How did Ash St. Clair get involved with right‑wing politics?
She says she was impressionable entering college, joined Turning Point/young conservative groups for belonging and validation, and quickly rose as a social media personality.
Video Summary
Ash St. Clair recounts joining the right as an impressionable college influencer and later rejecting that ecosystem.
Conservative influencer culture is often performative, monetized, and coordinated with political actors.
Elon Musk's Twitter stewardship is portrayed as amplifying extremist sentiment and wielding data and platform power.
Astroturfing and fake youth engagement (e.g., Turning Point chapters) distort perceptions of grassroots support.
Monetary offers (NFTs, platform deals) drive ethical compromises in some media operators; St. Clair says she refused big payouts.
She says she was impressionable entering college, joined Turning Point/young conservative groups for belonging and validation, and quickly rose as a social media personality.
They argue Musk opened space for extremist sentiment, shared internal data that could affect elections, and used platform design to shape political behavior.
Hasan and Ash describe them as angling for media opportunities, repeating talking points, and prioritizing monetization and clout over genuine ideology.
Yes — the guests describe group chats and cross‑pollination between influencers and campaign officials that help coordinate messaging.
She cites moral conflict over lucrative offers, personal disillusionment with the movement's rhetoric, and a desire to consume better information and surround herself with authentic people.
"This is the first ever broadcast where we have microphones. It's a big deal."
Hasanabi introduces Ash St. Clair, noting that this is their first live broadcast with microphones, highlighting the significance of the technical setup.
The conversation begins with a lighthearted acknowledgment of St. Clair's previous reputation as "Elon Musk's baby mama," which St. Clair acknowledges.
"I used to be a right-wing reactionary conservative influencer."
St. Clair discusses her background in right-wing politics, stating she became involved around the age of 18 or 19 while in college.
She mentions quickly ascending within the right-wing community, including tweeting about her political beliefs and participating in events like Young Women's Leadership conferences.
"I was very impressionable, and I'm like, this seems so cool."
St. Clair recounts her experiences attending a Trump rally just before starting college, which contributed to her initial acceptance into right-wing circles.
She candidly states that she lacked a defined worldview at the time, and her motivations were partly driven by a desire for validation and a sense of belonging among her peers.
"I was talking about healthcare, and I was on my dad's plan."
At college, St. Clair engaged with political clubs but admits that much of her understanding was superficial, driven by a contrarian stance rather than deep ideological knowledge.
Her background as a homeschooled individual in a small town in Montana played a significant role in her later political engagement, where she sought to fit in with the predominantly conservative group at the University of Colorado.
"Nobody cared when I was dating an ugly, broke man."
St. Clair discusses her experiences dating within conservative circles, revealing the social dynamics and rumors that surrounded her.
Her relationship with DC Drano—a well-known conservative figure—led her to drop out of college, as he guided her into becoming a social media influencer.
"He's telling me what to write on the sign outside of the ICE detention center."
St. Clair describes how her partner at the time significantly influenced her actions and public persona, pushing her to adopt specific messaging in her activist efforts.
She reflects on the transformative nature of this relationship, illustrating the impact of her surroundings and associations on her ideologies and actions.
"I feel like a lot of the younger crop of conservative influencers, they’re very clearly angling for some kind of media opportunity. They're not actually genuine."
The discussion centers around the perceived lack of authenticity among younger conservative influencers. Many are seen as opportunistic rather than truly believing in the ideologies they espouse.
The participants express skepticism, suggesting that these influencers often do not engage deeply with the content they promote, likening their behavior to merely "repeating fed talking points."
It is mentioned that a prominent figure in the conservative movement, Nick Fuentes, stands out because he demonstrates a degree of literacy and a sophisticated worldview, which contrasts with the superficial knowledge of many others in the space.
"It's fascinating because American politics is being consumed by everyone around the world, and they're all posing as Americans."
The conversation shifts to the global interest in American politics, noting that individuals from outside the U.S. are heavily influenced by and engage with American political figures and contexts.
