Episode 1285: Conservatives and the Regime 'Plantation' w/ J. Burden

68 Minutes

Some Strong Language

J. Burden is a content creator and the host of The J. Burden Show on YouTube and all podcatchers. 

J. joins Pete to talk about the political wake caused by the martyrdom of Charlie Kirk.

Meditations on the Master’s House: Leaving the Plantation

J's Substack

J's Patreon

J's YouTube Channel

J's Find My Frens Page

Pete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'

Support Pete on His Website

Pete's Patreon

Pete's Substack

Pete's Subscribestar

Pete's GUMROAD

Pete's Venmo

Pete's Buy Me a Coffee

Pete on Facebook

Pete on Twitter

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:37):
If you want to get the show early and ad free,
head on over to the Peak Kinyonas show dot com.
There you can choose from where you wish to support me.
Now listen very carefully. I've had some people ask me
about this, even though I think on the last ad
I stated it pretty clearly. If you want an RSS feed,

(00:58):
you're going to have to subscribe your substance or through Patreon.
You can also subscribe on my website which is right there,
gum Road and what's the other one, subscribe Star and
if you do that, you will get access to the
audio file. So head on over to the pekan Yonashow

(01:18):
dot com. You'll see all the ways that you can
support me there. And I just want to thank everyone.
It's because of you that I can put out the
amount of material that I do. I can do what
I'm doing with doctor Johnson on two hundred Years Together
and everything else, the things that Thomas and I are
doing together on kindinal philosophy, it's all because of you.

(01:40):
And yeah, I mean, I'll never be able to thank
you enough.

Speaker 2 (01:43):
So thank you.

Speaker 1 (01:45):
The pekan Yonashow dot com. Everything's there. I want to
welcome everyone back to the Pekanyona Show, Jay Burdens back.

Speaker 2 (01:54):
How you're doing, Jay?

Speaker 3 (01:56):
Doing well? Pete? Thanks for having me back on.

Speaker 2 (01:58):
Of course. Of course, so.

Speaker 1 (02:02):
We've talked about I've covered this subject on the OGC
live stream, but I thought you did a really good
job talking about it in a post on the OGC
sub stack. Basically the subject being that group chats are
being leaked from young you know Republicans in this case,

(02:25):
where they get in a group chat think that they're
safe and they say stuff that you know, to be
edgy and to be you know, to make everyone else
laugh because it makes you laugh. And I think, as
we've seen that a lot of times, we don't really

(02:47):
have to worry about the Left because our enemy is
standing right next to us until they're not until they
punch us and run away. So the seed the subtec
post is called Meditations on the Master's House Leaving the Plantation,
and the subheading here is and Malcolm X is parable

(03:11):
of the House Conservatives.

Speaker 2 (03:13):
So why did you jump off on that?

Speaker 3 (03:16):
Yeah? Sure thing. Look, the history of conservatives sort of
betraying their own as a long one. Just as an anecdote,
I was talking to my mother in law last night
and she was saying like, oh, I don't like Densh Desuza,
do you know anything about it? Which I mean she

(03:37):
had no idea what she was in for, because not
only do I not like den de Susa, I have
quite a good reason. What is that reason? Well, he
has done over the course of his career basically the
same thing he got Sam Francis, whose beliefs are foundational
to what you and I think Pete came up with
the term in arco tyranny. He got him canceled or
effectively the same sort of things. Now it wasn't a

(03:59):
group chat, but it was the same mechanism, finding a
guy who's radical, who's got interesting ideas, and throwing him out.
So as regards this group chat, there are a couple
of things that have happened after I wrote this that
I think are worth mentioning before we dig into it. One,
there have been more right, there have been some Trump
nominees who've been implicated, and it seems as if there

(04:21):
are a stockpile of these. There are more to come.
They're coming out through Politico, the same place that this
treasure trovee had actually been stored up for over a
year it was pretty old, and it was deployed at
kind of a unique moment. So in a bigger picture sense,
why are they they doing this? Because you'd assume if
you were playing a game with two sides, why would

(04:45):
you bow to, you know, your enemies like that. Why
would you voluntarily both like accept the terms of a
scandal you bring that sort of negative attention upon yourself,
but also go after one organization that is useful to you,
sort of a the Young Republicans, which, by the way,
I didn't realize how old you could be and be

(05:06):
in the Young Republicans. It's under forty, Like in my
mind it was a college group. But you know, apparently
it's in the broadest possible context.

Speaker 1 (05:13):
Well, when you consider the average age of an elected
politician in Washington, is.

Speaker 3 (05:18):
There or the average height of a Republican?

Speaker 2 (05:21):
Yeah, fair enough, pretty much.

Speaker 3 (05:22):
Yeah, the point is right. You would naturally say, well,
we wouldn't want to draw negative attention if our enemies
are saying look at that bad thing, you'd be like, oh,
who do I care? We're on opposite sides. And when
I was examining this issue, a couple of things kind
of jumped out to me. One, there is a and

(05:43):
when I say operation, I don't have a smoking gun here,
but very clearly there is a coordinated push to sort
of connect our friends in the broadest possible sense, to
jew hatred, the foreign influ and anything they can. So
you see this first with the emergence of the term

(06:04):
woke right, you know, saying that, oh, you know, the
radical wing of the conservative movement quote unquote, they are
just as bad as you know, the wokies that we've
spent years demonizing. And very quickly we saw that that
label grow and expand, and now you have this sort
of confluence where not only is Tucker Carlson an evil Nazi,

(06:28):
but he's gotten to your kids, Nick One, t has
has gotten to your kids. Now you need to you know,
root out the evil from you know, within your own ranks.
And this is an example of that. We've seen that going.
I think that you know, we were right as a
group to sort of point out that, you know, there
were parts of the Republican Coalition that we're moving in
our direction, particularly young people, and it seems as if, finally,

(06:52):
con inc the conservative establishment have realized that as well
and are looking to clamp down. I think more of
the these incidents are to come. So okay, let's examine this, right,
what's put the connection to to Malcolm X. So I'll
be honest. I was forced to read a lot of
you know, black radicals and post structuralists, anti colonialists in

(07:13):
college and still bouncing around in there, and I think
it's funny right to use that.

Speaker 1 (07:18):
As you get it. I've read a lot of Malcolm
Malcolm X.

Speaker 2 (07:22):
It's not.

Speaker 1 (07:24):
You agree with him a whole lot more than you
agree with with Martin Luther King, that's for sure, one
hundred percent.

