In a world full of lies and deception, it takes courage to speak the truth. In a nation hell bent on its own destruction, it takes honor to seek return to glory. Join us in cutting through the lies. Join us in cutting through the propaganda.

Join us as we seek the truth on cutting through the fog from the America Out Loud Network. And here’s your host, Wallace Garneau. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Cutting Through the Chaos of the America Out Loud Network, where we cut through the lies in the propaganda to bring you the out loud truth. I’m your host, Wallace Garneau, and I want to talk today about the alt-right.

Now, I don’t normally use this podcast to attack individuals, but I want to say very, very plainly that Tucker Carlson has become a political hack. I’m going to stop short of accusing him of taking money from Guitar to amplify anti-Semitic narratives, but only because I lack proof. Guitar does pay influencers to push similar messages to the anti-Semitism that Tucker Carlson is smearing. And he’s always been a bit of a political chameleon who gravitates toward whatever position serves his career.

Let’s be honest about Tucker Carlson. He started out with MSNBC, moved on to Fox News, all of a sudden he’s a conservative, gets fired from Fox News, and now he’s bringing on some horrific human some horrific people with horrific beliefs, and then giving softball interviews to people like Nick Fuentes. Now, in my view, both Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens were absolutely damaged when Fox News and the Daily Wire severed ties with them. That’s Fox News with Tucker and Daily Wire with Candace Owens.

And I I get it. How it can’t be easy to go from being one of the most recognizable voices in American media, and then the next day you’re someone with a fraction of the same audience. I I get the under I I totally understand the temptation to chase relevance, and I see, when you’re used to the fame, maybe you’re chasing that relevance even at the expense of your own conscience. See, there’s a huge difference between chasing reach and chasing fame.

Reach places your arguments in the national conversation. I look for reach. I’m on America out loud because it can give me more reach than I can get in my own. So I’m searching for reach because reach is how you become, at least you make your arguments relevant.

But that’s just getting people to hear the argument. That’s not the same as fame. Fame gets you recognized in airports. That’s the difference.

Reach makes your arguments a part of the national conversation and makes them relevant in the national stage. It’s not about you, it’s about what you have to say. It’s about important things. It’s not, it’s not about you.

Fame is about you. Fame is when I go to the airport, I want people to ask for my autograph. I want people to want a selfie with me. That’s fame.

And there’s a difference between chasing those two things. If you’re chasing reach, it’s still about the argument. So truth is important. You want to get the truth out there.

You want to get your perspective out there. You want to get the argument out there. Fame, well, when you’re chasing fame rather than reach, you’re surrendering to pride, and those who are surrendered to pride are far more likely to sacrifice the truth. Because now it’s about being famous.

Now it’s about having my name out there. Now it’s about people thinking that I’m a great guy and that I’m an important person, and that’s fame. And that’s what I believe happened with Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens. I think that they started to chase fame rather than trying to have reach.

With Tucker, I think this goes all the way back to MSNBC. He was liberal in MSNBC, he left there, went to Fox News, he was conservative on Fox News, and now I don’t know that I know exactly what he is. He when he brought on Nick Fuentes, I’ve got to be honest, I didn’t even know who Nick Fuentes was, and I’d never heard of the griper movement until after Charlie Kirk’s death, when all of a sudden the media claimed that the shooter was a griper on the political right. I didn’t know what a griper was.

I had to go to Google and look it up. What I found was a figure who looked a lot like a young Richard Spencer. In other words, I saw somebody on the alt right. My reaction to Nick Fuentes was frankly that he was insignificant until all of a sudden Tucker Carlson gave him a softball interview that seemed designed to smuggle Hitler is cool and Stalin is my idol into the Overton window.

What I want to do as a principled conservative is to make sure that ideas like that do not enter the Overton window. There are certain things that we should there’s certain things that are untrue that are conspiracies that we just they’re not things that conservatives should be trying to afford. They’re not things that we want on the national stage. We certainly don’t want to be associated with them.

Some of those things include that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. They’re not. What’s happening in Gaza is that Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, and made it very, very clear, killing 1,200 civilians in some cases ridiculously horrific ways. There were multiple women who had recently given birth who were gang raped while they were forced to watch their babies cooked in microwave ovens.

This is the thing that Hamas did. And then of course, when they were done gang raping the mother, they shot the mother. They killed entire families. They attacked a concert and raped and killed the people of horrific, horrific things.

And when they were done, what they said is understand that this is October 7th, but to us that’s just a date. We’re gonna do this again and again and again and again and again until either we or Israel is wiped off the face of the earth. That’s what Hamas said. And 1200 people, people talk about proportional response.

War isn’t proportional. When we attacked the Nazis, we didn’t say, well, you only killed this many people, so that’s all the of all of your soldiers that we’re gonna kill. When we attacked Japan, we didn’t say, well, only about 1,500 people died at Pearl Harbor or whatever the number was, and so that’s all we’re gonna kill. No, we said we’re gonna defeat you in war, we’re gonna remove you from power, and we’re gonna rebuild your country in a different image with a different mindset.