Participants remark on how audiences outside America often identify with American political commentary, suggesting a unique dynamic where non-Americans are actively participating in U.S. political discourse.
This phenomenon raises questions about the authenticity and motivations of these foreign audiences, as they consume and sometimes co-opt American political narratives while lacking voting rights in the U.S.
"Most of these guys within MAGA were total losers in high school and college... This is their redemption now."
The dialogue touches on the personal backgrounds of many individuals within the MAGA movement, suggesting that their past experiences of being social outcasts fuel their current fervor for right-wing ideologies.
There is an exploration of how these individuals may find validation and a sense of belonging through their political affiliations, effectively transforming their past grievances into a form of empowerment.
It is noted that this pervasive sentiment can lead to a level of paranoia and a disconnect from reality, as many of these individuals cling to the narratives that validate their current status.
"It's just very frustrating that these guys, when they don't have anything to lose, only then do they openly admit that this kind of stuff is awful."
The speaker expresses frustration regarding political spoilers, particularly within the Republican party.
They note that some individuals only acknowledge wrongdoing when they are not in danger of facing repercussions.
This highlights a perceived opportunism among political figures who may change their stance based on personal risk rather than ethical considerations.
"Democrats that have nothing to lose will always be the one spoiler vote that will go in caucus with the Republicans."
The dynamics between the Democratic and Republican parties are contrasted, with the speaker noting a peculiar inverse relationship.
Democrats who have less to lose tend to be the ones who side with Republicans, creating an environment where important votes may not go as intended.
This observation suggests a troubling trend in bipartisan politics, where individual agendas override party lines.
"Thank you for the pastries, but it says, 'Happy Father's Day.'"
The conversation shifts to a light-hearted exchange where gifts are being opened, including pastries.
The humor arising from the pastries being labeled for Father’s Day adds a personal touch to the discussion, highlighting camaraderie and friendliness.
Such interactions provide a balance to the otherwise serious political discussions occurring in the video.
"I'm trying to do that to the best of my ability."
The speaker discusses the phenomenon of being clipped for media, particularly as a strategy to appeal to a broader audience.
They have realized that showing a more polished image, such as wearing a suit, helps in gaining acceptance among certain demographics.
This touches on the broader implications of how public figures curate their image to influence perceptions and enhance their reach on social media platforms.
"I have an army of hate watchers as well that sit in Discord servers."
The speaker reveals the existence of a dedicated group of individuals who monitor and potentially misrepresent their content online.
This harassment is part of a larger phenomenon where vocal opposition leverages social media for personal attacks, often in a misleading manner.
The discussion raises concerns about the impact of online behaviors on public discourse and the mental well-being of those targeted.
"It's like headline consumers."
Here, the speaker critiques the tendency for audiences, especially within right-wing circles, to consume media through brief clips and headlines rather than in-depth articles.
This superficial engagement with information limits critical understanding and leads to a misinformed public, resulting in fragmented narratives.
The discussion emphasizes the importance of comprehensive media consumption for a well-informed citizenry, especially in a politically charged environment.
"Whose face mask is this?" "I thought it was yours."
"Look at the sky. Look at the stars."
"You're one weird person. That's how you respond to me saying you're obsessed with my sloppy seconds."
"She would say she had premonitions and visions."
"Does that give them more legitimacy in this movement?"
"He's claiming to be Jewish."
"Are they just claiming to be Jewish?"
"Sarah is really a nice person."
"She tried to start an ISIS fan club and the college was like, 'No, you're expelled for trying to start an ISIS fan club.'"
Laura Loomer, known for her extreme views, attempted to establish an ISIS fan club at her college, which led to her expulsion. This incident was a pivotal moment in her controversial political career.
The irony of her situation highlights not only her misguided actions but also her persistence in doubling down on her views, as she continues to hold a significant presence in the conservative scene despite being banned from multiple platforms for Islamophobia.
"She's just like the thug they use, and she has no redeeming qualities."