Speaker 3 (07:30):
And he's describing something very astute here. So for those
who aren't familiar, right, Malcolm X is a you know,
a radical figure, you know, kind of the counterpoint in
court history to MLK because he viewed things in a
radical sense. And obviously we understand that there's a difference
between the man in the myth of MLK. They're sort

(07:50):
of separate individuals. But Malcolm X viewed himself very much
in opposition to the system as it were. He did
not want to join it, he wanted to secede. There's
a reason that a lot of his bodies after his
assassination were part of the Back of Africa movement, part
of black separatism, regardless of your opinions on that. He

(08:12):
has this idea of the house slave, which is basically
someone who is from a certain perspective in opposition to
the master to the house, but is completely and totally
devoted to it. So let me uh with slight edits,
of course, because this will probably go up on YouTube.
I'll read it the house slaves. They lived in his

(08:33):
house with the master. They dressed pretty good, they ate
good because they ate his food what he left. They
lived in the attic or the basement, but they still
lived near their master, and they loved their master more
than the master loved himself. And really this is the
dynamic we see with Khan inc the Conservative establishment. They're
not a real party. Nick Land in Dark Enlightenment describes

(08:55):
them as the designated whipping boy. And as we know, right,
the whipping boy, he lived in the King's house, the castle,
as it were. It's an embarrassing position, but nonetheless there
are certain advantages to it. You're not out in the
field either as a surfer as a slave. And so
we have to understand that the Republican Party Conservative Incorporated,
they're not a real political party. Their goal is not

(09:18):
to win. What their goal is to maximize how much
they get from you know, the master's table as it were.
You see this in the deal that they are offered.
So Bogbef, who I'm going to quote a lot actually
in this conversation, he's described conservatives as the Washington generals
of politics. Right that they're the guys who show up

(09:40):
so that the Harlem globetrotters can do you know, dunks
behind their back and wow the crowd. They are the
beautiful or designated losers. However you'd like to frame it,
And well, how are they rewarded for that? Well, to
be honest, using Malcolm X language, with table scraps, they
get to collect money from flyover Country, from Red America.

(10:04):
They get to be the princes of the hinterlands. And
they don't actually care about winning. Right, that would be difficult,
That would require them to leave their relatively speaking privileged position. Right,
they have to do something dangerous, do something scary. And
so the question is, right, well, why or how is

(10:25):
this relevant to the dynamic we're seeing. Well, because they
are you know, kind of the first among the slaves. Well,
they are incredibly loyal to the masters. And you see
that in the way that they enforce the sort of
masters the left's moral standards in this case, certainly Politico

(10:46):
broke the story. But who's wielding the hatchet. It's good conservatives,
it's house conservatives, people who are well and truly owned
by their you know, at least on paper adversaries. So,
for instance, right, I think New York completely dissolved their
young Republicans. A great number of these people have lost jobs.

(11:06):
The Trump nominee, whose name I can't remember, he has withdrawn.
People have been you know, obviously kicked out of any
number of kind of beneficial arrangements. And yeah, it basically
is that the sort of conservative right is aligned fully
with their supposed enemies. Right, I pulled from another quote

(11:31):
from Malcolm X Right, they loved their master more than
their master loved himself. The master's house caught fire, the
house conservative would fight harder to put the blade or
to blaze out than the master would. Effectively, those who
were close to power in this sense understand that their existence,
their privileged existence again kind of adopt leftist framework, is

(11:52):
dependent on the status quo things existing, how they are
we're very good at pointing this out when the left
does this right, the Spanderal's concept of bioloninism, you know,
those artificially being brought up the social hierarchy and paid
in loyalty. We've got to understand this doesn't just work
like this for you know, for instance, the trans community,

(12:13):
or with certain immigrant groups. It works on the conservatives
as well, that they are certainly the losers of politics.
They're not the most capable players, but they get to
play pretend. They get to make money from, you know,
the sort of shenanigans that enable our you know, senators

(12:34):
in congressmen to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
They get to be invited to the parties, and that
sort of relative position is contingent on their loyalty to
the system. It is not contingent on their loyalty to
their base. We understand those right, it's simple elite politics.

(12:54):
But we've got to understand we have a very different
relationship to the master or the master's house. We want
to burn it down, we want to challenge it at
a very fundamental level. We do not receive a benefit
from this system as it were. I mean, look I'll
throw this to you. But the government's been shut down
for three or four weeks, now, how has this affected

(13:18):
your life in any way?

Speaker 1 (13:20):
The only way I can think is is that tomorrow
the air traffic controllers may are going to get stopped
getting paid, and I'm supposed to fly in a couple
of weeks. It's the only way I can think that
it possibly could affect my life.

Speaker 3 (13:37):
Fair enough, right, And that's that's true, Right, That would
affect me when I actually will be flying at the
same time. So yeah, it will affect me. But look
like that's something that could be done another way. Right,
You and I don't depend for our existence on Gibbs,
to be brutally honest, And this is where I pulled
another quote from Audrey Lord. Right. I think she's self

(14:00):
described as a black lesbian feminist scholar, mother warrior, and poet. Look,
I find it kind of funny to sort of use.

Speaker 2 (14:09):
Their own get get ghetto shield maiden.

Speaker 3 (14:14):
Yes we was vikings, I believe, But anyway, she and
this is a sort of a seminal figure in kind
of like radical feminism. You'll hear her quote it a lot,
particularly this concept of the master's tools and This is indirect,
I guess indirect response to Malcolm X is sort of

(14:37):
using his language. In this context, she's talking about women.
You can sort of imagine her going after particularly conservative
religious women. So I've sort of slightly changed the worrying.
But the quote of self stance for the Master's tools
will never dismantle the Master's House. They may allow us temporarily,
temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they

(14:57):
will never enable us to bring about genuine s change.
And this fact is only threatened to those conservatives who
still define the Master's House as their only source of support.
So again we see that tension with those technically you know,
on paper in opposition who nonetheless derive their identity, derive
their status from the house. So the Master's tools, right,

(15:19):
what do we mean there? We don't mean the literal stuff,
of course, we mean the ideological framework. They're moral standards,
the way in which they conceptualize the world effectively, their
civic or state religion. Well, we see this all the time.
For instance, you know, the tired refrain of the Democrats
are the real racist. Racism and allegations of racism are

(15:43):
one of their tools, perhaps their famous tool. And now
for generations, right, I mean longer than I've been alive,
longer than you've been alive, Pete, that the nominal right
wing in America has tried to use that will you're
the real racist line? And you know it's sort of
a rhetorical question, but you know, how has that worked

(16:04):
out for you? Not? Well, it bounces off it's theirs.
They would not they would not allow it to be
used in such a way to harm them. Similarly, in
this sort of cancel culture, it's not quite what I
mean this incident with the young Republicans. The idea is, well,
you know, if we set up this sort of you know,

(16:27):
understanding that these are the standards, that you can't be
too radical behind the scenes or else you'll get driven
out of politics. Okay, well, how is that used? Is
it ever used in such a way that damages the system?
Clearly not. I mean, I'd say the biggest aberration from
this bias is recently what we've seen after Charlie Kirk,
where a few people have been fired. One it took