There’s nothing proportional about war. You fight war to win, or you don’t fight at all. So that’s what is happening in Gaza is that Israel was attacked on October 7th. Hamas said one of us is going to be destroyed, and Israel said, well, it’s not gonna be us.

That’s what happened. And then in terms of civilian deaths in the Gaza Strip, is as much of a tragedy as that is. When I went when I was training to go to Iraq, I didn’t go to Iraq. My training ended after the Iraq war was already over.

But what we were trained to do, and I was in training during the first Persian Gulf War. What we were trained to do was to go into Iraq and take out legitimate military targets wherever we happened to find them. If you have a tank that isn’t a playground with children playing on it, you don’t want to kill the children, but you are gonna take out the tank. And if there are children playing on the tank, those children are gonna become collateral damage because the tank is a legitimate military target that needs to be taken out, and it is the fault of the Saddam Hussein in that case, if there are children playing on the tank.

Don’t put the tank in a playground because we’re going to destroy it. Well, it’s the same thing with Hamas. If you don’t want to have a hospital blown up, don’t put your headquarters underneath it. If you don’t want to have civilian apartment complexes bombed, don’t put a rocket launcher on the roof.

There are rules of war. What Israel is doing is taking out legitimate military targets. They’re doing it as precisely as they can. And unfortunately, Hamas’s policy is we’re gonna make you kill as many civilians as we possibly can in pursuit of those legitimate military targets.

Hamas, in some cases, has sent civilians out toward Israeli IDF aid stations and then shot through their own civilians to fire at the Israelis that are giving out aid, trying to get the Israelis to then open fire and also shoot the civilians. This is the stuff Hamas does. Hamas is an horrific organization. They do not deserve to exist, and Israel has been destroyed.

Right now there’s a ceasefire, I don’t think it’s gonna last. There are both sides are saying the other side is not following the ceasefire. I don’t think it’s gonna last. But I put the blame for this entirely on Hamas.

If Hamas laid down their weapons today, you would have peace. If Israel laid down their weapons today, Hamas and Hezbollah would go through Israel and kill all of the Jewish people. And not just the Jewish people, by the way. Hamas kills Muslims in Israel too, because they view them as Muslims that are supporting, and they are supporting Israel.

The freest Muslims in the entire Middle East and the entire part of the entire Islamic portion of the world. The freest Muslims in that entire region are the ones living in Israel. And that may not be a truth you want to hear. Maybe you’re an anti-Semite that would like to see the Jews dead.

I don’t know. If you are, please turn please don’t listen to me. I don’t want, I don’t I’m not anti-Semitic, I don’t have tolerance for it. I guess that’s that’s my point here.

And Israel is fighting for its survival. So I have all of the respect for that that I can give that. Does that mean I agree with everything Israel might ever do? Of course not.

It doesn’t mean that I agree with everything Neton that Ben that Ben that Netanyahu does, Benjamin Netanyahu. It doesn’t mean that you can disagree with. People and matters of policy, that doesn’t make you an anti-Semite. But when you’re talking about from the river to the sea, that does.

When you’re blaming Jewish people for every moral failing that happens anywhere on earth, which is what Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens have been doing, that does. Nick Fuentes did not like Charlie Kirk. Well, okay, so him and Charlie Kirk didn’t get along. I think that was more one-sided, Nick Fuentes attacking Charlie Kirk.

But when Candace Owens raises conspiracies about how Charlie Kirk’s wife might have been implicated in Charlie Kirk’s death, that he was killed by the Israelis, and that our government was involved, and that Charlie Kirk’s wife was, no, that’s just not true. That’s not true. If somebody on the political right wants to say that Michelle Obama has a penis, I say the same thing. I’ve got a friend who died recently, and one of the one of the things that, one of the things I think he was surprised about when he went to heaven.

He wore a mega hat every day. He was exactly what people on the left say people on the right are. And I think the first thing that he said when he got to heaven is, holy smoke, she doesn’t have a penis. So there are people who believe things that are not true.

That’s my point. And the notion that Charlie Kirk’s wife or that Donald Trump or that Israel had anything to do with his death, there’s just no evidence for that. And if you’re going to make those claims, you should have evidence. So, yeah, I think that I think that Tucker Carlson is unfortunately become a political hack.

I think Candace Owens has unfortunately become a political hack. And my goal is to make sure that some of the people they’re giving reach to, not just Nick Fuentes, he’s just an example. I want to make sure that such people do not enter the Overton window, and that we continue to call out the bad things they say as bad. No, Hitler is not cool.

No, Tucker Carlson should not be anybody’s idol. The world is a better place without them in it. That’s just truth. That’s just how it is.

So I want to keep those kinds of things out of the Overton window. Now, I can do a point, excuse Fuentes. He’s a 27-year-old. I used to be 27.

I know what it’s like to be 27. 27 is old enough to know better, but not always old enough to necessarily do better. You have intelligence, you have knowledge at that point. You don’t always have a lot of wisdom.

