Chimp Energy w/ Dave Greene: The J. Burden Show Ep. 415

Ireland and subject to ending criteria. Volkswagen Financial Services Areland Limited is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. Visit Volkswagen Bands dot ae for further information.

article really can. Obviously, i'll let you kind of summarize your own remarks, but there were a couple of things I thought we're interesting about that piece from Compact, because if you've noticed, there have been several essays that have taken talking points sort of from our spheres and adjacent spheres and effectively republished them and laundered them through in places like Compact Right, which is edgy enough but also still respectable enough that you know, normal people are allowed

to read it. If you remember who wrote that, it was honestly cribbing. That John Carter essay about feminization was that Helen.

The author i believe was a little bit older, he'd had kind of a Hollywood job, but it was expressing, you know, many of the same concerns our friends have, and you wrote a very good essay in response to it. I'll kick it to you.

kind of two things. First of all, I couldn't say what everyone else was saying about it, you know, I kind of went over the general problem of the article, but I added on some sort of the missing dimensions. I felt that people weren't quite emphasizing the thing that sets aside Savage's article. And again, he's not the first

person to write about this. We have Jeremy Carl who wrote an entire book about this, and we have twenty years of articles from like the you know, the distancephere, going all the way back to people like Vdair and those other people who caught onto this stuff early. The critical thing about the article from Savage's point of view is that, a it was very well written to appeal to a blue state PMC audience, professional manager, old class audience.

It was ideally suited to do that. The publication in Compact was also perfect, because Compact is becoming the place where it's like the confessional for the mendacity of our ruling class. You go to Compact temt you were wrong about something and get that into the mainstream, because you know, the New York Times is not going to run this article,

neither is the Atlantic Monthly, but Compact will. And the other thing is it kind of it started out as being kind of something that Blue Staters could kind of get on board with, but then it segued into just a very oblique view of the eventual consequences of having all institutional arrangements, especially in creative spheres, essentially closed to an entire generation of young men. The New York Review

of Books, I believe this is Savage's previous article. It I mean, most great writers that were highlighted from the twentieth century were featured there. And you look back and what I can't remember the exact statistic, but almost none of our generation's men have been put forward by those institutions for thirty years now, right, And it's the same story everywhere in movies, in script writing, in university appointments,

and in increasingly in technology as well. All these leadership positions are being essentially built into this preference system that was initially presented as being kind of a minor change. And Okay, you know, there's so many different angles of this thing. The biggest question that everyone's trying to answer is we've known about affirmative action forever. As a matter of fact, when I was in high school my state,

California illegal though I wasn't even high school. I was in I don't think I was even in junior high yet. It was like ninety five or something like that. I must have been I don't know, sixth grade or something. I'm just guessing here, right, But they illegalized affirmative action when I was very young in California. And since they've had affirmative action illegal, they've essentially been able to completely shut straight white male screenwriters out of Hollywood. How was

that possible? Right? And so the question really is how did this happen? And the answer to how did this happened was a we don't live under the law as written. We live under an administrative state where you can couch things in different language and different decision making methodologies, so that it's unclear who's doing what. This decision making apparatus is very sensitive to things like the desire to diversify, and furthermore, this is the real critical thing, the generational problem.

The baby boomers and the older gen xers were able to diversify the institutions that they ran at no cost to themselves. They came in and had full consideration during their tenure for the work on its merits, and then when they got into positions that were comfortable, they pulled up the ladder after them and decided that they were going to diversify at the expense of their children's generation

and really at the expense of their son's opportunities. I think this falls a lot less heavily on white women, although I'm sure they've had some disadvantages from this preference system. It was really as them to exclude white males in particular, because there's always a pretense to have more women in these creative roles because they were historically underrepresented, and you know, how does our civilization or society what's left of it, tell the story of what happened here in a way

that is just not some kind of arch treachery. I don't I don't know. I'm sure you know, the the ruling classes is admitting to this now, they're admitting to the fact that they essentially dispossessed a generation or two of opportunities that should have been theirs. And the next step is they're going to forget it. They're going to forget about this, and the bureaucracy is going to continue on as normal, and we're going to have to figure out what the narrative is going forward. And I guess

it just shows you. I mean, it's it's it's too late for the boomers at this stage. There's not going to be a come to Jesus moment. They're they're well passed retirement. The disposition has already taken place in many ways. The reason why this article got popular was that it's it's so advanced it's almost impossible to fix, and you know, so they're not going to really be involved in this conversation.