(16:50):
a very dramatic event for that to be the case,
a public assassination caught live in four k But also
let's be honest. There's a world of difference between you know,
a group chat behind the scenes and if someone who
works for the government saying we should kill people who
are like Charlie Kirk. Similarly, a lot of the kind

(17:10):
of false nuanced bros compared and contrasted this incident to
the Jay Jones case Virginia AG candidate who basically said
I think Republicans should have their children killed and then
doubled down by calling and texting the person he said
this to and saying, no, I am morally justified in
wishing that your children were killed. Obviously order of magnitude,

(17:33):
people making those comparisons are doing them cynically. But also,
let's be one hundred percent honest. When the left is
freaking out about this, are they doing it honestly? No,
they're clearly not. Right wingers Conservatives in particular do not
understand how the left works in this way. They see
a freak out and they assume that means we scored

(17:56):
a point, we got them good. That's not how it works.
When they're freeing out, they're gaining power. They are motivating
some sort of response, either from their base or in
this case, from their erstwhile opponents, and all by effectively
some some moderate chimping on the internet, they were able
to motivate the conservative movement, the GOP, to shoot themselves

(18:16):
in the foot, to ban a bunch of their rising stars,
you know, to get rid of, you know, a legacy institution,
to do a ton of damage. And we're supposed to
assume that they're scared. Of course not they're not. There's
no way. And again I think that you know that

(18:36):
this concept of being devoted to the master's house, right,
they are genuinely more scared of us. When I say them,
I mean, you know, the House Conservatives, and they are
their enemies. Because if their enemies win, they still get
to be the sort of butt boys of power, right,
they still get to, you know, go to the same
parties and collect the same nominal donations. But if we win,

(18:59):
they don't. And that's why there's so much more concerned
about a threat from the radical right. But look, leaving
the plantation, right, leaving the moral framework of your enemies,
discarding their tools is at best a defensive position. Right,
You're insulating yourself from damage you do to yourself. That's

(19:23):
not really enough. There's sort of this problem on the
right in which we are entirely reactive to the left.
And some of that's just by nature of the coalition.
You have a weird group of people sort of brought
together by their hatred for progressive norms for any number
of reasons. You know, you have you know, pagans, orthodox converts,

(19:48):
and autistic libertarians sitting side by side, you know, pulling
at least nominally against their enemies. So I get it right,
that's the one thing that unifies us together. But and
if you've ever been into you know, boxing or sports,
you realize this. You know, a purely defensive style it
does not work. You need to go on the offense.

(20:08):
And in a war of ideas, a war of belief
like ours, well, how do you do it? Well, the
answer is you have to not only deny your enemy's
moral authority, deny their ability to control you through that,
but also you have to set the terms of engagement.
You have to act as the first mover. The example

(20:30):
that I think of when we look at this is
Tucker Carlson, who, regardless of your opinion on Tucker Carlson,
you have to admit that he dictates the course of
the American political discourse. We are all in one way
or another, talking about what Tucker is, you know, maybe
a few weeks ahead of time, but nonetheless, right, it
simply is the case. And I think that serves as

(20:51):
a good model because ultimately when they're and we see
this with actually the election of Trump as well, especially
the first time around, when they're talking about you, you
are winning because they are engaging with what you want
to talk about. Similarly, right, I think that JD. Vance
actually did a quite good job reacting to the enemy

(21:15):
right in this case, because he was able to both
deny their framing accomplish this sort of pery part, but
also immediately, you know, fireback. And I don't say this
as a ringing endorsement of JD. Vance and everything he thinks,
but look, you know, when you're dealing with a story
like this, when the vice president says something, you read it.
So Vance reacted to reacted to this by posting the

(21:38):
screenshots from Jay Jones, right, and he said, posting the screenshot,
this is far worse than anything said in that college
group chat. And the guy who said it could be
the age of Virginia, I refuse to join the pearl
clutching when powerful people call for political violence. So again
we see a denial that this is anything to be
worried about. Right, No, I refuse to accept your ability

(22:00):
to criticize me, and in fact, now you need to answer.

Speaker 1 (22:04):
Right.

Speaker 3 (22:04):
It's a basic thing. It's saying like, no, you. But nonetheless,
the difference in tone, the difference in reaction to the
kind of slavish deference we see from the sort of
House conservatives, And I've got an example of that in
a second is stark. So I found this one response
to the story that I thought was perfect because it

(22:26):
exactly you know, talked about are exactly sort of encapsulated
what I'm talking about here. So this is from a
Twitter account hand Shannity hah. But it's kind of the
perfect encapsulation of this loser mindset we're talking about here.
I'd rather lose than unite with the alt right. We
barely have anything in common anyway. I'm a constitutional conservative,

(22:47):
they're authoritarians and Islam simps. I will never be part
of a coalition with them. They're antithetical to everything.

Speaker 2 (22:53):
I believe in.

Speaker 3 (22:54):
But that first part I'd rather lose is exactly the
dynamic I'm talking about it is I would rather be
a slave than violate.

Speaker 1 (23:04):
He would have been in Spain in nineteen thirty six.
He would have been machine gunned in the street rather
than Franco who is a Catholic siding with the phalonga
the Falangee who were fascists and leaning more towards atheism
and Carlists. And yeah, he would have much rather have

(23:28):
been machine gun I would rather lose. That's the problem.
He doesn't fucking realize that we're in a war. He
doesn't realize that these people get back in power, they'll
want to fucking kill us because he's playing a game,
or more likely he's of a certain tribe that's going
to be protected because what he says when he says
Islam simp what he's saying is people are against people

(23:52):
who are speaking out against Israel or international Jewish power
or APEC. That's exactly what he's saying. Because I know
his account and I see what he put I see
what he tweets all the time, and I think that that's.

Speaker 3 (24:05):
The perfect example, right, you know, he is much more
worried about the affront to the regime than winning right.
The affront to the kind of pre existing I guess
kind of you could say, like civic religion of post
sixties America. Right, that's the real crime. And so when

(24:25):
we look at this, right, it can be confusing sometimes
for people to say, like, well, why are they doing this,
Like why are they doing things which seemingly, you know,
would would harm their chances at winning. And it's because
they're not there to win, right, that is not their
end goal. They have already won in their mind right
there at their end state, which is, you know, I

(24:48):
get to be in a in a relative sense, privileged, Right,
I get things that normal people don't. And I don't
really have to work very hard. I don't have to
exert myself. I'm not exposed to anything you know, dangerous
or unpleasant. So why would I put myself at risk?

