? Well, one,
Speaker 2: it's a show of force, certainly does that. But also
Speaker 2: you've got to understand that when these people imagine themselves
Speaker 2: in that position, they say, well, he almost got away
Speaker 2: with it. I bet I could, especially if what seems
Speaker 2: to be the case is the case, which is that
Speaker 2: this was coordinated, that were multiple people involved. If you
Speaker 2: look at it and say, well, if he had a
Speaker 2: better driver, or if he had done things a little different,
Speaker 2: I bet I could get away with it. That is
Speaker 2: going to encourage copycats. Whereas if it is an immediate
Speaker 2: response that no, you will not get away, the FBI
Speaker 2: will hunt you down and find you wherever you are.
Speaker 2: That's a deterrent. Similarly, when we talk about punishment, Utah
Speaker 2: does permit capital punishment. I think it They have, you know,
Speaker 2: one of two methods, lethal injection or a healthy dose
Speaker 2: of thirty thirty to the cardiothorastic cavity. But either way,
Speaker 2: this man deserves to face the full consequences of the
Speaker 2: law for a couple of reasons. One, the blood of
Speaker 2: the innocent cries out for justice, right is Christians and
Speaker 2: you know, men of the West, we understand this. But
Speaker 2: another one is that, look, we've got to understand that
Speaker 2: it seems as if this guy was a bugman loser
Speaker 2: keeping him inside for the rest of his life, especially
Speaker 2: given his sexual proclivities. Is I mean, is that any
Speaker 2: different from how he lived? Let's be honest, and again,
Speaker 2: we don't want to make this man into a sort
Speaker 2: of an uncle Ted figure, right, a guy we can
Speaker 2: you know, look at in Supermax and sort of view
Speaker 2: as our our lovable uncle. He needs to face the
Speaker 2: consequences for his actions. And one of the bizarre injustices,
Speaker 2: the bizarre indignities of modernity, is that even if convicted
Speaker 2: and you know, given a life sentence, it's likely to
Speaker 2: take ten to fifteen years and you know, two to
Speaker 2: five million dollars of our money, Pete, to make sure
Speaker 2: that he goes out the way he ought to. This
Speaker 2: is a topic I realize it's probably a little dicey
Speaker 2: to talk about on the internet. I believe in the
Speaker 2: law exactly is written in the state of Utah. I'll
Speaker 2: leave it at that.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, people need I think we've gotten to the
Speaker 1: point where people want finality. I think a lot of
Speaker 1: people are hungry for you know, just come out and
Speaker 1: say it's hungry for blood. They are. I think a
Speaker 1: lot of people are at the point where they don't
Speaker 1: care if things are in a certain way anymore, if
Speaker 1: they're done in a legitimate way. And yeah, I want
Speaker 1: to see things done in a legitimate way at least
Speaker 1: when it comes to this, when it comes to everything,
Speaker 1: I want to see it done in a legitimate way,
Speaker 1: but that legitimate way is going to take will and
Speaker 1: you know, to go back to the fact that you
Speaker 1: still have these networks out there, these networks are still operating,
Speaker 1: and you know, according to Mike Shelby, he doesn't really
Speaker 1: see them escalating, not yet. This could be something a
Speaker 1: reaction to it could be something you just never know.
