Jay Burden, a 24-year-old right-wing writer, diagnoses modern American politics as a post-republican oligarchy where unelected courts hold sovereignty, exposed by 2020’s COVID chaos and leftist control fetishism. He rejects libertarian paralysis and mass immigration’s destabilizing effects, framing today’s "war of belief" as irreconcilable—from wokeness’ memetic threats to declining elite birth rates. Advocating spontaneous order over rigid ideologies, Burden calls for depoliticizing human nature while preserving cultural distinctions, warning of civilizational collapse unless tradition trumps utopianism. [Automatically generated summary]
Hey everyone, it's Andrew Clavin with this week's interview with Jay Burden.
You may not have heard of Jay Burden, but he is a young right-wing writer and interviewer.
And I'll tell you why I wanted to talk to him.
I've been talking on my show on the Friday podcast about the fact that I think that we're coming to the end of something.
It's really the end of the boomer generation, which has dominated the mindset of America for as long as I've been around, because I am a boomer.
And I think when we look at the people who are probably going to be running for president, we see Joe Biden, who represents the end, I think, of the great society.
I think wokeness is the end of the great society.
It's become basic madness because it failed.
It failed to do the things that they promised it was going to do.
And yet it did give power and money into the hands of politicians, so they don't want to give it up.
And so instead of giving it up, they keep calling us names for disagreeing with it.
And now they're just saying, well, we'll just hire people according to race.
They've come basically full circle.
And that's the end of that.
And Donald Trump, I feel, is also the end of something.
He sounds like a conservative.
He has the anger and the gestures of a conservative, and he has the bluntness of conservatism, but he's not actually a conservative.
He doesn't actually believe in the project of returning America to a pre-welfare state freedom, or at least a pre-great society freedom, if not a pre-New Deal freedom.
And so that project, which was the conservative project for most of my lifetime, has also failed.
And so when I see something passing away, and I know that there's going to be, that means there's going to be turbulence ahead.
I hope it doesn't get violent, but we don't know.
I know something new is going to come along.
And so I started listening to some of the younger right-wingers, because I'm not really interested in how the left wants, what kind of power the left wants to seize from me.
And I am interested in what the right-wingers are saying.
I've heard a lot of different ones, but the one that really appealed to me was Jay Burden.
He has an interview show.
He says he's focused on reconnecting to tradition and challenging the myths of modernity.
I found him very intelligent and earnest, which matters to me because I don't want to dodge around with some guy who won't tell me what he thinks.
And I want to emphasize always that when I do interviews, I'm not trying to defeat anybody.
I'm not trying to debate anybody.
This is not, oh, I owned him or I destroyed him.
I'm not agreeing with him either.
I just want to hear what he has to say.
So this is hopefully will let us know what Gen Z and Gen Z right-wingers are thinking about.
Jay, thank you so much for coming on.
I appreciate it.
Yeah, thank you so much, Andrew.
Very kind words, and I look forward to our conversation.
Yeah, no, I've been listening to the show and really interesting, mostly an interview show.
First of all, let me start out.
Before we started, I was trying to think of the name of the novel.
Jay Burden is obviously a pseudonym that was taken from All the King's Men, that was the name, which is an excellent novel by Robert Penn Warren, which I haven't read for many, many years.
But why did you pick that name?
I do remember the character.
Why did you pick that name?
So actually for a very deliberate reason.
You mentioned that I present as very earnest on my show.
And that's something I do very deliberately because it's not natural to me.
I think for a lot of people, it's very easy to drop into a type of low cynicism, particularly when you look at a system that is very obviously run by cynical people, right?
That treats genuine belief as something kind of embarrassing or as a shield for something else.
And so in the novel All the King's Men, which is Robert Penn Warren, a southern agrarian writer, that book has sort of two main plots.
The B plot in the background is sort of the rise and fall of this man, Willie Stark, who's sort of a rough analogy for the famous Louisiana progressive, Huey Long.
So that's in the background, right?