(25:08):
Why would I do anything difficult? You're gonna understand they've
already won in their minds, right, you were threatening their
desired end state. They don't view themselves as having really
anything in common with you at all. They've already gotten
exactly what they want. And so I really wrote this
to to sort of provide a one analysis of you

(25:30):
know that that sort of house conservative dynamic, right, those
who are slavishly devoted to power as it exists. But
also to say, like, okay, well, assuming we don't want
that to continue, what's the what's the way to avoid it?
And it's twofold. First is to leave the plantation, right,
get out of their house, you know, and that may

(25:51):
require you know, giving up certain privileges and benefits certainly,
but also throw away their tools, right, attack them back,
and do so in such a way that you were
in your own moral framing. And so, yeah, that's sort
of the summation of the article. Obviously we can discuss
it more there, but yeah, thanks Pete, that's sort of
I guess the summary of it.

Speaker 1 (26:13):
Yeah, the whole idea of this group that is seeking
to suck up to power. I mean, I even saw
this in libertarianism, the Reason magazine and the Cato Institute.
They're based out of Washington, DC, and they get invited

(26:36):
to the parties, and that's why they don't say anything.
That's why if somebody says anything slightly racial, or anybody
says anything about Israel, they have to simp for them,
because then they won't be invited to the parties. But
it's not only that. Then I learned in twenty nineteen
that they actually have expense accounts. The people who work

(26:59):
there have cards that they're given so they can go
to lunch every day, they can pay they have everything
paid for on top of their salary. So why would
they do anything to rock the boat? And that's what
happens with these with these think tanks, with the Young Republicans,
with all of these groups, is they're getting so much

(27:19):
money that they they don't want to you know, they
don't want to lose that there's a fear of loss there.
Also for anybody who's like, well the Reason magazine and
KTO Institute doesn't matter. KTO Institute matters a lot. When
you see people saying, oh, open borders is good for
the economy, that's they're quoting the Cato Institute. So don't

(27:41):
dismiss the Cato Institute. I mean right and left quote
the Cato Institute. So don't don't be like, well they
don't matter, Well they do, Reason Magazine. I mean, give
me a phone signal and a drone.

Speaker 2 (27:57):
But the.

Speaker 1 (27:59):
Yeah, I mean you said a lot there. And really
what it comes down to is I don't think that
they don't want to win. I think that they don't
think they can win, and so I'm just going to
be comfortable in what you talked about. What MASSA gives me,
and if MASA allows me to have some table scraps

(28:20):
and I'm living a better life than those people out
there and flyover country, well, you know what's selling your
soul a little bit when you don't even believe you
have a soul.

Speaker 3 (28:32):
Well, and I think that there is also a problem
with a lack of a definite positive vision, because if
you're issue with the Left is either one of management
we're not headed towards this end goal in the most
efficient way, or rapidity, we're just simply moving too fast.

(28:56):
Ultimately your end state is the same. It's a very
weak basis of opposition. You probably see this best in
the UK Conservative Party, which is significantly to the left
of you, even the Republicans, where they very much have
this that this objection on kind of a technical managerial level.

(29:16):
So the problem is not you know, immigration, it's that
immigration is causing.

Speaker 2 (29:21):
X y Z issue.

Speaker 3 (29:23):
The problem is not you know x y Z social decay.
And I think that that's another problem as well, is
that ultimately their winning is not their version like ideal
state is really not that different. Now, some of this
may be lacking conceptual framework. I think that is very true,

(29:44):
and I've noticed this with the real world conservatives I
talk to that even if they do have deep in
their bones kind of a far right vision of the
future or ideal they don't have a good way to
express that. So they reflexively express themselves in sort of
the left of another era. So you'll hear things like,

(30:07):
you know, well that's just what I think and you
don't have to agree with me, or you know, again
the kind of comments about race we said earlier, and
if you dig a little bit deeper, they don't actually
think that. But they're so used to, you know, being
attacked that they're sort of trying to express a very
limited degree of resistance. They think they can get away
with slight sidebar issue. I think this is how a

(30:29):
lot of people end up as libertarian, is that, you know,
it's a way to sort of side step uncomfortable, thorny
questions that can get you in trouble by saying, oh,
I'm neither right nor left, you know, by framing things
purely in the terms of the market instead of saying
something that could get you in trouble. So I think
that's part of it as well. And the problem is

(30:51):
that sort of weak, tactically allowable opposition, which I think
is a very deliberate strategy, where you can quibble on implementation,
you can quibble on speed, because given a long enough time,
it doesn't matter if you're driving at thirty miles an
hour sixty miles an hour. Eventually you will reach your destination.
And I think that that is sort of a deliberate

(31:12):
pres like push pull up until relatively recently, and we
could argue even now, the pressure release valve is towards
the kind of I guess you could say, you know,
making the system more efficient at this is a point
you see in Ted Kaczinski's The System's Greatest Trick, right,
this sort of canned rebellion, the rebellion that offers you

(31:34):
nothing more than a way to make the system as
it exists more efficient. And what's funny is, you know
he's writing from supermax at this point, and so you
kind of have to read between the lines because he
realizes he can't really say a whole lot and get
it past the sensors. But he's talking about you know,
obviously he was an I guess you could say eco
fascist is a term some of you used to describe him.

(31:54):
But he talks about the distraction of you know, something
like racism, anti racist protesting. Now, look, Ted Kay is
kind of a boomer, so like, you know, taken for
what he's worth, but he says things like, even if
you get exactly what you want, you know, you get
rid of racism, you get rid of racial oppression, all
you will have done is make the system marginally more

(32:15):
efficient at doing what it does. And so really the
version of the Republican Party, of the conservative movement that
is ultimately obsessed with things like, you know, the budget
and the deficit, which, let's be honest, the deficit is
a real issue. But the kind of like Paul Ryan
esque Tea Party conservatives, I mean, realistically, all they are
doing is making the system oppressing their people better at

(32:39):
what it does. So I think that the basis of
opposition is an important thing to consider as well. Now,
one of the things that I think is interesting in
this is that, look, regardless of your opinion on Vamps
or Tucker, there's a way in which and this is
something I think of nothing else. As we could take

(33:00):
as a win from the Trump era is that by
being shown something or something being put in words, suddenly
it becomes possible again. Right, you have a term for it,
you've seen that. As the meme goes, you just can
do things. And so I think the fact that people realize, like,
oh wait, you know the the leftist whig history, the

(33:22):
idea that things are constantly ever turning to the left,
things are getting more progressive forever, is not necessary. It
doesn't have to be that way. I think that's a
that's a positive thing, and maybe that's as part of
the generational divide we're seeing, is that younger people see
that there is a possibility for true rebellion on this front.