Also, being 27 today means that the second world war is far enough removed from him that he doesn’t know anybody who fought in it and has no emotional connection to it. When I was just a little bit younger than him, I was stationed in Germany. I actually threw a German American group got to know a number of Germans nationals very, very well. When they found out that my father was a history teacher, that I had a tremendous amount of knowledge, specifically about World War I, World War II, and the interwar era.

I got to meet some of their fathers and uncles and what have you, some of whom had fought in the war, some of whom were in the SS during the war. And I got to most of them didn’t speak English, but of course the one their sons or nephews did, so I was able to, through a translator, have conversations with some of these people. So, it was fascinating, and in some ways it was very, very chilling to a person, those that were in the SS that I talked to, not every member of the SS, obviously, but those who had been in the SS that I talked to, to a person thought that Hitler did the right thing. There was they were still very, very supportive of the Holocaust.

Their perspective was it was total war. We believe that the Jewish populations of the areas we were invading might be helping the enemy, and so we couldn’t find all the partisans, but we could find the Jews. That was the thing that they would say to justify in their minds the Holocaust. Well, there is no justification for the Holocaust.

You can’t just take out an entire group of people like that. Mass murder, there’s just no, there’s no excuse for that. So when somebody says Hitler was cool, I’m afraid no, that’s not the case. But I get that Fuentes and that many other young people don’t really have an emotional connection to World War II.

It’s like the civil war for my generation, maybe World War I for my generation to a point, when I was when I was his age, everybody from World War I was still alive was very, very old. So, you lose that emotional connection to it. And as a consequence, the horrific things that happened, they understand them in history, but they’re not connected to it emotionally the way somebody who’s a little bit older is. They lack that wisdom.

And so I I can understand how to him and his followers those historical references might as well be about Caligula and ancient Rome. Like like some of the younger uses in 4chan, they probably think that the outrage they’re causing is funny. They probably laugh about everybody getting upset at the horrific things that Nick Fuentes says because he’s talking about things that happened far enough before he was born that he doesn’t really understand an emotional level how bad what he says is. I would say that at best, if I wanted to say this is Nick Fuentes, not the worst he might be, but the best he might be, I would say that at best he’s the political equivalent of Andrew Dice Clay.

This is a kid who seeks fame and will say anything, no matter how outrageous to get it. Like Andrew Dice Clay, he also must escalate the shock value to hold his audience’s attention. Also, like Andrew Dice Clay, he will eventually go too far, even for his own followers and burn himself out. I saw a fascinating interview with Andrew Dice Clay once after his fame when he was, he’d already burned out.

Remember, he was on Johnny Carson or what late night show it was, but he was on one of those. And they were asking him about it. And he said, you’ve got to understand. When I was a young aspiring comedian, I wanted to be the white Bill Cosby.

This is of course before the whole pill thing, and women that are knocked out, when Bill Cosby is still considered a nice guy. He said, I want to be the white Bill Cosby. I want to say things that were completely uncontroversial, want to talk about my family, all of this things happening in my life and be funny, but be funny in a way that wasn’t offensive to anybody, and nobody laughed. So he was apparently doing this for some time, and nobody would laugh.

And so one day some woman in the front row said something that triggered him, and he said something back that was very, very chauvinistic. I won’t repeat it on the air. But apparently the audience thought it was hilarious, and he said, at that moment the dice man was born. And he was very, very clear.

What you have to understand is I am not Andrew Dice Clay in my everyday life. My wife would beat me if I was. I am Andy Clay. I mow my yard, I’m a regular person.

In other words, Andrew Dice Clay is a stage character. That’s not really who he is. At best, that’s what Nick Fuentes is, is a political version of that. Somebody that says shocking things to shock an audience because the audience not knowing how to react may laugh, they may, they will react in some way, and and you grow your audience by shocking them, but it’s not real commentary, it’s just shock value.

And in fact, in the era of what I call fight or flight politics, we talked about last week, nearly everyone seems to be doing some version of Andrew Dice Clay. Shock gas currency. Andrew Dice Clay was very popular for a few years, saying hickory dickory doc, and then something that rhymes with that starts with a C, and all of that. People are so they were so shocked by the things that came out of his mouth that one of their one of the reactions that they actually call it shock comedy, one of the reactions is to laugh.

So that’s what I look at Nick Fuentes as. He’s the political equivalent of Andrew Dice Clay. And if you’re one of his followers, I’m not attacking you, I’m attacking the I’m not even really attacking him. I’m attacking the things that he says that he apparently doesn’t know he shouldn’t say.

He lacks wisdom. And so he’s gonna burn out too because Andrew Dice Clay had, it wasn’t enough just to be just to be, chauvinistic. He had to be more shocking with each show. He’d do a tour, then the next two are the same people coming to watch, he had to shock them again, and the same jokes wouldn’t be shocking.

So he had to up the ante on shock value over time continuously, and that’s what Nick Fuentes is going to have to do. If he says Hitler is cool again, well, you’ve already heard that, so that’s not going to be shocking anymore. Him saying that no longer has shock value. So now I don’t know what what you up the ante beyond Stalin is my idol and Hitler is cool, but he’s gonna have to say something more shocking than that in order to maintain his following.