And so we see the fall of this great man, you know, where he kind of destroys himself through his love for power.
But at the same time, the other side of the chiasmus, the X, is the rise of this character, Jay Burden, who goes from being this kind of like cynical, hard-bitten, kind of like yellow journalist, and he sort of redeems himself through the course of the novel.
And our characters kind of overlap in the middle.
And the way that he does that, and this is something that I find in my work, is by sort of understanding his relation to his tradition, to his parentage, to the people he comes from, and making peace with that.
And there's a certain way to look at it, which is a tragic novel, right?
Both in the case that Governor Stark is killed and also because when he does reconcile with his past, not everything comes back.
Not everything is made whole fully.
And I both see myself in that character for personal reasons I won't get into, but also because I think that's a position that a lot of young people find themselves in.
They see they find themselves very cynical.
They find themselves disconnected.
And the way to heal from that is to recognize your relation to your patrimony, to your tradition, the things that came before you.
Cynical Disconnect00:09:13
And again, it will never be as good as if there was no gap in the first place, but it is the only way, I think, to heal that gap.
And so that's why I picked that as my pseudonym.
Fair enough.
Before we get into the details of your thinking, one thing I've noticed across the board, and you sound to me, when I've listened to you, you sound to me like you're somewhere between 25 and 30.
Is that about right?
Almost.
I'm 24 years old.
Okay, 24.
So one of the things I've noticed when I listen to people your age is that the year 2020, which is the lockdown year, the COVID year and the riot year, the year of the riots, seems to be a sort of turning point.
It seems to be the hinge of your philosophy.
Is that true of you?
And can you describe it, why it is?
So definitely.
And I think that for a lot of people, 2020 was a very important kind of litmus test because it was sort of a time where a lot of ideology, right, ideas that had flown, that had kind of floated around in the mental space got tested, right?
So for instance, 2020 effectively blew up the libertarian sphere, right?
Like the Libertarian Party is split.
It's in shambles.
Kind of the best and brightest have moved on to other things.
And that's basically because if you're a libertarian, you know, the moment where there's a ton of government overreach, well, that's when libertarians should rise to the front.
You know, everyone should look at them and say, oh, they're the ones who have their best way to fix it.
And well, to be honest, that didn't happen, right?
We saw that, in fact, quite a lot of people really liked it.
And so that sort of showed that that ideology couldn't stand up to kind of the harsh light of reality.
But for people who aren't libertarians, who have other kind of political thoughts, I think it showed that politics is a real game, right?
That our enemies are quite comfortable ruining your life.
We see that roughly 60% of small business is closed, and that's not a problem for the people in power because their constituents, their real constituents, aren't small business owners.
You see that the idea that these people are in any way consistent, that also flew out the window, right?
We're at the same time, we're being told, like, oh, you can't go to church.
You know, that's too dangerous.
You know, you have to wear the mask.
You know, you have to test a thousand times a week.
Well, Floyd riots are okay.
You know, in fact, those reduce COVID.
And so I point that out not to just say, oh, the left is inconsistent.
That's very obviously the case.
But that effectively shows that they don't care.
To them, it is all about power.
They don't care that it's inconsistent and they don't have to because they're in charge.
And so looking at that, that's sort of a harsh realization.
But I consider myself a realist.
And that means that I look at the world how it is and not how I want it to be.
Like, believe me, I'd love to exist in a world where you could go up to your liberal opponent and say, your policy doesn't make sense.
And they'd say, you know what?
You're right.
The data shakes out.
We'll do something different.
But that's manifestly untrue.
And so I think that's why 2020 was such an important year, because it showed us very much, one, where the cards lie.
And two, it showed us that it doesn't really matter how perfect your mental model is because the government can say you're not allowed to go outside.
And at least a minority of your fellow citizens will turn you in if you disobey that order.
Yeah.
You know, I have to say that I really feel that the establishment press on both sides has not taken stock of the trauma of that event because you describe it really accurately and you describe it, you know, basically the way it was, the indifference and the, it wasn't incompetence.