(33:43):
There's a possibility to do something actually revolutionary and right
wing for as much as those terms mean in this context,
whereas those a little bit older are still living in
the world where we are negotiating the terms of left
word trippy, that is simply the allowable, I guess basis
of discussion. Maybe that's part of it from we consider

(34:06):
they're kind of the normal people. I view those you know,
at the top of this kind of coordinating. It is
completely bought and sold. But I guess I'll carve out
a possibility that someone could you be kind of genuine
in this just a sidebar issue. One of the things
reading through this that I thought was really stupid, is
it it's incredibly clear that most of these texts are jokes.
Like you have the chair of some committee basically saying, yeah,

(34:29):
if you don't vote for me, I'll put you in
the gas chamber. Like, clearly he's joking. He's talking to
like a group of twelve people. Is he going to
build a gas chamber? Like, of course not, it's ridiculous. Similarly,
I think there's another element to it as well. Fraternities
do this, you know, other kind of groups where they
sort of make you do something minorly illegal together so
that you can see one who chickens out, and also

(34:50):
you're kind of bound together by that act. You know,
a lot of times it's like stealing signs or stealing
from other fraternities, like stuff that's not like no one's dying,
you know, but it's again like a way to sort
of bind an in group and an outgroup, And that
sort of minor transgression is something you see all the time.
But yeah, I think that, let's be honest, the criticisms

(35:11):
of these people is by and large, in my mind,
complete and total cynical opportunism. Right, It is a way
to purge a genuine threat to your position. Is kind
of a you know, a privileged slave in Washington.

Speaker 1 (35:27):
Well, I think one of the things that when you
see somebody a populist get elected and they talk about
reforming the system, and those of us who know that
the system is a managerial system and that it's basically
designed to fight off any kind of foreign element that

(35:53):
threatens it, the only other way that you could possibly
work that system is you have to take your people,
have to take over. Your people have to take control,
and that basically calls for purges, and you have to
purge you. And I'm not talking about killing people. I
mean you just gotta fire everyone. You got to put
your own people in there. At some point, you're going

(36:16):
to run out of competent people, so you're going to
be guilty of bioleninism. And the system is going to
continue to do what it does, except now you're running it.
And then you know, I always think about conquest second law.
I think it's also called those Sullivan's law about any
any organization that's not expelicitly right wing will always turn

(36:39):
to the left. And the problem I see is that
even for those who think that Trump has come to
save the day, I mean I don't. I always said
that he it's funny. For a year, I said he's
a stop gap, and now people are saying that. I like,

(36:59):
I see people like posting my name. Of course they
don't tag me and saying that I said that Trump
came to save to save them. Show me where I said,
Please give me some receipts on that. But the problem
is is that when you have when it's infested with
your own people. Look, if you're going to take over

(37:21):
managerial system and you're going to be explicitly right wing,
you're going to need explicitly you're gonna be able. You're
gonna have to hire millions of people who are explicitly
right wing. That's not possible. It's it's just it's not
possible at all. Sure, all of us know people who
are explicitly right wing, but I mean that's anecdotal at

(37:42):
this point. There are people who, you know, it's like
the whole remigration thing, mass deportations, I'm like, that's never
going to happen. You're you're gonna have I'm not even boomers.
You're just gonna have people who've bought into like constantitutional politics,
who are going to see their neighbor who's been living

(38:04):
next to them forever getting pulled out of their house
and they're going to fight you. And these are going
to be people who voted for Trump. These are going
to be people who can consider themselves to be right wing.
You're there is no right wing. I mean there is
a right wing, but it's a remnant. I mean it's
a small group. Right now, what does Thomas call it?

(38:24):
He says it's a vanguard. There's nobody. And if you
think that this is going to be, you know, you
can populate this with right wingers.

Speaker 2 (38:33):
I mean, you're out of your mind.

Speaker 1 (38:34):
In the first place, you'd have to get it down
to its smallest to its smallest components. And then when
you're talking about that, you're just in libertarian land. Now, Oh,
we just got to get it down to you know,
just the Constitution and it's five pages and you can
read it in twenty minutes. As not happening, there's too
many when you take into consideration that you need the

(38:54):
system to defeat however that looks your enemies. You know,
the regime right now, you're going to need that system.
You're propagating the system, you're keeping it going. The problem
isn't like the people in the system. Sure they're a problem,
but the real problem is just the system. It's how

(39:16):
this system is run and the fact that you can
you can get seventy percent people on your side in
that system, but if you have thirty percent of people
who are just managerial by nature, they've been doing this
job for twenty years, you're never going to be able

(39:37):
to take it over. You're never going to be able
to stop it. You're always going to have somebody who's sticking,
you know, sticking a pipe in the spokes to stop you.
And so it's at this point it's like, Okay, we
see quote unquote right wingers, young Republicans getting canceled by

(39:57):
their own side. Because when it's right winger, it's always
our own people who are doing the doc saying or
doing all this stuff. It's always on your own side
who's doing it. And so how do you how do
you think you're going to put together a coalition until
I mean, I think the only chance you have.

Speaker 2 (40:18):
And then at this point I.

Speaker 1 (40:20):
Even question it is until left to start pulling people
out in the streets and start executing them. I mean,
at this point, I don't I'm looking at people who
are like arguing about how, oh Besson, what Besson's doing. Yeah,
what Besson's doing at Treasury could be great for the
next three years, and it may we may be able

(40:42):
to benefit for it by it for three years, but
who the hell knows what happens after the next three years.
Who knows what happens after the midterms. Yeah, I mean,
we're you're talking about what a year maybe if the
midterms go the wrong way. You're talking about a year
where everything's going to grind to a halt. Not only
is everything go to grind to a halt, but you're

(41:02):
gonna be looking at impeachment again. You're gonna be looking
at all the same stuff that we saw the first time.
And people are like leaking texts and talking about how
we have to you know, one hundred percent support Trump
because Trump's are Okay, sure, counter anything I just said,
Say anything I just said was a lie, Say I'm

(41:23):
wrong about anything I.

Speaker 2 (41:24):
Just said, I'll wait here.

Speaker 1 (41:26):
I'll wait for someone to say that I'm wrong about
all of that, because if you've opened your eyes and
you've watched this thing happen, I'm not even talking about
the the fact that basically what I was talking about
for a year about how there were factions vying for Trump,
vying to control Trump, and it's completely obvious that the
Zionist faction has won so far. I mean, I'll give

(41:49):
the benefit of the doubt.

Speaker 2 (41:50):
So far. What am I?

Speaker 1 (41:52):
What am I supposed to be? How am I supposed
to feel?

Speaker 2 (41:57):
You know?

Speaker 1 (41:57):
How's my white pill about nash politics. I could be
white pilled about what the Old Glory Club is doing.
I could be white pilled about what I do in
my own community. I could be white pilled about what
we can do local politics, because I can somewhat, I
somewhat have my hands in that. But thinking that anything's
going to get solved from up there in the system

(42:17):
that has been going for one hundred years and is like,
I mean, the breaks are off the train and it's
just hurtling down the track. Well, who's going to be
able to get a hold of that train? I mean,
this isn't a freaking Denzel Washington movie. You're not going
to get that train. How do you get that train?