Loomer has become a notorious figure within conservative circles, often recognized for her provocative behavior rather than any substantial political ideology.
Her antics, including the infamous incident where she locked herself to Twitter headquarters, showcase a trend in modern politics where sensationalism often overshadows meaningful dialogue.
"Trump cares about the physical appearance of the people around him."
The conversation takes a turn to reflect on the importance of physical appearance in political circles, especially regarding figures in Trump's inner circle, including Loomer.
The commentary suggests that Trump values aesthetics and how individuals are perceived, using Loomer's image as an example, which raises questions about the deeper implications of such values in leadership.
"If they're denaturalizing someone like myself, that means everyone else is already in the camps."
The discussion touches upon the fear of deportation that Loomer perpetuates, countered by the realization that such actions could lead to widespread implications for many citizens.
The speaker reflects on their own status and how they view themselves in the context of political attacks, indicating a sense of security due to their visibility and status as a media figure, which contrasts sharply with the experiences of marginalized individuals.
"There's always been hatchet men and operatives that have led colorful lives."
The dialogue emphasizes that figures like Loomer, who display erratic behavior, are often rewarded in politics, suggesting a disturbing trend where sensationalism can lead to success rather than accountability.
The reference to historical figures like Roger Stone further reinforces this notion, illustrating a pattern where controversial and flamboyant personalities thrive within political arenas.
"The entire movement is comprised of people like this. It's basically turned into an insane movement led by insane people with no real ideological agenda."
The current political landscape is characterized by a faction that lacks a coherent ideological framework and is primarily rallied behind Donald Trump.
The discussion raises the question of whether Donald Trump can be categorized as a genuine ideological fascist, noting that he appears to be more opportunistic than ideologically driven.
Trump's actions are motivated by a desire for power, often aligning with those who consolidate this power.
"The base is being fractured away from Trump. There's a very small percentage of people, at least from 2015 to 2024, that is fracturing severely."
The conversation highlights that the MAGA movement is experiencing divisions, with key figures such as Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and Megan Kelly distancing themselves or fracturing from Trump’s influence.
The relevance of female voters, particularly white women, in supporting Trump's initial election victory is examined, suggesting that influencers like Candace Owens hold significant sway in this demographic.
The nuances of influence within the MAGA base are explored, with contrasting opinions on the actual impact of various figures in promoting or fracturing support for Trump.
"I have a very successful media operation on my own, but it's entirely funded by subscriptions."
The discussion transitions to the financial structures supporting political media operations, with the speaker contrasting their successful subscription-based model with that of other right-leaning media platforms.
Insights into revenue generation highlight how figures in the media landscape balance ethical considerations against the potential for corporate sponsorship.
This segment underscores the dynamics of funding and influence within political media and the tension between personal values and financial opportunities.
"No is not in their vocabulary when it comes to money."
The conversation highlights how some people, especially in financial sectors, disregard ethical considerations in favor of monetary gain, leading to an influx of offers related to NFTs.
The speaker recounts being approached with lucrative deals to promote NFTs, stating, "They would just straight up want to give me piles of cash."
Despite these tempting offers amounting to millions, the speaker maintains a stance against participating in what they perceive as a scam, noting a strong moral compass in rejecting such deals.
"They offered you a million dollars for just one day of coverage for the election."
The speaker shares an instance where Poly Market proposed a significant sum of money for mere coverage during the election, emphasizing that the starting price was a million dollars.
They further elaborate that despite the temptation of such an offer, they opted out, implying that recognizable integrity outweighs financial incentives.
"I think a lot of the conservative ecosystem relies on..."
The discussion delves into the dynamics of media and perception within the conservative ecosystem, comparing its practices to those of established outlets like the New York Times in terms of metrics.
The speaker points out that there are manipulative strategies at play, referencing instances where success or popularity is artificially engineered.
"Elon followed me, slided into my DMs."
The speaker shares a personal anecdote about Elon Musk reaching out after he acquired Twitter, demonstrating a unique web of connections within the media and technology sectors.