But a sort of the last part of my article was talking about the real conversation now has to go on between millennials, especially older millennials like myself, and the younger millennial slash Zoomer set that kind of caught. I mean, we were all kind of caught in this preference scheme at one part of our careers or the other, but the Zoomers and the younger millennial young white men caught

the worst of it. And we're going to have to find some way of talking about the task going forward politically and culturally and find some kind of narrative that works for us, because when you talk to zoomers online, I don't know, there's a law of black pilling. There's a lot of Doomerism, and there's there's a there's a

really big lack of mentorship too. You can tell with the Zoomers more so than the millennials, even that there are generation and men raised by women, and so it's it's very hard to kind of talk people in that position out of this kind of embracing their own despair

at a certain level. And I think that is you know, we talk about we're in an age of a post discourse age, Well, now this is an element of public discourse that we need to explore and that we need to develop tools to deal with how do we work together as one people, as one unified society, as one unified community in light of the fact that there's this massive generational betrayal that we're kind of uncovering. Not that we all didn't know about it already.

forty and we know this already, is incredibly radicalized. You know, for instance, they're they're the most likely to say something like that. You know, the judge James Boisburg, right, this judge who's kind of continually coming up with ways to block the Trump administration should be thrown in jail without a trial. Right, something like that. The idea of you know, subverting or going around the judicial system apparently the most

in favor of dictatorship, things like that. And one of the interesting things, and I've been writing and talking about this for like the last six months because they can't stop thinking about.

traditional conservative. They're poisoned, they're lost, cut them out, get rid of them because they have been you know, made ploys of and this is you know, their kind of you know, Pepe Sylvia esque red string conspiracy, not mine, but uh like Andrew Tait, Nick Fuentes connecting to the woke right, which connects to Tucker Carlson Qatar, there's some other you know, like ill defined nodes.

almost it's the same mechanism, right. The idea that you know there is that this within the conservative movement, right, that this movement exists exclusively for, to be honest, people older than millennials, and anyone outside of that group shouldn't be trusted. It's sort of this odd inversion of you know what the hippie said, right, don't trust anyone over thirty. You know, the boomers have kept that exact same.

influencers network that is feeding all these bad ideas. And you know, it's particularly good for the Red States set because they've always believed that people were poet poisoning their use minds, and because it was largely true, at least in so far as university was concerned. But now not only are people poisoning your kid's minds from the left,

are also poisoning your kid's minds from the right. The problem with all of this again, is that I think is slowly dawning on people over especially this last year twenty twenty five was kind of a banner year for this. The Boomer formulas that people like rodri Her or I guess I probably should exclude David French, But let's say, say like Glenn Beck and rodri Her and the people from the Heritage Foundation that think that attending a Shabbat dinner should be your price of admission for being a

conservative Catholic. For some reason, I have no idea why these people have no coherent vision of the future for people, at least people who aren't from a certain ethnicity that they're very attached to. And because of that, you can have an you can have sort of like a position that these organizations come out with that sort of reads well enough, these kind of cya positions about how the

world is. But once you get into extended conversations about the actual issues and what people are asking for, it immediately becomes indefensible. The entire conversation about Nick Fuentes was insane. It was insane. I mean, you know, not to go into their article, but we had this huge struggle session about how we needed to excommunicate Tucker Carlson for talking

to Nick Fuentes. And then you know, immediately afterwards, Piers Morgan is interviewing Nick Fuentes, you know, And and while people are trying to cancel Tucker and cancel conservatives for their affiliation with Nick Fuentes, you have the New York Times doing like puff pieces on Hassan Piker, and you know, specifically Ross douta who I kind of liked from the New York Times, doing an interview that was somewhat critical but also not remarkably different from the interview that Tucker