(42:38):
Other than you have to figure out exactly who is
in control of that train? And it's this gigantic system,
this octopus, this Leviathan, and then what do you how
do you infect the Leviathan and kill it? Yeah, I'm sorry,
I'm just asking questions here. But if someone if someone

(43:00):
wants to like tell me where I'm wrong, I'll listen
to it. If someone wants to just be mad at me,
I'm you know, I don't have time for it, but
I don't think I'm wrong.

Speaker 3 (43:10):
So there are a couple of things there, which is
one uh, and there are receipts on this. I've been
you know, doing the Current Event show with Thomas, I
mean for almost a year now, actually probably more than that.

Speaker 2 (43:22):
Uh.

Speaker 3 (43:22):
And throughout the whole sort of Trump two point zero,
I've had effectively the same point, which is, look like
Trump isn't gonna get us there, but you're dumb if
you think we'd be better off under Kamala Harris.

Speaker 1 (43:36):
And yeah, that's the argument I've been making to people
who are like you supported Trump. You told us to
vote for Trump. Even if I did, even if I
did convince you to vote for Trump and you voted
for Trump, what's your complaint. You're embarrassed. Grow the fuck up,
Grow the fuck up, your little kid, your little bitch. Okay,

(43:59):
I told you to vote for Trump because I I
thought I knew it was gonna Look, I'd rather have
leftist come for me in three years when I could be,
when I could plan for that and you know, and
you know, worry about that down the line, and plan
for it now that it's starting a year ago.

Speaker 3 (44:13):
And I think it's also relevant to say that, even
as someone who is relatively pessimistic about uh, you know,
party politics in America. Uh, from a certain perspective, we've
gotten more than we could have reasonably expected to. Like. Okay,
let's take dhs at their word. I don't know how
many people they say they've they've gotten out, but all right,

(44:36):
it's something, you know, like fair enough. H But I
think that there is this recurring meme online whereas the
two acceptable camps are either one you support Trump or
your black pilling, and the other side says, oh, you

(44:57):
either effectively freak out about everything he's doing and talk
about he's zion down like those are your only two
available positions and look man like again, I maintain that
we've we've gotten more from Trump over the course of
his career than we reasonably could have expected to from
any other politician on both a practical political and also

(45:20):
like a I guess we could say, like a spiritual
or like dialectic level right where the conversation has gone.
And I view that as a definite win. And when
we talk about factions, uh, I think your analysis of
the Trump administration, which is that the you know, the
Zionist neocon and heavy scare quotes faction has has been
winning clearly within the administration and in the immediate term

(45:45):
that is what matters. But to me, on I guess
population level, the fact that that support base, right, that
the kind of good normal conservatives who have lent a
lot of weight to American support for Zionism, that base
is decaying. A lot of them are aging out right

(46:08):
reaching you know the point at which you know, Boomers,
who are the most kind of inundated in the post
war consensus, are that generation is declining, you know, sadly enough,
and you know, I mentioned you know someone like Tucker.
But also I mean, look at you know, Jimmy Door
on the left. That cultural narrative is falling apart, and
so to me, I'm incredibly optimistic while still not expecting

(46:30):
Donald Trump to you know, sort of function as the
you know, the reincarnated version of in Q thought, is
he JFK reincarnated? I can't remember whatever the Q cards
think about him, you know, this sort of mythical figure
designed to restore the republic. And so look like, does
that get us to our desired end state? Right whatever

(46:52):
we all individually want. No. But I love talking to
guys who've been in this fight for a long time,
because over and again they say, like, why are you upset?
Why are you black pilling? Because yeah, Donald Trump loves Israel.
Donald Trump seems to be an israel first president. Okay, yeah,

(47:12):
but then again, what president in my lifetime hasn't That's
sort of a given. That's just how it works. So
you can almost take that away as a determinate factor
because every president likely to get to that point has
that same thing. So if you're you're making a comparative,
you know, judgment, which one is better one over the other,
if all of them have that thing in common. I mean, honestly, man,

(47:34):
what's the point of talking about it past a certain point.
But when I see the growth of you know, a
real resistance, a growth of people who have firmly decided
to walk off the plantation, discard the master's tools, and
give it a go, I'm really excited by that, genuinely,
very excited. And this is another thing you hear from

(47:56):
from Thomas. But also, you know, any number of the
kind of oldersance guys, the ability to insulate yourself from
the kind of social pressure and you know, social consequences
of defying the regime have never been higher. If part
of this is the Internet, which admittedly could be shut
off tomorrow and you and I PTE would have to
get real jobs, but that's probably relatively unlikely. But even

(48:19):
the fact that you can coordinate, you can find people
who share your values, and you'll ameliorate the kind of
isolation that comes with you know, opposing the predominant you know,
social beliefs of your day. So I mean, yeah, look, man,
I completely share your opinions on Trump, Like I don't
really like a lot of what he's doing, but it

(48:41):
kind of depends on your one your expectations of Trump
or any politician. I never really expected him to do
anything I liked. So when you get one or two,
you're like, oh, hey, you know it's not ideal, but
you know it's better than what I thought. You know,
It's like when you go to the mechanic and you're
expecting to spend a couple grand and it's only five
hundred bucks, and you're like, hey, if you feel like
you're winning, it's sort of I guess by reaction to

(49:04):
the whole thing. And additionally, you know, as regards the
way people talk about this, I think that the short
attention span of on the internet right, the way in
which everything is cyclical, and X has made this worse
through its you know, monetization features which kind of prioritize
these these highly highly controversial engagement based posts. So you

(49:27):
start to see the same thing cycle through over and
over again. It dilutes the actual arc of a movement
or a narrative. And Stormy talks about this quite a lot,
and I have no reason to think that he's wrong.
But even in my own life, I have seen beliefs
that five or ten yet alone, even two or three

(49:48):
years ago, would have been the most radical thing you
possibly you can imagine, right, you have to go to
the deep dark corners of the Internet expressed by very
normal people. And does that mean that woke is dead?
Does that mean that, you know, our relationship with Israel
is over? No, because we understand right that the organized
minority will defeat a disorganized majority. One hundred percent. I

(50:11):
agree with that premise. But at the same time, any
regime ours included, requires a certain amount of moral buy in, right,
they require sort of, they require a moral unity between
the ruler and the ruld. And in a way, right,
the House Conservatives functioned to make sure that the loyal