And my guess is that Nick Fuentes is already nearing his expiration date, unless he can find something more shocking than Hitler was cool. The fact of the matter is that the attempt to rehabilitate or normalize this deeply troubled young man, it’s unfortunately it’s forcing us to address the elephant in the room, which is the alt-right. We have to address the alt-right directly. That’s what I’m doing today, and we must do this with clarity.

I want to be very, very clear. The alt-right is evil, and the actual right must fully disassociate itself from it. Is Nick Fuentes evil? I don’t know.

I don’t know the guy. He says evil things, and he says evil things to followers, most of whom I think are laughing. I think they think he’s more of a comedian than a serious analyst, but some of them may actually be listening to him. And let’s face it, we don’t need more Hitlers in the world.

We need to make sure there aren’t any Hitlers in the world. And if Nick Fuentes thinks Hitler was cool and Stalin is his idol, I’m sorry, there’s no place for that. There is no place for that. We need to fully disassociate ourselves from that.

I’m a big believer in defining terms, so let’s talk about what the alt-right is. We must define exactly what it is we are rejecting. When the media calls the alt-right an alternative right, that’s what they call it, an alternative. Right, that almost gets it correctly.

Not quite, but it’s almost correct to say that the alt-right is an alternative right. What it actually is, though, and I’m going to correct them here. What it actually is is an alternative to the political right, in the sense that it is also in opposition to the political left. It’s not the political right, it’s not a part of the political right.

It is a separate entity from the political right, but like the political right, it opposes the political left. Matter of fact, that’s what the word alt-right means. It means alternative to the right, not alternative part of the right, an alternative to the right. And if you look at the things that the alt-right believes, it is in fact a mutation of the left’s collectivist world view, just stripped of all the moral pretense that the left claims to have.

The alt-right, in fact, accepts every assumption the modern left holds about power, privilege, identity, all of it. They share all of that. They have all of the same views as the political left when it comes to all of that. They just differ from the left in terms of the hierarchy they want.

The left says that we need to get rid of white privilege, and the alt-right says no, white people should be on top. This is where they differ. If you take that out, if you take the racial component out and look at how they want the country run separate from that, they believe the exact same things that the that the left believes, and in fact, they believe they want a hierarchy just like the left was. They just want a different hierarchy.

They believe in identity politics. And the actual right, you and me, those listening, and we don’t believe in identity politics. We reject identity politics entirely. That’s the actual right.

The actual right sees people as individuals. We reject identity politics entirely. The American right is built on the simple premise that individuals are morally equal under both God and the law, and that moral worth is measured by action and character, not by ancestry or grievance. The alt-right rejects all of that.

Its roots are not in liberty. Its roots are in envy, collectivism, and power, which is exactly where the modern left’s roots are. They are in envy, collectivism, and power. That’s that’s what they believe, and that’s what they want.

They want to change the mechanism of power. They want on the left, they want to take it away from the white people on the right, on the alt-right, rather, they want the right the white people to have the power. This is where they disagree. Well, the actual right views both the left and the alt-right as morally flawed reflections of the same racist agenda.

It’s both, you’ve got racism on one side, racism on the other. They don’t like each other’s racism, but they’re both racist. That’s where we are today. The left is racist, the alt-right is racist, and we as principled conservatives need to reject both of those.

We need to reject racism entirely, and we need to focus on the individual as being created under God. You see, we understand how far removed the alt-right is from real conservatism. You have to understand what conservatives actually stand for. The right’s central idea is that freedom and equality come from the individual’s relationship to moral law and not from membership in any group.

The Constitution codifies that truth. Rights are endowed by the creator, not granted by governments or redistributed among groups. Conservatives reject identity politics on principle. We hold that justice cannot exist where some are favored over others, and that fairness requires moral universals that apply to everyone.

The left having abandoned universal moral law, they replaced it with hierarchies of victimhood, what I call the oppression olympics. The alt-right in turn accepts those hierarchies as legitimate. They just want to reshuffle the deck. They both want the same basic things, they just disagree with who should be on top.

See where Nick Fuentes may see a black person, a conservative sees a person created in the image of God with certain inalienable rights, who both is and ought to be equal to the rest of us. Where Nick Fuentes sees a Jew, a conservative still sees a person created in the image of God, with certain unalienable rights who both is and ought to be equal to the rest of us. Conservatives see everyone as equal under God and equal under the law. We don’t think in terms of minorities.

We think in terms of people as individuals, all created in the image of God, with certain inalienable rights. That’s how we think. That’s who we are, that’s what we believe. Now, the political left would love to bunch the alt-right in with the actual right, is doing so, it allows the political left to then pretend that conservatives are motivated by white supremacy.

This is what they claim to be true. They claim that all conservatives are essentially a part of the alt-right or adjacent to the alt-right or racist like the alt-right, but maybe not as willing to say it. The left wants the alt-right to be just a slightly more extreme version of the actual right. But the truth is that the world view of the actual right and the world view of the alt-right are moral opposites.