Carlson offered Nick Twentes. And the question here is, you know, like you can you can. You can come out with public statements, and you can come out with blog posts that framed this in some kind of light where you introduce all of these standards that are not very consistent. But if you take these standards and just poke at them a little bit, they immediately fall apart. You know, I don't know, I could go on. There's so many

different dimensions of this you could. It's hardly James Lindsay is like the perfect example, right, James Lindsay is really good at creating these kind of or at least he was really good at creating these kind of humiliating optical moments for his opponents. And he spoke the Boomers language very very well, and because of that he got a huge following in the COVID years and just before the

COVID years. But the problem is is that the second he tries to engage or answer hard questions from his right flank, his narrative about how the world works just

kind of disintegrades in front of his eyes. He pull the thread and it falls apart, almost cliche to say this at this stage, but these characters from the right wing, they cannot stop themselves from and I don't even really care about this issue, they cannot stop themselves from just gushing over the majesty, the heritage that the supreme collective beauty of the Jewish people. There is no equal, there's no gentile equivalent of that. In their imaginations, all other

gentile nations are purely propositional nations. They have no core ethnicity, they have no right to exist. They exist simply as a mechanism for making the GDP line go up. And like everyone points us out, everybody points us out at this stage, and and you know, even even the Peers Morgan thing too, like by a generational disconnect, you have you have Peers Morgan trying to the kind of the moment was him him trying to he wasn't arguing against Nick fant Is, He's kind of trying to shame him

with these optical moments. With that, Lindsay does like, I'm going to associate you with Holocaust deniers. I'm going to associate you with this man who I've brought who somehow paradoxically had his parents die both in the Holocaust and the Haltimore Like he double dipped right, Like sorry, I don't know it's your podcast. I shouldn't speak so you reverently.

But I mean, all of these moments that are just like, oh, don't you remember this element of the Boomer truth reghime, let's relive that and get really upset about that, and you don't want to be on the wrong side of that. And it gets to the point where Piers Morgan is shaming James Lindsay for not having pre marital sex, which is you know, is this total inversion of the Boomer shame mechanism, Like the whole story of the Boomer generation was that we weren't going to have shame. We weren't

going to shame people for their sexual history. Okay, great, so you know we all the Boomers fought fought, fought, fought, fought to have the Catholic nun not be able to shame you for having pre merdal sex. What so that like a double divorce could shame a Catholic guy for not having pre virital sex. Like it's crazy, and the whole thing kind of disintegrates and you end up with one side that has all of the power but just no ability to frame a narrative that anybody would believe.

you know, here's a guy, obviously. But the thing that I found interesting about the story, and I've been following this aspect perhaps more closely, I'll be honest, I did not particularly enjoy that interview between the two of them for my own reasons.

Are they not aware that they're going to get sort of a question about reciprocation, that people are going to ask for essentially permission because we were celebrating your version of this collective identity, what about us? And it gets to be ridiculous because Lord Finklestein was he was, he was, he was part of the Nick Fuentes Puis Morgan interview. And then he gets on Twitter and he's unprepared for

this question. And then you have Andrew Gold, who has Steve laws On, who I'd never heard out about before the Andrew Gold interview. I guess he's a UK figure. He gets hit with this sort of what about nationalism for Gentiles? What about nationalism for the English? And not only can he not answer it, he implies that somehow

the English should be at peace with their own extermination. Well, at the same time they hand over millions to Israel to like, you know, secure their borders in this like little meaningless backwater by killing tons and tons of people. And not only that, he gets on Twitter again, like he's now heard this question two times from Steve Laws. He fails a question on Twitter. He has Carl Benjamin

on his show again. He reviews it, kind of walks back the whole the British people should be at peace with their own extermination thing, and then Carl Benjamin says, Okay, let's just clarify it right now, ask him the exact same question again. And Andrew Golds is like, m Ah, I don't know, are you not prepared for this. It's been a month. It's been a month of the same question over and over and over again. You just if you say, you say yes or what is obviously happening

is that there is essentially a double standard. I mean, you know, obviously what obviously is going on is that there is in the core moral justification that these people have for their politics, a double standard that holds themselves up as a particular type of people that deserve things that no other people does. That's obviously what's going Otherwise they would just say yes, they would say themselves the humiliation.