It was actually power seizing and it was based on something totally other than they were telling us.
And I can understand if you're, you know, in your 20s and that happens to you, it actually is going to change your trajectory.
So let's talk about what you believe because you don't actually talk about that much on your show.
You let other people talk.
What do you want the world to look like?
And I'd also like to know when you say libertarian, do you mean people who believe in liberty or do you mean people who just think, you know, who think liberty is all in all?
That's mostly what I meant.
You know, the kind of people, and I meant that in the strict party line sense, right?
People who have described themselves as libertarians, you know, look, like I don't want to live in a police state, but that doesn't necessarily make me the kind of person that you see at these sort of libertarian conferences that has a boot on his head or demands the right to speak naked in front of a crowd, right?
Those people are patently ridiculous, and I feel comfortable criticizing them on the internet.
I got it.
Okay.
So what is it you want the world to look like or America to look like?
If you were, I mean, at the end of William F. Buckley's life, he said, I accomplished everything I set out to accomplish.
If you could say that, what would America look like?
Well, quite simply, I want a ruling class who doesn't hate us, right?
I'm under no, and again, that sounds silly, but it's a pretty simple request.
We talk a lot about the kind of malice the government has for traditional religious people, people like us, deplorables.
And when I look back in history, I'm under no illusions that we can create kind of the kingdom of heaven on earth, right?
There will always be poverty.
There will always be suffering and there will always be government tyranny, right?
It's just how it works.
Now, we can minimize that, right?
We can have a well-run society.
And really, that's what I look for, a society where there is spontaneous order.
And what that means is order, right?
Things working without there having to be a jackboot on your neck, right?
Without there having to be a police state.
And now what we have currently is sort of the worst of both worlds.
We have a police state and nothing works, right?
I can't go to the airport and count on the fact that my flight will be there by the time I, you know, I won't get my flight changed around.
I can't count on the fact that if someone breaks into my house, the police will find that person.
And at the same time, right, if I do a little bit of investigative journalism that the FBI doesn't like, I'm going to jail, right?
And so essentially what I'm looking for is a return to kind of good governance, right?
And again, when I say that I'm a political realist, I'm not particularly ideological about how we get there.
I don't necessarily say I am a monarchist or I am a constitutional Republican conservative, because to be honest, I think we're in a really bad way as a country.
Things are falling apart.
And you mentioned that the baby boomers are on their way out.
And there are certain things that the baby boomers have done to America that have been very, very negative.
But we also have to acknowledge something that the baby boomers are, in certain instances, very competent people and their replacements are not.
And so you hear these stories all the time about like, oh, GM needed to rehire their retired engineers because they didn't know how some system worked.
And to be honest, that works when the engineer is 70 and is just sitting with his feet kicked up, but it's basically still functional.
But if he's dead, right, where do you get that competence from?
And obviously, look, like my grandparents are boomers.
I have a great number of friends who are.
I'm not saying that I look forward to that time, but it is something that is approaching.
And I think that what we're seeing now is the kind of ideas that began to percolate in the 1960s really appearing in the flesh, so to speak.
So, you know, things like hiring based off of your immutable characteristics instead of competence has now resulted in a world where you cannot count on the fact that your doctor is a particularly intelligent person.
And so really, like I said, I'm looking for a society in which there is good government.
I think that there are certain ways to do that, right, that are kind of informed by human nature, especially when it comes to things like crime and punishment, right?
Like you need to punish people for certain crimes.
I think there are other ways to do that when it comes to political corruption.
But I really consider myself non-ideological, right?
I'm interested in specific solutions.
I will also say in general, I'm not particularly interested in the nuts and bolts of politics, right?
I kind of see us as a society in a very in a crisis state.
I see that we're sort of going through a bottleneck of that.
And I take this analogy from the Black Death, right?
Which is a situation that happened in the Middle Ages when roughly one third of all genetic lines in Europe were ended due to disease, right?