Unfortunately, for the left, their entire leftist narrative depends on pretending that the right and the alt-right are essentially the same, and that they, the left, they alone represent a moral alternative to white supremacy. If the left had to admit that the alt-right and the right were moral opposites, well, then the left would have to justify its calls for totalitarian solutions to all supposed problems. And if you listen to their solutions, doesn’t matter what the problem is, their solutions are totalitarian in all cases. How do you solve climate change?

Well, you have to get rid of carbon, you have to make people it’s totalitarian. How do you get rid of racism? Well, it’s totalitarian. Everything they how do you get rid of health care government takes it over?

Totalitarian. How do you get rid of what do they call it? Food insecurity. Well, we have to feed people total everything.

Every solution they have is totalitarian. And the leadership of the left knows that it cannot justify that totalitarianism unless it does so as the solution to something even worse. So they’re forced by their own political persuasion to lump everything evil in as the right. You are either with us or you’re against us.

It’s fight or flight politics that we talked about last week. Moral binary, you’re on our side, or you’re evil. This is what they run on. This is really, at the end of the day, it’s all they have.

And just like that, ladies and gentlemen, it is time for a word from our sponsors. You can reach our sponsors directly by going to AmericaOutloud.news slash shop, or by clicking the shop button at the top of the website. Don’t go anywhere. We’ve got a lot to go over.

We’ll get right back into it on the other side of the break. Have you been looking for a healthy snack for on the go? But all the energy and protein bars are just too sweet and full of sugar, preservatives, and mystery ingredients. Well, not all energy bars are soft and sugary.

Bear bars are a crunchy savory bar made from just six simple natural ingredients. They’re plant-based, organic, packed with protein and nutrients, and are low temp dried for a unique crunch. Most energy bars are based on chocolate or fruit and are held together with syrups and sweeteners. But bear bars are a delicious combination of veggies, nuts, and seeds.

They’re a perfect fast snack for hikes, workouts, and busy moms and dads. To learn more, just visit barebar.com forward slash out loud and get the exclusive discount just for America Out Loud Listeners. That’s B-E-A-R-B-A-R.com forward slash out loud. I’m Doug Evans, author of the Sprout Book.

And I’ve devoted my life to helping people reconnect with food at its most alive stage, the sprout. When you germinate a seed, you’re not just growing food, you’re activating potential. Sprouts grow without soil, sunshine, or fertilizer, right on your kitchen countertop. They’re organic, fresh, and cost less than a dollar a serving.

It’s nature’s fastest form of farming, accessible to anyone anywhere. Discover the joy of growing your own food and the power of living nutrition. Visit the sprouting company.com and use the code out loud for an exclusive offer. In just two minutes per day, you can reclaim your health and vitality and cut your grocery bill in half with one simple convenient product.

Our doctor formulated green 85 juice formula’s powerful dose of ultra-concentrated essential nutrients, stops hunger in its tracks, and supplies your cells with what’s missing in the grocery store food. It’s packed with wheatgrass, corella, dandelion, moringa, spirulina, broccoli sprouts, asaiberry, beetroot, probiotics, enzymes, vitamins A, D, K, B12, just to name a few. Go to Chemicalfree Body.com forward slash out loud today, get nature’s super multivitamin Green 85, empower your immune system, cut down on your grocery bill, and save 20% on your first order. You wouldn’t go a day without brushing your teeth or washing your hands.

What about washing your nose? I mean, your nose does filter the air you breathe, air loaded with bacteria, viruses, and irritants. Make nasal hygiene part of your routine with clear. No messy bottles to fill, no drowning sensation.

Clear is a natural drug free saline with the added benefit of xylitol, which blocks bacterial and viral adhesion. Available in stores and online at clear.com. That is X L E A R. Well, did you see Google blindly updated its AI principles, removing its pledge not to use AI for weapons or surveillance? A promise they agree to in 2018.

Well, the American people have seen Google’s track record. Often question is Google an untrustworthy player in the AI race. Now is our time, my fellows. America outlawed.

And justice for all. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back to cutting through the chaos and the America Outloud Network. I’m your host, Wallace Garneau, and we are talking about the alt-right. We’re talking about the left, we’re talking about the actual right, and we’re talking about who believes in what, what those different things are.

Let’s get into on this half of the break. Let’s talk a little bit about the democratic origins of identity politics, because identity politics came from the Democratic Party. Didn’t pop out thin air. It was totally born out of the Democratic Party.

I’m gonna walk you through that history. The Democratic Party was founded in 1828 as a coalition to defend slavery with an openly collectivist moral structure built around race. Individuals were not judged by character, but by their assigned roles within that racial order. White men ruled while black men worked the fields.

After the Civil War, the same party that imposed slavery, the Democrats imposed Jim Crow, built the Klan, and enforced segregation. Understand that the Democrats in the in the North during the Civil War favored the South and wanted to preserve the Union by preserving slavery. While the few Republicans in the South, most of them left the South during the Civil War or shortly before, but the few who were there opposed slavery. You could just as easily say that it was a war between the Republicans and the Democrats that the Republicans won as to say it was between the North and the South, because the North was Republican and the South was Democrat.