They know this question is coming. They've had this question fed to them for years now, since October seventh, and they have no answer for it. They continuously have no answer for it. And I don't know, I'm I guess no. I understand there probably are, There probably are younger people in the Jewish community that are more willing to kind

of bite the bullet on reciprocation. But insofar as the more established sectors of this community that they can't countenance that they're ever going to entertain this, that that basically endorsing nationalism at some level.

What does that look like? And you know, in the answer of you know, the economy or job selection, is the answer just that I simply resign myself to sliding down the socioeconomic ladder.

which we have conveniently been teaching everyone for the last fifty years to believe is responsible for all contemporary human problems. That is the deal of the baby boomer. That is what all baby boomers tell you, either gentile or otherwise. And I guess it's particularly funny in the case of people who are Israeli Zionists, because there's this really obvious contradiction.

But I mean it made sense because baby boomers believe that history was ending and that they had solved the problem of humans success, they had solved the problem of power and of of scarcity. No, you were on this guy A. P. F. Young's show, right, You were dealing with this question with this kind of and suffer spent my entire life around these idiot academic types. Well done, but you were talking about on that show.

And the way that the Academy has coped with the Putinum effect is to point out the very real I mean, don't know, we're talking about statistical effects in multi factor systems. It's hard to say it's real. But the reality that they'll they'll tell you this, that that that wealth is a better predictor for a cohesion than is diversity. So aka, if you're filthy, filthy, filthy, filthy rich, you know, then you could have a multi ethnic community. So for instance,

Berkeley is highly multi ethnic and it's very very cohesive. Right, so are all rich Ivy League schools. So the solution to all the problems we have with the real political disadvantages of diversity is just make everybody rich. And he didn't say that. He's like, why don't we just have policy that makes everybody rich and then we won't have to worry about this anymore. And you know, okay, I forgot. We had them make everyone rich button. We have been

pressing it. It's been you know, it's been sequestered in the behind the layer of capitalism. And you know there's another button in the oval office, and if you press it, then scarcity goes away and politics is solved forever. And it kind of gives you this idea that socialism and communism are just another they're like the final Boomer cope. Like the final Boomer cope is to be being a white male communist in present era is is to sort

of be engaging in the final Boomer cope. It's the idea that if we only, if we only applied Stalinism, then Stalinism would bring back the world that was promised to us in the nineteen nineties, where the only thing that mattered was your consumer habits and your cell phone, and we are the world and you know, all the people are holding hands and coca cola, and that's what communism is going to deliver. You know, It's it just

it's this attitude. It's it's a boom. It's it's this boomer attitude that has kind of pervaded everything, and it's it's it's impossible to puncture this. This is sort of the you know, the famous millennial woes tweet. So much a progressive discourse is just pretending not to notice things, pretending not to understand things, us making discourse impossible. That's every single Rochard Tanania blog post, that's every single Matt Eglesias article, as every single thing that Noah Smith has

ever done. They just talk about some policy idea that is popular among the PMC as a kind of boomer cope, and then they pretend like they don't even understand the objections that are brought against it. And you know, that's that's the that's the entire stick and it sells perfectly well. These people have careers. There's entire university departments based on this cope, and it's it's kind of amazing to witness, I think.

in Minneapolis. One of the things you've seen from kind of the podcast brows circuit, right, you know, you know, Joe Rogan others, is this idea of Well, I didn't want illegal immigration, but I didn't want it like this, right, I didn't want people to be upset or people to be unhappy. And Okay, I can understand that if there were a way to accomplish such a thing without you know, making people uncomfortable fair enough, that would be you know,

the preferable alternative. But it's this profoundly unconstrained vision of the world. Right, It's this idea that you know, things like abundance, things like immigration, needing, one of these things are simply a switch to be flipped, right, instead of sort of this nexus of competing goods where one thing will produce a negative externality somewhere else. This is the process of balancing. And it's incredibly frustrating to me because you see this saying and look, it's a human instinct.