It was effectively a checkpoint.
And if your genes were strong enough to resist that physical virus, you get to keep going.
And I think we're in a very similar thing, but instead of physical viruses, it's for a memetic virus, a mind virus, and woke, right, progressivism, whatever you want to call this, this philosophy that says, you know, be useless and cut off your genitals.
That's effectively the virus.
Dream Powder Ingredients00:02:34
And even if it doesn't take you to that point where you're actually doing it, look at our elite, right?
I have a friend of mine, a very interesting guy.
He's about 50 years old, graduated from Harvard.
He told me the TFR, the total fecundity rate, basically how many children are born for women of his graduating class is 0.6, which is, for those unfamiliar, very, very bad.
That means that that group of people is not reproducing.
And I would argue that's because that virus has taken hold.
And so, you know, maybe I look at this at kind of too abstract a level, but I look at my mission as effectively getting through that bottleneck, right?
Making through that kind of civilizational checkpoint.
And I view the vast majority of progressives, even some people who describe themselves as conservatives as not clearing that goal.
And so really I look at the problems affecting us as obviously they're political, but at a deeper level, they seem to be civilizational.
So I love these Beams Dream Powder ads because they're always telling you about the ingredients.
I don't care about the ingredients.
I just like the fact that it actually helps you sleep and it really does.
But I have to tell you that it contains a powerful all-natural blend of racey, magnesium L-theanine, apogenin, and melatonin to help you fall asleep, stay asleep, and wake up refreshed.
I know you don't care either, but it's not just your run-of-the-mill sleep aid.
This is the important stuff.
It's a concoction carefully crafted to help you slip into the sweet embrace of rest without the grogginess that often accompanies other sleep remedies.
Sleep is the foundation of our mental and physical health.
You must have a consistent nighttime routine to function at your best.
Today, my listeners get a special discount on Beam's Dream Powder, their best-selling hot cocoa for sleep with no added sugar.
Now available in delicious flavors like cinnamon, cocoa, chocolate, peanut butter, and mint chip.
Better sleep has never tasted better.
Just mix Beam Dream into hot water or milk stir or froth and enjoy before bedtime.
If you find yourself battling the bedtime blues, give it a shot.
Your weary self will thank you.
If you want to try Beam's best-selling dream powder, take advantage of 40% off for a limited time when you go to shopbeam.com slash Clavin and use code Clavin at checkout.
That's shopbeam.com slash Clavin with my promo code Clavin for up to 40% off your order if and only if they tell you how to spell beam, but I know you, how do you spell clavin?
It's K-L-A-V-A-M.
K-L-A-B-A-E and there are no easing things.
Well, I do want to go back for just a minute, though.
The Decline Of Republicanism00:15:41
You are being a little abstract in the sense that a lot of the younger people I listen to seem to have given up on the idea of small R republicanism, the notion that the people are sovereign, the notion that you can elect people who will rule.
They think that they are attracted to monarchy.
They're attracted to strongmen politics.
I hear a lot about Bukele, obviously, in Salvador, who is on the one hand doing good things.
On the other hand, I sometimes worry that the people who admire the good things he's doing really admire the fact that he shut down their constitution for a period of time.
In other words, I'm not sure which of those two things they're attracted to.
Do you have ideas of what the best way forward is?
Do you think republicanism is a good per se?
Do you think that monarchy is a good per se, or do you not care at all?
So there is something, and like I said, I'm a political realist.
And there's this idea of the iron law of oligarchy, that effectively every system of government, if you really dig deep into it enough, becomes an oligarchy, right?
A rule of plus or minus 30 men, right?
And the sort of legitimating structure you put around that, right?
The wrapping is relatively inconsequential.
So look at our situation, right?
We describe ourselves as a constitutional republic.
But if we look at that concept of sovereignty, right, it comes from, at least in my mind, who decides, right?
When something comes into question, who is the deciding vote?
And so effectively, sovereignty in the U.S. is held in the Supreme Court, right?