That’s just a fact. You can look it up. Don’t take my word for it. You can fact check all of this, you’ll find it to be absolutely true.

Over a hundred years later, when the civil rights movement made overt racism untenable, Democrats rebranded themselves as the defenders of minorities. But understand that defending minorities requires keeping them dependent, such as the moral premise of group hierarchy stays exactly the same. Thomas Sowell captured the essence of this transformation when he said that the modern progressives treat minorities, in his words, not as equals but as pets. The left sees minorities not as capable equals, but as helpless wards in need of their assistance.

The democratic worldview really hasn’t changed. It’s just adapted. Its moral vision was always one of group management to decide who counted and by how much. Race determined both moral worth and social station before.

And guess what? It still does on the left to this day. The left traded the old chain of oppression for a leash of dependency. And then they congratulated themselves for their kindness.

The left now looks at the right and says, What? You don’t think they need our help? What is wrong with you people? Well, I’ll answer that.

What’s wrong with us is that we see people as individuals. We truly see people as individuals, and we choose not to hate. We don’t see a black person and think this person cannot succeed on their own, so I had better elevate them. What we see are people truly equal to us who can elevate themselves.

Now it’d be wrong to say that the left reversed its hierarchy after 1964. That’s not really true. It merely flipped the color scheme. The same elite class that once claimed to protect the purity of white society now claims to protect minorities from it.

The common threat is the elite’s conviction that it and it alone has a moral right to rule. They believe themselves to be a political, a moral and intellectual elite. The left’s coalition today is a pyramid. At the top sit the intellectual and political elites.

People imagine themselves as morally enlightened to dictate virtue and guilt for everyone else. And beneath them are the identity blocks. Racial minorities, women, the LGBTQ community. Each of these are assigned moral value based on the perceived oppression the elite assign them.

That’s why I use the phrase oppression in Olympics, because you get power on the left by being oppressed more than other people. Oppression is the basis of power, which is crazy because those two things don’t go along. You can’t be oppressed with power, but that’s how they view it. The more oppressed you can claim to be, the more power they give you.

So that’s that’s that’s how they do it. At the bottom sit those that are declared privilege, condemned for the advantages the elite say that exist but can never specifically name. If you ever watch Ben Shapiro when somebody talks about white privilege, he says, if you can point to something and show me the privilege. If you can show me the racism, I will stand with you and denounce it.

You can’t just you have to actually show where it is. You have to be able to name it, and it should be something that is recognizable so that other people can see it. You can’t just they pretend that it’s just they just make it up out of thin air and say everything is white privilege, everything is oppression, and then they can’t name anything. The justice system is oppressive.

Well, what about the justice system is oppressive? Well, they can’t tell you what about the justice system is oppressive. It just is. It was made by white people to favor white people, whatever the case may be.

Well, you have to name it. You have to tell me what is racist. You can’t just say white people are invariably racist because that statement is itself racist. And the thing about this is the top never changes.

The elite always rule. They and they alone are above the identity system, and they and they alone have to be in charge. And these people have a natural distrust of any system in which anyone else has wealth or power. They have to have all the wealth and power themselves.

That’s why they hate people like Elon Musk, and because he’s outside of their system and he’s got wealth and power. Well, they can’t have that. Donald Trump, same thing. They can’t control him, they hate him.

In this way, the left never abolishes hierarchy. All it does is reorganize it, extending its patronage from one set of dependents to another. The elite remain the same, managing the moral economy of society and granting indulgences to favorite groups, and of course, staying on top themselves. Now let’s talk about the alt-right and how the alt-right is really just reclaiming the old left.

The alt-right takes the left system of collective identity and removes the disguise. Fuentes calls himself both the fan of Hitler and Stalin. He understands that fascism and communism are both collectivist, authoritarian, and left-wing. Spencer coined the term alt-right, describes himself as a socialist and a Nazi.

He dreams of a national socialism for the 21st century. The left likes to pretend that people who are racist try to hide that fact, but they don’t. If you find somebody in the Ku Klux Klan and you walk up to them and say, Are you a racist? They’re not going to say, No, of course not.

I don’t have a racist bone in my body. No, what they’re going to say is something on the lines of what gave it away. Was it the hood? These people know they’re racist, they’re openly racist, they tell us they’re racist.

So the whole notion that everybody on the right, no, the right is not racist, the right abhors group identity politics, and we want none of that. The outright, on the other hand, does not want liberty. And as a consequence, to pretend that those who do want liberty are adjacent to them is absolutely absurd. The truth is that the alt-right wants the same thing the political left wants.

Control. The alt-right rejects free markets. They reject the concept of inalienable rights. They reject all of the enlightenment ideals.

They believe society should be ordered by collective identity, and they differ from the left only in terms of which group they want on the top. The alt-right is in fact not an extremist version of conservatism at all. What it is is a resurrection of the Democratic Party before 1964, when racial hierarchy was justified by collectivist compassion with white people at the top of the pecking order. All it is is the racist Democrats from before 1964.

It’s the exact same dream the old Democrats had to use the machinery of the state to enforce a racial order. Where the left talks about white privilege, the outright says we want that. These are moral twins, arguing over inheritance. The left and the alt-right both begin with the same moral error, the belief that people are defined by the groups they belong to.