(50:31):
opposition right, the oppositional party, were still on side ultimately,
and they made sure that they didn't get too far
out so that the moral unity would be broken in
a time when you know, the nominal right was no
longer in power. Now this started to break down, not
you know, sort of before my time, right, but in
the kind of post Could War era you see the

(50:53):
rise of every election being declared illegitimate. But that crack
right in the in the moral foundation of society has
has massively widened, especially you know, in the post COVID years, especially,
you know in the post, you know kind of you know,
Israel hamas era, and so to me, you know, I'm
primarily concerned with trend lines. That doesn't necessarily mean that

(51:17):
things will get better you know, today, tomorrow, three weeks
from now. But ultimately I look at you know, the
things is being relatively rosy for us. We have a chance.
And during the Biden years, you know, during the time
when I was sincerely worried about ever being able to
have a job because I didn't get the JAB and

(51:38):
there didn't seem to be any hope at all. So again, comparatively,
things are going quite well. And I think also we
have to understand that that that relationship of the sort
of privileged few in Washington, the rhino class, well I
don't think that's ever going away. What we have seen

(52:00):
is that in the same way that Trump shaped the
conceptual landscape of what is possible, he has also shown
Republican voters what is possible, they expect more of their
elected officials. And that does that mean that Trump is
like a god king? Does that mean that he's my
favorite politician ever? No, But it's much harder to slide.

(52:23):
It's much harder to you know, get along with the
kind of like bare minimum, you know, in a in
a world in which there is an alternative. And also
I think that in reaction to Trump, and I think
it was Catgirl Koolock wrote this essay comparing Trump to
like an anaphylactic reaction, where it's basically like Trump is

(52:46):
the system of power eating a peanut butter sandwich. Right,
It's he's completely and totally harmless. But if your body
thinks that a peanut butter is contains a deadly toxin,
it will produce a reaction, right, an allergic reaction which
could kill you. Even the since is, you know, it's
fair relatively innocuous. I think that that is something Trump
has created as well, which is that he is super

(53:08):
charged the hatred for the conservative, for the nominal right
wing in America. Obviously we see this in the assassination
of Charlie Kirk, if we discussed last time, which has
made the position of House Conservatives even less tenable, because
that depended on there being a relationship where the master

(53:28):
would give you table scraps. And if the master looks
at his you know, his his whipping boy and says,
wait a minute you know you're a Nazi, you get
the bullet too, just out of simple self preservation. Either
those people will be forced to abandon their previous position
or they won't be around for long as not a
threat and elected official at all. I'm just saying, you know,

(53:48):
given current trends of you know, left wing political violence.
So anyway, it's probably a little bit unorganized way to
wrap that up. Peat But do you see what I'm getting at? There?

Speaker 2 (53:58):
I see what you're getting at. I got a couple
of things.

Speaker 1 (54:00):
Is there one? Populism isn't going to change anything. We
need elites, We need people who are powerful, who are
adopting those those opinions. I think it is great that
people are starting to open their eyes to you know,
America's greatest ally and seeing that conservatives are. I think

(54:21):
that can help them in their personal life to be
able to avoid traps and know what you know, know
what not to say and what to say, and you know,
to just be able to navigate the reality that we
live in. But also, everything that you've said there is
really only it is only useful by an organized group,

(54:46):
and that organized group is not going to be political.
It's not going to be in Washington, d C. Not
at least not in our lifetimes. It's we're looking at
something much longer here. So while people are abandoning can servatism,
and while people are seeing our greatest ally as the
maniac and psychopaths that they are, there is nothing that

(55:09):
we can do. There's nothing that d C is going
to do about it. There's no there's no action that's
going to be taken.

Speaker 2 (55:16):
Now.

Speaker 1 (55:16):
If it is and I'm proven wrong, I will do
my meculpis and I will say that I was wrong,
but understanding everything that you said there and not disagreeing
with any of it. It's just knowing how to take
that that energy, that forward movement and use it. And

(55:38):
really at this point the only way to use it
is is privately and locally or maybe possibly statewide if
it's small enough state, if you're you know, depending on
populations and stuff like that. So you know, my argument
was never that people aren't waking up to these realities
and people aren't abandoning conservatism. My my argument, and you know,

(56:03):
the standard that I will you know, stay on is
the fact that nothing is going to change d see
unless there is a a root and branch branched tear out.
So I think that's where I hung from.

Speaker 3 (56:15):
Well, and I think that that goes back to and
this is one of those quotes that you know, if
you if you look on Google, you'll find like thirty
different famous people who are all alleged to have said it.
The idea that your politics fundamentally is the art of
the possible. Right, you're taking what is within your reach.
And if we look at ours, right, the people listening
to this podcast, who for the most part are sort

(56:37):
of coulos right, people who are you know, it might
be small businessmen there, you know, they have some level
of agency, but they are not by and large cultural elite.
There are some exceptions, of course, but if our entire
listener base was powerful and deeply entrenched in Washington, we

(56:57):
would live in a very different world. It's fun to
mentally if we do these sort of grand exercises, and
many of them are these kind of hypotheticals, you know,
what would I do if I were in charge? And
fair enough? Of course it's useful, right, you can sort
of war game it out, but that's not really a
great first start, you know, it's it's the underpants gnomes,
you know, or it's that meme from Despicable Me. You know,

(57:19):
Step one, you know, talk about it on a podcast,
Step two, question mark, step three, rule of the world.
It turns out that intermediate step is incredibly important. And
so when we talk about, you know, a localized strategy,
it's like, well, a localized strategy does not in and
of itself immediately fix all of our issues. But what
it is is it a logical next step? Right, You're like, okay,

(57:41):
well here's what we have, here's the next thing up,
the sort of tech tree. Right, if you're the kind
of person who plays map video games, right, then the
next logical step. And I think, again, this is a
problem of the gap between what is fun to talk
about and what is useful to do, which are so
of two separate buckets.

Speaker 2 (58:02):
You know.