Speaker 1: But if these networks aren't destroyed, we're we're looking at
Speaker 1: living in a situation like Italy's Years of Lead. I
Speaker 1: just re released an episode I did on that a
Speaker 1: couple of years ago. We're looking at like the early
Speaker 1: nineteen thirties Spain, where people are just people are just
Speaker 1: taken out, where you're just it's it can get to
Speaker 1: the point, unfortunately, and especially when the country is so
Speaker 1: divided and you have so many groups that have just
Speaker 1: closed ranks, that somebody gets taken out and the only
Speaker 1: group that cares about it is that group, the group
Speaker 1: that that person belonged to. And yeah, it's comes a
Speaker 1: time when you have to look at certain groups and
Speaker 1: they have to be legitimately targeted and legitimately their power
Speaker 1: has to be absolutely destroyed from the top down, and
Speaker 1: their worst elements have to be dealt with in a
Speaker 1: very legitimate way by state actors. And you know, I
Speaker 1: just don't know whether we have people who have the
Speaker 1: will to do it, mostly because the system has been
Speaker 1: set up up until now that these people drive the
Speaker 1: narrative that these people are the coddled ones, that these
Speaker 1: people are the golloms, that these are the people who
Speaker 1: you know, Uncle Ted talked about in the systems need
Speaker 1: at trick about that they just basically become the state
Speaker 1: where they can do as they please and get away
Speaker 1: with it, and or you know, you can invoke San
Speaker 1: Francis and you know, talk about a narco tyranny. But
Speaker 1: until a narco tyranny is destroyed and is looked down
Speaker 1: upon as much as you know, you look down upon
Speaker 1: child molested, you know, anyone who's promoting that, is promoting
Speaker 1: child molestation or anything like that, we're we're in chaos
Speaker 1: and we're basically headed toward. Yeah. I wouldn't say a
Speaker 1: mass civil war, I don't think that that's possible anymore,
Speaker 1: but definitely skirmishes like the Haymarket riots or like the
Speaker 1: years of Lead or you know, like the troubles.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so I just want to say mutual friend of ours,
Speaker 2: Carl dol wrote a very good essay you can find
Speaker 2: it on substack called it often rhymes but it doesn't repeat,
Speaker 2: comparing our current moment to the run up to the
Speaker 2: Spanish Civil War. I highly recommend that he's been on
Speaker 2: both of our shows a number of times. Read that essay. Look, man,
Speaker 2: I think you're one hundred percent right, because you've got
Speaker 2: to understand actions produce consequences. It's very basic. But when
Speaker 2: there is a rampump in political violence, it can and
Speaker 2: often does. The number of events that you've mentioned lead
Speaker 2: to a cycle of tit for tat violence. You hit
Speaker 2: one of ours, we hit one of yours, and in
Speaker 2: an immediate sense, on the balance sheet of a conflict,
Speaker 2: that makes sense. You could say that those actors, within
Speaker 2: their bounded rationality are acting correctly. But look, man, we
Speaker 2: live here. We don't want to devolve into political violence.
Speaker 2: Lady of Shalot Rip she did a great episode talking
Speaker 2: about growing up during the troubles, what that was like
Speaker 2: for young girl, and look, I liked her, she was
Speaker 2: a friend, but I wouldn't wish that on anyone, especially
Speaker 2: not a countryman of ours. We don't need to do
Speaker 2: this it's something that can be prevented. It just requires
Speaker 2: a decision. It requires a leader. It requires someone to
Speaker 2: like Alexander, step up to the Gordian knot pull out
Speaker 2: their sword and chop in half, say the buck stops
Speaker 2: with me. We are this is no longer acceptable. We're done.
Speaker 2: That's what it takes. As we've been, you know, memed
Speaker 2: into oblivion. You can just do things, and this is
Speaker 2: something that can be done. Not to say that it
Speaker 2: isn't difficult, not to say that you won't face a
Speaker 2: pushback from within your own institutions, but to say this
Speaker 2: is a problem that can be fixed. There are people
Speaker 2: in power right now who can fix it. The idea
Speaker 2: that this is beyond the scope of human possibility is
Speaker 2: it's absurd. It's so clearly not the case, because just
Speaker 2: like with Discord, we've seen what the FBI, with the DOJ,
Speaker 2: what our massive, absurdly large security apparatus can do when
Speaker 2: it wants to, when it wants to make someone's stay miserable,
Speaker 2: when it wants to pull an organization apart, it can
Speaker 2: do that. And if you don't, not only are you
Speaker 2: massively increasing the likelihood of you know, the kind of
Speaker 2: civil conflict you were talking about. You were deciding I
Speaker 2: don't care enough. You were deciding it isn't worth the effort.