Both reduce human beings to demographic abstractions and see life as a zero-sum struggle between collectives. In both systems, justice is not moral balance, but power distribution. Both are tribalist in nature. The left look at our prison system and say, why do we have so many black people in prison?

The fact that whatever reason African American men cause more cause a lot more crime than other groups, that doesn’t. They look at that and say, well, that doesn’t mean they should be in prison more. Of course it does. If you want to solve the problem of black men in prison, we need to do something about the socioeconomic things that are happening in the inner cities that cause black men to commit more crime.

If you commit the crime, you do. The time. It’s as simple as that. The color of your skin is irrelevant to that.

Doesn’t matter who does the crime. You do the time. It’s as simple as that. You do the crime, you do the time.

It really is that simple. You see, the left and the alt-right both begin with the same moral error. The belief that people are defined by the groups they belong to. Both reduce human beings to demographic abstractions and see life as a zero-sum struggle between collectives.

In both systems, justice is not moral balance, but power distribution. They are both tribalist in nature. In fact, if you remove race from the equation, the alt-right and left are exactly the same. Flip the race component and they trade places.

Hell, if you blindfold Alexandria Casio Cortez and Nick Fuentes, they might fall in love. Nietzsche called the transformation of envy into moral righteousness resentiment. Not resentment, there’s an eye in there, resentiment. The oppressed become holy and are successful, the successful become evil in this world view.

The more a movement relies on this logic, the less it cares about truth, and the more it worships grievance. This is why both the left and the alt-right thrive on outrage. Purity tests tribal belonging. They are not movements of principle.

They’re driven entirely by emotion. They don’t even believe in truth. They believe that you have your truth. I have my truth.

There’s no objective way to choose one truth over the other. And if I’m the oppressed person, my truth is the one that matters. This isn’t about you. This is about me.

This isn’t about your group. This is about my group. I’m in front now, you get to go in back, and you will listen to what I say. The irony is that what minorities are allowed to say is basically what white women, what liberal white women want them to say.

Liberal white women are the most important demographic group in the country because when they show up in large numbers for elections, Democrats win, and when they stay home, Democrats lose. As a consequence, they’re the ones who really drive the narrative. And people are minorities are allowed to speak their narrative, but if they go off the reservation, then they’re Thomas Sowell and you have to hate them. That’s basically the way that works.

If you’re a black person and you think for yourself, you’re off the reservation, and now you’re an Uncle Tom. Now they’re free to say all kinds of terrible things about you because you’re not saying what white women, white liberal women tell you to say, and frankly, that’s who is really in charge of the political party. That’s the way that it just works there, and I don’t see that changing anytime soon unless we can get people that are on the left to listen to shows like this, and then maybe we can change their minds. The actual right has nothing in common with any of that.

We reject tribal morality outright. Our foundation is the individual is the smallest and the only moral unit in society. And well, let’s be honest, it’s not entirely true. We talk in the language of individualism, but if you watch how conservatives act, it’s actually the individual family.

And when I raise my children, by the way, I gave them every privilege I could. I call that good parenting, and every parent should do the same. There is no real word for viewing the nuclear family as a base is a base unit, though. But if there were a word for that, instead of calling ourselves individualistic, we’d use that word because that’s really what we are, even though we claim to be individualistic.

We have individuals within families, but I mean, we sacrifice for our kids all the time. So it’s really the family unit that we put as the unit, not necessarily the individual person. In spite of that, the right believes that all people are created equal, endowed with inalienable rights that precede government and group membership, and that all people should be treated accordingly by a limited government that protects our liberty rather than trying to reduce it. Conservatives is conservatism does not ask who you are.

It asks what you do. It does not promise equality of outcome. It guarantees equality before the law. It does not measure guilt by ancestry or salvation by class.

The right’s moral structure is flat. There are no more equal than others. As we see, or and George Orleans Animal Farm, the pigs one night go out and where it says all animals created equal, they say, well, some are created more equally than others. We don’t believe that.

There are no more equal than others in conservatism. There’s no moral aristocracy, there are no designated victims, and most of all, this is important. This is why our economy is stuttering right now, and it’s been sputtering really since about 2008. We don’t believe in artificial barriers holding anyone back.

The left does. There are now a lot of artificial barriers that have been put in place over the years. Barack Obama, Joe Biden, they put in a lot of structural barriers that hold people back because the government now has to decide who can do things. Well, we’ve got to pull those barriers down.

We don’t want any artificial barriers holding anyone back. This is why fascism, socialism, and the alt-right all belong to the left side of the spectrum. Each rejects individual moral agency in favor of collective identity, replacing personal virtue with group loyalty. Each wants an elite to define the truth and to enforce obedience.

The actual right rejects all of that. The left, the alt-right, they just disagree on who should be in charge and what groups should be elevated above what other groups. They still see the same hierarchy, they still see the same group structure, they still are racist. That’s what we have.