Which is, is it democratic?
It's like, okay, down a kind of long winding series of paths.
Yes.
You know, I vote for people who have a say in who is selected as Supreme Court.
And okay, well, I see you're a little skeptical, so I'll justify that, right?
If we have some kind of big controversy, right?
And the left loved to use this seat of sovereignty, as they have basically from FDR to about the Trump era, right?
What they would do is they take something like, let's use birth control, right?
That's far enough in the past that we can talk about comfortably, right?
They would say, okay, well, this is a big question, right?
It is not being passed on the legislative level, right?
a few states, I believe it was Massachusetts, it had been.
We will take it up to the seat of sovereignty, the Supreme Court.
They will decide.
And now it is law in the land.
And so to me, right, are we living in a republic?
Yes, technically on paper, right?
That's how this system was set up.
But when it comes down to one of those kind of special like outside situations, right?
Something that is a big controversy, we're effectively already living in an oligarchy, right?
We're living in a rule by a council system.
And so my point to say that is not that I dislike the Supreme Court or I dislike Congress, but to say that the way that you justify it is, at least from my perspective, sort of immaterial, right?
We've already seen that our elected officials don't do what we want.
And so I don't really see the harm in formalizing that process effectively.
So I mean, that does sound like you've given up on republicanism.
I mean, there was a time in my lifetime when a politician would change course if he felt the people were turning against him, which obviously, for instance, with Joe Biden and the border isn't true at all.
I mean, he pretends, but he's not going to change course one little bit.
But there was a time when people were more responsive to, when politicians were more responsive to the people, but people were also more interested in their liberty.
I mean, I think the things that happened in 2020, when people were like, you're a bad person if you don't shut yourself up in your apartment and don't go to church and so on, that stuff didn't exist before.
So there has been a change.
There's no question.
We're not in a steady state.
This is an actual decline.
And as you say, a bottleneck, which I think is also true.
My question, I guess, is, as a conservative, you're not saying we've got to get back to point X. You're saying we've got to move forward to something else or just accept the fact that there's going to be an oligarchy.
And the question is, who are the oligarchs?
Is that a fair way to put it?
So sure.
And if we're talking about the change, I sort of view, and maybe this will be unpopular with your audience, but effectively, America is a non-formalized empire, right?
We have kind of these satrapies around the world.
Like we have bases, and basically if you don't do what we want, you'll get a knock on the door.
And so what that means is we don't run ourselves like a republic anymore.
I agree, we were a republic at one time.
And sort of slowly from about really 1865 to 1945, we lost the pieces of that republic.
So I like to look at FDR, right?
You know, you say there was a time at which we were, politicians were more kind of susceptible to public pressure.
And in certain instances, that may be true.
But in the case of FDR, who effectively made our modern American system what it was, right?
We're all kind of living in his world.
I mean, he was effectively a dictator, right?
He, for instance, you know, quite notably, took all of the gold in the country, right?
Basically said, like, it is illegal now to have more than a certain amount of gold.
You have to put it in my piggy bank, right?
Fort Knox.
And so to say, you know, I think that we sort of in America are on our kind of like, you know how the French will number their republics?
You know, I think they're on their like fifth or sixth republic.
We sort of have the same thing in America, right?
And don't get me wrong, there obviously is a continuity, both in the kind of ideas we refer to, you know, the documents we pull from, and obviously the people as well.
But there are sort of chapters of this thing.
And I think that you mentioned at the beginning that we're coming to the end of something.
And to me, I think we are coming to the end of that sort of FDR empire, right?
Now, very obviously, America is losing ground abroad.
I don't say that joyfully.
It just simply is the case.
People are looking for other arrangements in certain areas of the globe.
And so, you know, I think that looking at that kind of post-war consensus as normal, right, the null state, that might have been true within the last hundred years, but I think that just changing material conditions as America goes from being an empire to a quote unquote normal country again, we will have to shift.
And one of the other things about republics, right, is that republics tend to be more homogenous polities, right?