They describe the feeling of being elevated within a certain community due to this connection, saying, "I was like, 'Our savior, our new cult leader has followed me.'"
This experience extends to interactions where the speaker received messages of congratulations from conservative circles, signifying the cultural weight that such connections carry.
"He got so much weirder... just changed completely towards you."
The speaker reflects on the notable changes in Elon's behavior after a significant life event, observing that he became more controlling and less pleasant.
They recount various awkward moments, such as discussions about childbirth choices, pointing out the oddity behind his suggestions which included using surrogates.
The discussion touches on how disconcerting it is to witness a friend undergo such a dramatic transformation—“It just got really weird.”
"There's this constant need for admiration that he has."
The conversation reflects on Elon Musk's personality traits, particularly his desperation for admiration, which draws a parallel to former President Trump.
There is an implication that Musk has a desire for those who may dislike him to actually like him, showcasing a complex relationship with his public persona.
"He tweets about me all the time, which at first was like…"
Hasan expresses concern about Musk's frequent tweets mentioning him personally, suggesting that it initially seemed amusing but has taken a turn towards unwanted attention.
The hosts joke about inappropriate comments, highlighting how the conversation veers into personal territory while maintaining a comedic tone.
"If he like ended up banning me after this interaction, it would probably be good for my mental health."
There is a candid acknowledgment of the detrimental effects social media platforms like Twitter can have on mental health, with Hasan stating that being banned might actually benefit him.
The hosts share their mutual discontent with Twitter's atmosphere, acknowledging how it has worsened over time, even for those who used to enjoy the platform.
"There is definitely a lot more cross-pollination across different vectors."
The discussion delves into the potential shift in political funding tactics, with an emphasis on how certain organizations, like Turning Point USA, appear to be heavily funded while presenting themselves as grassroots movements.
The notion of "astroturfing" is introduced, suggesting that the increase in financial backing creates a facade of grassroots support that is actually orchestrated.
"There’s members of the Trump administration during the campaign that had messaging within this group chat."
The hosts discuss the sophisticated coordination among right-wing influencers and political figures, referencing group chats used by members of the Trump administration for strategic messaging.
By shedding light on this organized effort, they highlight the level of planning involved in shaping political narratives and responses in the digital age.
"TikTok was a major role in this...because Trump saw the boost that he got in the youth vote."
The conversation points out the significant influence of TikTok on youth engagement and the political landscape, especially how Trump recognized its importance during elections.
The potential for the platform to sway younger voters is emphasized, clarifying that the popularity of right-wing influencers on TikTok can directly impact political decisions at the executive level.
"So many of the Turning Point chapters are fake."
The hosts reveal that many claimed chapters of Turning Point USA do not exist, suggesting a deliberate strategy to mislead older conservative constituents into believing there is substantial youth engagement.
This contributes to an understanding of how organizations leverage false pretenses to gather funding while failing to engage their stated target demographic meaningfully.
"I mean, you became a Republican operative, so that's what I mean."
The discussion highlights the journey of an individual who transitioned from being a young college activist to a Republican operative, emphasizing an initial alignment with the values of the right-wing media ecosystem.
The speaker reflects on how they were good at articulating and internalizing conservative talking points during their formative years.
"Most of the people in the admin are incredibly self-serving; they don't actually have convictions besides like white nationalism."
The conversation critiques various conservative figures and their motives, suggesting that many lack genuine belief and instead pursue self-serving interests.
It contrasts authentic conservative actors, like deeply religious proponents, with those perceived as opportunistic, indicating a spectrum of sincerity in political alignment.
"Did Elon play a role in stealing the 2024 election?"
A significant portion of the dialogue centers on Elon Musk's potential influence over election dynamics, particularly through his actions and communications surrounding the 2024 election.
The speaker cites concrete examples, such as Musk sharing confidential internal data and metrics related to voter behavior, raising ethical questions about billionaire influence in politics.