But also I think a large part of it, or at least the extremity of it, has to do with that belief that issues like poverty, issues like advancement, issues like war were ultimately solved. Solve them. Yeah, right, And I was thinking about this because you shouldn't be familiar with this, but you know, I wrote an article on David French, so I.

no longer there, right, it's another cope. And if we you know, if we have to grapple with them, right, if we have to admit that young people are being radicalized on the left and right do to decisions that were made by men, that sort of calls into question the whole idea that we are living in this sort of like app but this sort of like apex of human history and human development, right, And I think that doubt, like really at the deepest root of this a lot

of the terror because I do think these people are afraid, genuinely, they seem to be in a very uncomfortable situation, and I think a large part of it is that maybe not for them, but certainly for their children and their peers. They see that promise of eternal progress, They see that promise of liberation as sort of like the jet fuel for societal progress sort of petering out. And if you have devoted your life to that idea, you've devoted your life to that goal, that has to be very like

genuinely very scary. And look, when I say I have sympathy for these people, I mean in a very abstract sense, because if I think about it for longer than their seconds, I'm sort of filled with this rage. But I think that that's a large part of it. And when you're talking about even earlier, right, your compact is sort of this confessional for you know, the PMC, for the ruling elite. I wonder if that's a part of it as well, that if they were more confident, they wouldn't be confessing.

And I think it's sort of telling that they can't fully admit it, but they sort of realize this project isn't working. It's a vague thought. Do you see what I'm getting at there?

No one really knows what to do. And in the meantime, if we really, if we really look at the problems on the horizon seriously, it becomes a lot harder to enjoy anything because you're always thinking, why am I not preparing for the future that I know is going to be harder for my children than it is for me. How can I take this vacation, How can I justify this stupid hobby? How can I indulge in all of this stuff? When the future is slipping away from me.

And the thing is is that one thing our acide lacks is we can't go to the boomers and say it's cool, just go on your cruises, everything will be fine, and we'll we'll take it from here. And that's essentially what everyone else tells them. Everyone else tells them on left, right and well, left and center, everyone on the left and center basically tell people of the other generations that their role in society was fundamentally good and now they can step aside and let the chips fall with where

they may. But that's not the role that we're in right now. The role we're in right now is to kind of come up with something radically different from the directions that we've been going previously. And you know, the problem is is that the older people are going to have to be part of this conversation. And the boomer's decision is either to kind of pass that on to the people who are younger and poorer than they are, or to take up the mantle and kind of admit

that they're project there's been a fundamental failure. And I don't blame them in this moment for kind of retreating to these conservative platitudes and this conservative Pollyanna understanding of what America is now a power works because that's what they need to kind of keep their life on track and to not believe that would derail their entire lives.

And I don't know, but you know, the future belongs to the people who are willing to derail their lives because they understand a reality that's coming down the tracks.

you know, explain how our ideas right? How do we turn how do we sort of bridge that generational divide and turn it into something positive. But additionally, I think that one other issue, and this is partially generational, it's also partially a political problem, is that, you know, how do we as you know, outsiders and people who are relatively speaking disadvantaged, as you know, we've said earlier, who've been blocked out of you know, certain pass for advancement.

How do we index with wider culture or politics?

the elitists and on the other the chimps. Right on one hand, you have the you know, the populists who are basically saying like, we will make our voice known on every issue, right, using the parlance of the internet chimp out versus you know the others that you know kind of like you know, rock ribbed elitists who say nothing matters whatsoever, you know, your opinion never have any you know meaning.