They tend to have a lot of assumed value.
We argue about a relatively small percent of what's up for the human condition, right?
Like we'll argue about maybe minor points of foreign policy or how to run the state.
And you see this in the debates between Kennedy and Nixon, for example, right?
That they speak to each other very respectfully.
They'll say things like, oh, we agree on the end state, but we disagree on how to get there.
And so what we've seen is as that crack has widened, as the dialect has increased its scope to the point where the very nature of what it is to be man and woman, right?
The two basic categories of humans, or even what it is to be human, have entered the scope of politics.
And this is really because of how the left works, right?
The left works by pulling apart and breaking apart bonds to release power, right?
It's like splitting an atom.
You get a ton of political energy, power, but you're also left with this sort of radioactive sludge.
And really, that's the situation we're in.
We're sort of left in radioactive sludge.
And what is up for debate has gone so totalizing that really these two factions cannot live together because we are no longer two factions in a republic arguing about like, oh, should we veer to the right or veer to the left?
It's a war of belief.
We're arguing things that are not necessarily policy propositions, right?
Like when's the last time you heard anyone talk about policy?
It is these fundamental questions, what is a man, what is a woman?
And so when it talks about what does my end state look like, it is a non-politicized country, right?
A country where obviously politics always exists, but politics is confined to governance, not to, you know, what is it to be a man?
What is it to be a woman?
You know, what is good?
You know, are you a murderer for eating meat, something like that?
And so to me, I see that as an end goal.
And when I look at epochs in the past, even relatively recent ones, I see depoliticized eras.
Now, obviously, Americans have always really enjoyed politics, right?
Like you can read back to even 200 years ago and people would get into riots and fights over local racism.
That's probably healthy.
But there's a difference between that and, you know, I am going to burn down the whole country because I feel aggrieved because of certain special interests, right?
Or, you know, I demand that you refer to me, a 230-pound Alabama linebacker, as a woman because I put on a dress, right?
To me, I think that is a reasonable ask.
So I have to ask this now, that one of the things I hear a lot of young people talking about is the role of one religion and two race.
And it seems obvious to me that many of the problems that the postmodern philosophers have emanate from the fact that they have lost their faith, that they're basically looking at a universe that has no other meaning than the matter in front of them.
They even say that.
And so, of course, even language starts to have no meaning.
You can say a man is a woman.
It doesn't have any valence whatsoever.
It's like there's no reason not to say it.
And of course, the left has gone a long way to tearing us apart over race.
And They're now demonizing white men, which I think is a really bad idea since they're still in the majority, but also because they have a lot of the expertise that you're talking about.
And I don't blame young people for young white men for feeling angry about that.
I'm concerned about it because I think that racialism basically has a pretty ugly history.
But I'm wondering where what you see in the future when you talk about the idea of, okay, Jay Burden gets everything he wants.
What is our ethnic makeup?
What is our religious makeup?
Are those things, can we maintain the basically kind of open, free society that we have?
Or does that have to change?
So sure.
I think that one of the things, and that open society is a useful phrase to go at.
I think that we have to realize there are certain things we may personally enjoy and have benefited from that probably led us here.
And I think about, for instance, you can see this in the economic space when it comes to something like globalism, right?
I benefit from the fact that Jeff Bezos can ship me cheap stuff at a moment's notice, right?
I like that, but that's probably not great for society.
And so let's kind of put those in two separate boxes.
So let's take the ugly one first, which is race.
And I sort of share your kind of distaste for just out and out racialism.
It's kind of gross and it's a little bit, it can be sort of mean spirited, right?
And that's not the direction I want to take this.
But I think that one of the things that we are going to have to address is what does a kind of fair society look like?
And I think that we can take that one of two directions, right?
Which is the leftward path, which is full equity, right?
You will get the same thing.
And from a certain perspective, that's fair, but I view that as tremendously unjust, right?
Because you are giving people not what they deserve.
But if we give people what they deserve, we are going to have unequal outcome.