Speaker 3 (58:02):
Again, to some a guy with a podcast, I realize
I'm guilty of this as well. But the idea is
not simply to say, you know, forever, focus only on
the local, but it's to say, like, you have personal agency.
No one denies that, but there's a relative there's a
limited scope to that, and so effectively, what can we
affect right now? What can we do to build power

(58:26):
This is something that the neo reactionaries accurately saw as
a problem with right wing Americans conservatives is that they
they love to sort of celebrate and spike the football
the moment they get a win. They're like, all right,
we showed them, we got it, and yeah, sure that
makes you feel good. And sometimes you need a psychological win,
you know, you need the blue haired professor from whatever

(58:50):
some university in Tennessee getting fired for you know, making
a Charlie Kirk joke, like that's good for a number
of reasons, you know, not necessarily in scope of this conversation.
But the way that you win, and we see this
with the cultural left is that you never stop fighting, right.
It's sort of the slow gradual process. Uh. You know,

(59:11):
anyone who's done grappling will get this, you know that
the kind of like dragging someone into deep water, you know,
slowly taking an inch, taking an inch, taking an inch,
until you've you know, you've got their back and you
got the choke wrapped in deep And that's not fun,
you know, it's not as cool as you know, the
the thirty second knockout, right, but fundamentally right, like, we

(59:32):
we want to win because as you said earlier, like
the consequences of losing are no longer what they once were.
It is no longer that you know, you don't get
what you want, but you get to you know, take
your ball and go home. This has genuinely become and
you see this in the example of you know, Kirk
let alone, you know many others that the fact that
you could just be canceled right from within your own ranks,

(59:54):
it has become existential. And so that requires a certain
amount of discipline, right to do the things that aren't
necessarily fun to do, that aren't necessarily to kind of
like highlight real stuff, but are very necessary to actually
win it. And uh yeah, I think that that's uh
probably pretty much my uh my thoughts on the subject.

Speaker 1 (01:00:12):
Beat No, I get it. I mean, I think we agree,
and I think that's why we, you know, chase the
same goals and everything. It's just that you know, really
having a realistic you know, you can have nuance to
use on things. One of the problems that we have

(01:00:33):
in today and especially it's very uh rampant on the internet,
is everybody sees things.

Speaker 2 (01:00:39):
Black or white.

Speaker 1 (01:00:41):
You know, it's you if you support this person for
any reason. If you say this person is doing anything
for any reason, you're totally in that person's camp. You
agree with everything they're doing. You think that they're you know,
you think that they're Jesus Christ incarnate.

Speaker 2 (01:00:56):
You know.

Speaker 1 (01:00:57):
And it's like, well, no, I can have a new
onance view on any on pretty much anyone. You know,
there's I think Tucker is doing amazing work, and there's
some episodes I just completely skip because it's like, I mean,
there's nothing. I don't think there's anything there for me.
He says some things every once in a while that
make me cringe. Oh well, everyone says something every once

(01:01:19):
in a while that makes me cringe. I mean, and
I'm literally talking about everyone that I know, people I
record podcasts with, you know, come on, stop. And I
don't think that they're they're bad people because I disagree
with them on a couple things or you know, whatever
their dad used to do or something, or even what

(01:01:40):
they might have used to do or something like that.
That's why it's important to get to know people in
real life. I think I think you've you've come to
realize that too. As somebody who was hanging out with
people this past weekend. Yeah, it's it's much more. Things
are much more complicated. People but want to make it

(01:02:00):
very easy. People see their solutions as being very easy,
but they don't really. I think a lot of people
just don't understand that if you focus in on one thing, like, oh,
if we can just get our greatest ally, you know,
in check, everything will get better. Well if that's if

(01:02:24):
you actually believe that you're wrong, if we can just
you know, Islam, Islam is such a problem, and it's
like okay, well really really wasn't a problem from the
last crusade until about the late eighteen hundreds. So what happened?
What happened to the late eighteen hundreds?

Speaker 2 (01:02:41):
You know? Yeah, So I.

Speaker 1 (01:02:46):
Mean, I just think I think people really need to
I ask people to. I'm not saying you really need
to because that makes me, it makes it look like
I'm telling you something to do. Please consider looking at
things in a more nuanced way. Please consider taking taking
the time to understand exactly what we're where we're at,

(01:03:08):
what we're going through, and what tools we have to
achieve what you know, the goals that you have. And also,
once you accept the fact that most of the goals
you have for if you're one of these people who
cares about society, who cares about the about America, let's

(01:03:28):
just put let's go, let's just go with America and
Americans and heritage Americans. If you care about them, everything
that you're doing right now, you're doing for a future
generation to benefit from, because it's not going to happen now.
It's not that easy. This is a this is a

(01:03:49):
multi there's a possibility. But really, anyone who has anyone
who knows anything about history and reads anything about history
knows that Rome pretty much started to fall about three
hundred years before it fell. So you know, and you
could say, oh, well, technology and the Internet, sure that
may cut it in half, that may even cut it

(01:04:11):
seventy five percent. It's still not your lifetime. So you know,
work towards be realistic, and work towards what you can
what you can do, and try not to make in
the process, try not to make it your identity because
that's a that's a dangerous thing.

Speaker 3 (01:04:30):
Yeah, well it's sort of. And we we love to
make fun of the libs for Harry Potter Brain, but
you know a lot of people do really operate off
of We can consider it like Star Wars brain you know,
the idea that you blow up the Death Star and
that's it. You know, you just do you do the
thing as millennials are want to say, you throw the

(01:04:51):
emperor down a pit. And now we did it. You know,
we solved the problem. And well there are certain instances
where you know, there was just one piece and everything
fell into place. That's incredibly rare circumstances and what makes
this system difficult. And this is something that even if
he's not so fashionable to talk about now, Moldbug was

(01:05:11):
quite good at pointing out that there's really no one guy.
There's no one like you know, mister democrat, you know
sitting at the top, you know, twirling kind of Caesar's mustache,
you know, kind of issuing orders. This is a decentralized system.
Burnham talking about, you know, managerialism, understood that this is
a complicated, intertwined network of people pulling the same direction

(01:05:38):
and things can be changed, of course, like that's the
project we were engaged in. But you know, if you're
waiting for, you know, the one time where you just
have to, you know, do something dramatic like the j
Sixers thought that you get it all done. I'm sorry,
it's not how it works. And do I think that
the JA sixers should have been imprisoned? No, I don't,

(01:05:59):
but that same foolish I guess you could say inclination
is all too common, even among people who consider themselves
like better than or superior to, you know, the JA sixers.
And yeah, I think that that's a it's another form
of kind of loser's mentality. So we've been discussing, all.

Speaker 2 (01:06:19):
Right, Jay, tell everybody where they can find you.

Speaker 3 (01:06:22):
Yeah. So my normal output is the Jay Burden Show.
You can find that Apple, Spotify, YouTube, anywhere you listen
to podcasts. Format is get an hour long interview five
days a week, a lot of content, a lot of
the same guys you'll be familiar with from Pete's show.
Uh just recently had Jeff dist on episode should be

(01:06:42):
out about the same time this is. So if you're interested,
check it out wherever you listen to podcasts, and make.

Speaker 1 (01:06:49):
Sure to go over and support Jay's work. He's done
amazing work. I I jump, I support Jay, and I
jump all over a new episode when it comes out.

Speaker 2 (01:06:59):
I was halfway through the Jeff Dice.

Speaker 1 (01:07:00):
Episode when uh, when we right as we were starting
to connect.

Speaker 2 (01:07:05):
So yeah, no, I appreciate it. Jane, thank you very much,
and uh, we'll talk against

Speaker 3 (01:07:13):
H.