helped things at all. And you know, I'm very grateful that it's there as an organizing tool for us, but this has been kind of something that I've dealt with, is looking at this kind of conflict from the populists and the elitists. And I know, first of all, I hate chimp energy. I think that this kind of I don't want to subsweet people, but you know, like, and I really respect people who are in these camps and

who want to kind of use chimp energy more. But at the same time, I feel like it gives US impression that we have some kind of control over the Trumpet administration, which we don't, And regardless of the dire consequences that will arise once the Democrats possibly take back power in twenty twenty eight, we have to operate as

if we have no control over that right now. Right now, the extent to which the Trump administration essentially takes control over the real government of the United States is totally in the court of Donald Trump and his people who he's put in positions of power. Right now, it's our job to assume that a regime change is not going to come to pass and to prepare accordingly. And look, I mean, chimp energy is good because it can get

you concessions from the regime. But if the regime is going to have to decide fundamentally at a certain level whether it wants to replace the American government, and no amount of chimping out on Twitter is going to change that. And maybe decision is going to come now, but it's going to come sometime between now in twenty twenty eight. Is this simply a change of administration or is this actually a permanent regime change? And I think that that the ball is out of the ball is in their court.

The destiny of this particular lifeline is out of our hands. And if if you care about things, in my opinion, you shouldn't be looking at power this way. You shouldn't. You're not on team Trump. You are not on team Trump. None of us are on Team Trump. We are on our own team. We are for the continuation of our collectivity. We are for the continuation of our faith. That is what is at stake in all of this, and that

is what we have to actually fight for. So as as such, I think there just needs to be kind of a consciousness change, and it doesn't make or good social media content, but we either have to start thinking collectively and acting collectively, because even if Trump does change the administration, we are still going to live in a world, a multipolar world where we are going to need to pursue the good collectively. I mean, I guess to say, like on the elitist side, part part of the pattern.

I say, from a lot of the old n RX guys and a lot of the you know, the people who are maybe in the early distance sphere that later soured on it because of Trump, I feel like they get caught up in counter signaling things, and what really matters here is what you're going to fight for and what you're going to represent and what you're doing to actually take as meaningfully forward in some sense, and that's all I don't see if you are a good actor

in this sphere, what you should be doing. I mean, everyone looks out into the ether of Twitter and they see some people that they think have that they had their head in the clouds, their useless academics, they're not doing anything useful for real people. And then at the same time you also see people who are just totally drinking the kool aid on the latest popular delusion, and they don't have the wherewithal to understand how they're being played.

In my opinion, your job is an intellectual is to bridge the gap between those two groups of aligned people. As long as they have the same vision of the good life, the vision of the ultimate spiritual good, and they're working for the same collective well being, they are in some sense your people. And when those two camps work together, things can happen. And when they work across purposes, you get endless Twitter drama, which is what has made X completely useless for me, at least in the last

month or two. Now it's oh, sorry, what was that, David? So that's a big grant Yoh yeah, no, well, I mean.

the you know, gathering in the first place. But you know this this came up because you know, this was exactly you know the point raised, right, like what is our project here? What are we doing? And also like, you know, what is our our path?

the ship? Or is this ultimately completely and totally quicks on it.

our hands. We can try to kind of influence them a little bit, but most of the things that they give in their like in their little concessions where Trump says something bad and then walks it back, that is like a little treat concession. That is not him making some cosmic decision. And and you know, ultimately a cosmic

decision is going to need to be made. It is my opinion that we should assume that he's going to make the wrong decision and prepare accordingly, and and that that is I think that's the only way that really makes sense to deal with the present moment. And I don't know people find that depressing, but it is and you say, like, what is what is the point of doing all of this in terms of, you know, whether

we're going to make peace with the American government. The American government as it exists currently is.

humanity generally. And they're ideologically captured. So that's not a question. When people say they like America, they say they like certain elements of American history. But increasingly I don't think those elements of American history have much to do with

the existence of the American government. And so once you kind of and this is the reason why, and this is one of the conclusions of my article, which increasingly has become a conclusion of other articles as well, collective identity is really and I'm not saying how you identify collectively, but understanding that you were working for a people and

a faith is just so essential. This is the reason, this is the reason why people who are hostile to our interests are so unwilling to kind of acknowledge the legitimacy of any collective label that pertains to an operative political force that could represent the interests of indigenous Europeans in Europe, or the various different ethnicities that are called heritage Americans inside America. And that's because it's sort of