And so to me, I'm not particularly interested in micromanaging those unequal outcomes.
They will shake out.
Like, I'm sorry, I will never be a world-class sprinter.
And as long as there isn't a government apparatus designed to make me one or punish people until I am made one, I think that's probably something we can do.
I think that, you know, there's an obsession on certain parts of the radical right about kind of like race science.
And they may not even be wrong, but I think it's very possible to have a society where that's something that you can talk about like adults, right?
You can say like, okay, you know, people of African descent tend to have sickle cell at higher rates.
And I think that part of the reason that has so much mystique is that it is so anathematized.
It's something you can't touch.
But I think that we can talk about this like adults and say like, yes, okay, there are population level differences, but it's generally rude.
You shouldn't, without knowing someone, make that assumption.
I think that's something we can do as adults.
Also, if we talk about national identity, I think that this idea that nationhood is simply kind of a simple choice of assent, right?
You get to pick what you are.
You can pick your sexuality.
You can pick what kind of person where you're from.
I think that that's a really bad idea.
And I think that wanting to stop the needle and say, well, it's ridiculous to say that I am XYZ gender, but anyone can be French.
French is probably a bad example, but anyone could be English.
Anyone can be German.
I think that we have to realize that that is a continuum, right?
That idea progressed from one category to the other.
And in America, it's a little bit tough, right?
Because America has been fed by different waves of immigration.
But I think if we're honest, we look at the 1964 Immigration Act and see that the country radically changes before and after.
Obviously, there are still minority groups in America.
But before and after, things dramatically change.
And the kind of replacement level migration we've seen more and more and more really begins its genesis there.
And I see that as a very bad thing.
And it's bad for a number of reasons.
One, it doesn't actually solve the problems of these countries we're pulling people from.
We're kind of just stealing their smartest people and leaving them immiserated.
And also, I think it's kind of a bad way to go about politics to just say, hey, if you have a problem, leave and come here, right?
That sets up very perverse incentives.
But also, it is part of the reason that that crack in culture that we've been talking about has really been exacerbated.
Because to be honest, right, the way that someone who is kind of bone deep drenched in the myths of America, right?
The cultural narratives of America is very different from someone even with the best intentions who's been here for two years, who's been here for five years.
And does that mean that we put a wall up and don't let anyone in?
No.
But 10 million people is quite a lot of people, you know, since Biden's taken office.
And that will change the culture.
And I think that, you know, one of the things that I love about older movies, right, is looking back into a world where different groups of people are truly different, right?
Like you'll go to France and you'll see a guy with a beret in a baguette, you know, smoking a cigarette.
Cultural Narratives Matter00:01:32
You know, you'll go to Africa and see someone in traditional garb.
You'll go to South America and see someone with llamas.
And as society has become more and more globalized, those edges are being worn off.
You can go find a Starbucks in any major city in the world.
And there are certainly nice things about that.
But I think that we have to recognize that these categories, male, female, these countries, these cultures, are real.
And there's something good and well-ordered about having those barriers.
And so don't get me wrong.
Like I recognize that there are differences between different cultures and different racial groups.
I think that's a good thing.
And I think it's something we need to address, but we can do it without kind of, you know, being overly chauvinistic or antagonizing each other on racial or cultural lines.
All right.
I got to stop there, unfortunately.
I really enjoyed talking to you.
Where can people find your stuff?
So sure.
The J Burden show is my primary output.
You can find that on Apple, Spotify, YouTube, anywhere you listen to podcasts.
At the same, you can also find me on Substack.
It's a blogging platform under the same name.
And again, Andrew, thank you so much for the opportunity.
I really enjoyed speaking to you.
Yeah, no, I really enjoyed listening to you.
I'll be listening to your show and I'll have you back.
I hope you'll come back another time.
Yeah, thank you very much.
All right.
I'm glad I did that.
Really interesting talk.
I'm a little less despairing than I was.
And I hope you will come to the show on Friday for the Andrew Clavin Show.