Speaker 2: You were deciding that it's not worth pursuing justice, isn't
Speaker 2: worth it. And if that's your answer, fair enough. But
Speaker 2: you've lost my loyalty.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I don't know. I don't know that
Speaker 1: there's much more to be said right now because there's
Speaker 1: nothing that you and I can do. We can scream
Speaker 1: as much as we can into these microphones, but we
Speaker 1: don't have the power to do that. Maybe there's someone listening.
Speaker 1: We know there's people listening. Come on, please just step
Speaker 1: up and do this, because we're not going I mean,
Speaker 1: this is not going to be a place where you're
Speaker 1: going to want your children and your grandchildren raised in.
Speaker 1: You're going to be it's going you're going to be
Speaker 1: like South Africa, where you are going to have to
Speaker 1: build gates and electric fences, and you're going to have
Speaker 1: to protect your house, and you're going to have to
Speaker 1: bulletproof some things, bulletproof your house, bulletproof your vehicles. I mean,
Speaker 1: that is the direction we're heading in. If these people
Speaker 1: do not step up and eliminate I mean eliminate these people,
Speaker 1: and I don't care what that is. Just do it
Speaker 1: under the do it under the legitimacy of the state.
Speaker 1: And if you don't, first of all, you're not gonna
Speaker 1: you're not gonna have the support of the people. You're
Speaker 1: going to lose the support of the people, and you're
Speaker 1: whatever legitimacy you have is gone. And two is just
Speaker 1: it's not going to be safe for you. I mean,
Speaker 1: Charlie Kirk, who who's next? Who's next? I mean it's
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm not saying if they can get to
Speaker 1: Charlie Kirk, because Charlie Kirk doesn't have secret doesn't have
Speaker 1: secret service, but you.
Speaker 2: Know a lot of it who does have secrets.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but a lot of the people in this government
Speaker 1: love the fact that they can go out to nice
Speaker 1: restaurants and they can go out and they can be
Speaker 1: in public, and that they can be whatever side you're on,
Speaker 1: you're sacrificing that for the future. You're you're looking at
Speaker 1: not being able to go out, or not being able
Speaker 1: to go out with an armed presence, not being able
Speaker 1: to go out with armed Yeah, with armed security, if
Speaker 1: you don't already have it, If that's the way you
Speaker 1: want to live, okay, then fine, go ahead. It's going
Speaker 1: to affect you. It'll affect you less than it will
Speaker 1: than normal person, but it's still going to affect you.
Speaker 1: And nobody's going to nobody's gonna give you, nobody's gonna
Speaker 1: take you seriously. And that's all these people care about
Speaker 1: is being taken seriously. And that's that's where we are.
Speaker 1: It's just the word. We've talked about a lot, and
Speaker 1: this is legitimacy, and things need to be done legitimately.
Speaker 1: And that's gone. That's gone after this. If you don't
Speaker 1: destroy these people, it's it's done. It's over right.
Speaker 2: It's a it's a simple binary. There are two paths forward.
Speaker 2: Either you acquiesce, you roll over, you bite the pillow,
Speaker 2: you take it, or you decide we want to win,
Speaker 2: we want to exist. And it's that simple. There. There
Speaker 2: are two paths ahead of you, and for those in charge,
Speaker 2: they are the only ones who can make that decision.
Speaker 1: All right, Jay Burden, tell everybody, Shill, tell everybody where
Speaker 1: they can support your work and find your work.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So the article we've mentioned is over at the
Speaker 2: Old Glory Club. You can find them on substack. They
Speaker 2: publish a great many fine articles, but my main output
Speaker 2: is The Jay Burden Show, Apple, Spotify, YouTube, anywhere you
Speaker 2: listen to podcasts. If you want my episodes early in
Speaker 2: ad free, you're gonna have to throw me a few bucks.
Speaker 2: You may be familiar with this business model. I shamelessly
Speaker 2: stole it from Pete. So if you think what would
Speaker 2: Pete do? But slightly worse, it's the Jay Burden Show.
Speaker 2: Check it out.
Speaker 1: I didn't a response to that. All right, Jay, thank you.
Speaker 1: I appreciate you.
Speaker 2: Sure thing man,