the key to everything. We are not our government. We are people who are trying to survive in spite of our government. At some point, maybe somebody, and maybe those somebodies will be people that we train or influence in some way. Somebody will actually change the American government in

a permanent way that would be beneficial to us. But even if the government did become temporarily more benign, it still would not change the fact that the principal political purpose that we are under taking is one of religious purpose and one of collective purpose, and both have to be there. And I had to say, we've lost sight

of both in any meaningful way. And because of that you know, all of the formulas we come up with talking about whether you know this, I mean, I do appreciate the Minneapolis thing, but people are people are spending hours relitigating police shootings that are done in the space of two seconds, and then they're holding people's previous opinions

against them. So someone sees a woman getting shot and they they feel sorry for her, and then two days later, when it's shown that the sort of her sympathetic story is untrue, it immediately becomes this way to kind of tear down the other person is not being based enough. And you know, this stuff is all petty and not really conducive to the kind of changes that are needed in the American political consciousness in the twenty first century.

America political consciousness in the twenty first cent tree and needs to be collective and religious in nature, and if it's not both of those things in full force, then it is completely unprepared to deal with the real political questions that are ahead of us.

you know, kind of like color blind. You know, civic nationalism might be preferential in degree, but ultimately that still is a separation of man from culture. It is less of a lie, but still ultimately based on the same untruths about the human organization. And this is something that And again I'm going to mention British politics twice despite not really knowing anything about it, but it's never stopped me before watching the rise of you know, Nigel Frage,

you know his outlet, right uh and reform UK stuff. Yes, it's kind of an interesting example of that because you know, he is being touted as you know, the kind of you know, British version of Cheetoh Hitler, right, this like arch reactionary right winger. But really, when you drill down to it, it is simply you know, that's a right color blind liberalism, right. Sure, you know, it's probably better

than you know, Serquias Starmer. But ultimate it's then a real course correction, right, it is not really addressing these sort of deep fundamental claims. And I think that you're you're framing there of surviving in spite of our government is very much the correct attitude to have. And look, on one hand, you know, I'm quite glad that Trump won, uh, you know, just for living in the country. That's been helpful. Yeah, But man, has it done a number to right wing discourse.

You know, it's really made everything you know, so much worse, so much harder to have a real conversation about because of you know, effectively that kind of chimp energy, right that desire to you know, keep and enforce some sort of side based off of this idea that we have, you know, a say, to one degree or another. And weirdly enough, there's actually a very good point from Mark Levin, which is a very rare thing. But he of course really likes Tucker Catarolson.

he was viewing that as something to celebrate. But I think that that's a like something to keep in mind, right, that even for the guy in the room, right, that the someone with unprecedented access compared to you know, you or I Dave, seemingly this machine marches on. And I mean really, you know that was you know, the lesson of the first and then certainly the second Trump administration is that Washington, right, the American empire has such a momentum to it that seemingly it is unreformable.

is not something that can be done. And I don't know, I think that that's sort of an interesting development kind of on the like the psychological play almost.

while you built an entirely new one. A great example, like a great missed opportunity, is it would be to take some of these DOSEE programs and then as you cut them, some of them just need to be cut because they're stupid, but as you cut them, use the money you cut from your enemies to then refund refinance

your friends. So you know, you had a few things that were like Aid to Africa programs, you could have refinanced that through friendly NGO like basically the essential conservative NGO bodies, right, like private public partnerships that would pay

out friends that way and create jobs. You know, And you could argument we don't need we don't need foreign aid to begin with, and there's a good case for that, but I'm just using that as an example of if you were really to do the thing as the young people were to say, you would need to create a new finance class, a professional people that were getting paid to be your people, the way the FDR created a group of professionals that were paid to be his people.