"He opened up the faucet of neo-Nazi sentiment on Twitter very deliberately."
The implications of social media under Musk's direction are examined, suggesting that he intentionally facilitated the rise of extremist sentiments online to bolster his influence.
The analogy to Cambridge Analytica illustrates the aggressive manipulation of social media to shape political narratives and public opinion, highlighting the dangerous intersection of wealth and information control in contemporary politics.
"He is using Twitter to change people's minds in a certain way."
Musk's engagement with social media platforms, particularly Twitter, is seen as a tactical effort to influence public perception and behavior. His methods have raised concerns about the overall impact on society, particularly in terms of people's intelligence and the prevalence of reactionary behaviors.
The speaker highlights that this strategy has been effective, leading to a more divisive and hostile environment. Interestingly, it raises questions about the content policies on these platforms, suggesting that content critical of specific topics, such as Israel, may still circulate freely, contrasting with the treatment of other dissenting voices.
"The data on revolutions is really, really valuable."
There is an underlying focus on collecting behavioral data, especially during times of civil unrest or crises. The mention of deploying technology, such as Starlink in areas experiencing revolutions, indicates a strategic interest in obtaining valuable insights from these situations.
Surveillance companies and tech firms are actively logging data from chaotic environments to map out behaviors and operational patterns, providing potential profit opportunities from this information. This data is perceived as critical to understanding and managing crisis situations, even extending to hospitals' operational decisions.
"Israel doesn’t care about anti-Semitism as long as they're benefiting from technology."
The discussion reveals a complex relationship between Musk and his connections with Israel. While Musk has been accused of promoting anti-Semitic sentiments through his platform, his ties with Israeli technology benefit imply a selective approach to condemnation.
The conversation points to the disturbing reality that the discourse around anti-Semitism may shift based on the perceived advantages of technological collaborations, suggesting a transactional nature to such relationships where ethical concerns are secondary to innovation and profit.
"Elon Musk has a very clear worldview; I can't fully understand it, but it's some kind of esoteric fascism."
Analysis of Musk's worldview uncovers elements of eugenics and troubling societal concepts that raise alarms about his perspective, particularly in the context of doing business and global influence.
The contrast in his behavior—commanding vast power while exhibiting what seems like childish naivety—raises questions about the foundations of his beliefs and decision-making processes, potentially indicative of a disconnection from reality and moral responsibility.
"Changing your political beliefs is blowing up your entire life."
A personal reflection highlights the immense difficulty of shifting political ideologies, especially when deeply intertwined with one's social and financial life. Fear of losing one's community or facing backlash can keep individuals aligned with views they might question internally.
The speaker's account of a pivotal moment, triggered by a lucrative NDA offer, underlines the personal and moral dilemmas faced when confronted with a choice between financial gain and integrity, emphasizing the profound impact such decisions can have on one's life trajectory.
"I feel so much regret for being a part of that rhetoric."
The speaker discusses their experience of navigating between personal comfort and doing what they believe is right.
They express a sense of remorse for contributing to harmful rhetoric in the past, highlighting a disconnect from their previous beliefs and associations, particularly with MAGA individuals.
The speaker recognizes that their past experiences led to a difficult decision to leave a damaging situation, indicating a deep sense of disillusionment with their prior lifestyle.
"I'm just happy to be out and to consume real information and real books."
The speaker shares a sense of liberation from toxic environments and a renewed focus on engaging with authentic sources of information.
They emphasize the importance of surrounding themselves with genuine people instead of those who contribute to negative narratives.
This shift signifies a desire for a more meaningful and grounded life after being immersed in a politically charged and damaging community.
"That was a journey. That was interesting."
The segment concludes with light-hearted conversation, reflecting on the interview experience.
The speakers engage in playful exchanges about their interests, particularly gaming, hinting at a transition from serious discussions to friendship and camaraderie.
This light-hearted wrapping up reinforces a sense of community and connection among the speakers, contrasting with the earlier serious tone of the dialogue.