And that's very very hard to do in the present year. And you know, again the de is cast on this, but I think with the dissolution of DOGE especially, this is the this is the this is the Trump administration saying that it is going to be another administration, not a new permanent government. And uh, you know, I think that it's dark. But that means at some point, at some point, at least there's going to be at least one other period. I mean, there's there's sort of a

limit here right there. There's going to be a point where, well, I guess we could reach singularity and you know, all borders could be erased by some kind of design super intelligence. That's that's also a possibility. I think that's a little bit remote, but that kind of apocalypse notwithstanding or media is getting crashed into the earth. Eventually, the government is going to become actively insolvent, not just theoretically insolvent. Has

been for the last twenty years. And when that happens, the American government is going to start collapsing. And at that point it will lose a lot of its capacity to exert control in all the ways that we have

become used to. And there's a possibility then for a radically new government to come into play, not because it's absorbed the government of the old world, but because it just creates one in parallel and then picks up the functionality as it disintegrates from the insolvency of the old world, which is you know, that's a much more dangerous scenario. But in that interim period, the Democrats will get back into power, they will try to use the total state

to punish their enemies. And you know, we have to be prepared to deal with a hostile total state. We have to be prepared to deal with bil holding communities outside of the government's oversight or cooperation even sometimes and uh, you know, without those skills developed independently, and these are political projects, they are not sort of just like the rodri Her, you know, go to the hills and I

don't even know what rodri HER's idea is. Don't do politics, but also don't retreat to the hills or something like that. It's not some kind of cute little platitude about having a vegetable garden or a hobby farm or something like that. There needs at least has something to do with Italian hobby farms. And oysters and and people who read you know, various different dissident authors from the old Soviet block and uh,

you know. But regardless of that, there's just going to need to be people who are capable of doing activism and doing organization from a non progressive point of view, and we are very far behind on that. I think that it's been very hopeful. We've seen an enormous amount of growth in the last three years, in particular in terms of people's capacities to actually do things, to take the ideas they have got in well in the online world or in the distance here, and then actively put

them into practice in the real world. There are many organizations, including one or two that we are both members of, and you know, that's helpful, but like that is unprecedented in the twenty first century. It's still so far away from where we need to be. This is another thing too, we'll add this in before sorry. Do you notice how like conservatives and I know I said this to you before, conservatives can never wait to declare victory and leave, and

progressives never declare victory. They no matter how much money they get from the government, no matter how much how many specials to decide programs they get no matter how much Hollywood is just sort of their catechism, you know, superimposed upon popular intellectual properties. They never declare a victory. They never declare a victory. Whereas as soon as Trump gets into office, conservators like, oh, bok era is over, America is back baby. Now we're the government. And it's

just not true. And we have to remind ourselves that it's not true. We have to remind ourselves that there is a very high probability, I mean almost a certainty that you're going to be facing a hostile total state or an insolvent total state, both of which are very very dangerous if you're the only group in the country

that is not collectively organizing to defend its interests. And I mean and again, that does not make retirement happy, and it doesn't make you feel good, you know, indulging in all of our kind of well indulgent not to be redundant indulgent hobbies or whatever. But it's a reality that we have to internalize, and until eternalize that reality, I don't know how things change.

both of which will be linked on the description. You also have Twitter, and I think that's everywhere people can find you.

it anymore. In addition to that, I guess I am also trying to start a new blog for the California chapter of the OGC, the Redwood Society, where and we haven't quite started this up yet, but we are trying to create a blog focused around community building and positive steps forward and developing culture and supporting people in our sphere. And this is something that I've cared a lot about, and it's hard going because it's a poor entertainment product, but I I would suggest you check the work out

there too, as well as the OGC. More generally, I suspect that these organizations, you know, we're looking forward to twenty twenty six, I expect that these organizations like Beowolf, like Selding's, like Exit Group, like the OGC. Obviously there's gonna be a lot of interesting work that is done

by people under that larger umbrella, even if it's radically different. Right, there are a lot of young guys out there that are looking at the kind of go in a different direction and need to have sort of collective support to do that. So I think that'll be very interesting. No, I think you're entirely right, Dave. Obviously, all the relevant links down the description. As far as my stuff the Jay Burtons Show, Apple, Spotify, YouTube, this is what I

do now. If you want to support me, the episodes early in ed free for like five bucks a month on Patreon, Substack or gum Road.