Racism on the left, racism on the right, true conservatism does not believe in identity politics. We are not racist. We are on the moral good. We are the we are what we the other group should try to be more like us, at least when it comes to seeing everybody as an individual.

If they could do that, if we could just agree everybody is an individual, we would have a much better world. All of the problems, not all the problems we have in the world, but most of the problems we have in the world are caused by seeing other people as the other and not as individuals created the image of God with certain inalienable rights. Let’s talk about how the left and the right, the alt-right and the left rather are really political mirrors. I think C.S.

Lewis warned us that of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised sincerely exercised for the good of its victims, may be the most oppressive. Well, the alt-right and the modern left, they both want tyrannies of that kind. The modern left and the alt-right are in fact mirrors facing each other, amplifying the reflections of one another. The alt-right is in fact a subset that broke off from the left.

The left’s obsession with white guilt having created a reactionary movement of white grievance from within their own space. The more the left insists that identity finds morality, the more the alt-right will insist that identity defines survival. Of course, these groups hate one another. But both also hate the actual right.

This is why Nick Fuentes disliked Charlie Kirk so much. Charlie Kirk has was what Nick Fuentes saw himself as being with different beliefs. But in terms of being the head of a movement, Nick Fuentes very much wants to be, wants to replace the political right with him and him at the head. It tells his followers to swear allegiance to this guy is absolutely he’s not a serious thinker, and he might be a little bit insane, but that’s what he sees himself as.

And when I say that the alt-right hates the actual right, that’s why Nick Fuentes hated Charlie Kirk. It’s why he hates Ben Shapiro. If he hears this, I’m sure he’s gonna hate me, which I’m fine with. I don’t hate him, but he can hate me.

I doesn’t bother me one bit. Hate consumes the hater, so no, knock yourself out. The feedback loop, though, between the political left and the alt-right, it’s convenient it’s politically convenient for the Democratic Party. You see, the existence of the alt-right allows the left to conflate conservatives with extremists, smearing individualists as racists.

The media gladly oblige, because most of the mainstream media, most of them are on the left anyway, and so they portray classical liberals and fascists as neighboring species. Well, that’s crap. In truth, the alt-right and the actual right are moral opposites of one another, where one believes in freedom and the other in control. One believes we’re created in the image of God, and others believe white people are superior on the left that non-white people, I guess, are superior.

That whole class of that the whole concept of group identity is foreign to us on the right. We don’t think that way, and nor should we. It is evil to think that way. The left is evil for doing so, the alt-right is evil for doing so, and we must not fall into that trap.

But the left, by keeping the public trap between these two false alternatives of collectivism on the left versus collectivism on the alt-right. Well, they’re able to preserve within their base the notion of the right as being evil. They’re evil, they tell us that we’re evil. Go figure.

That secures their own position atop the pyramid of identity groups that they created. The more society fractures into tribes, the more indispensable the managers of those tribes become, and that is what the left sees itself as. That is what the alt-right wants itself to be. The alt-right is not a rebellion against the left, so much as it’s the left shadow, accepting the left’s moral framework, but demanding that they be the elite rather than Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, come on, Kabala Harris, Gavin Newsom, whatever.

They want to replace the elite with them, with themselves, and so they just want to flip who the elite are and then change the hierarchy around. The alt-right is not like the actual right at all. America’s actual right, it’s clear it’s classical liberal and conservative tradition. We’re actually the only force that has ever broke this pattern of racism.

Racism is very common among people. It is the actual right that breaks that pattern. It’s not the alt-right, and it’s certainly not the left. It was conservatives, after all, who wrote that all men are created equal.

It was conservatives who fought to end slavery. It was conservatives who championed civil rights when the left was still segregating buses in schools. It was not Ronald Reagan who said about busting, I don’t want my children growing up in a jungle, a racial jungle. That was Joe Biden.

And it will be conservatives who must once again insist that moral worth and justice occur only with individuals. We reject group identity entirely. So you can’t have social justice. The left wants to replace actual justice with social justice.

You can’t have social justice and call it justice because social justice says that who commits a crime isn’t really so important as what group they belong to, and we need to make sure that we’re balancing things out amongst these different groups. Well, if one group commits more crime than another, then actual justice says that it doesn’t matter what group you’re in, if you commit the crime you do the time. Conversely, if you start a business and the business is successful, you get the money. It doesn’t matter who you are.

What matters is you created a business, the business has value to society. Society is buying things from that business, good services. It doesn’t matter what they are, the society sees it, society values it, society gives money for it, and so the person who has that business, they might get rich. It doesn’t matter who they are, they’re doing something society values.

That is how it affairs society you get ahead. You do things people value, and they’re willing to give up their hard-earned money for whatever the good or the service is. I used to like Chipotle. I don’t like them as much anymore.

I think they’ve dropped in quality over the last call it six months to a year, but I used to go there fairly frequently because I like the food. To me, that Chipotle burrito bowl was worth more than the cost of the Chipotle burrito bowl. I don’t go there very much anymore, because as I said, I think the quality is dropped off, but I still go to Jimmy John’s, I like their sandwiches. If you go to Jimmy John’s, I like the number seven.

Not paid to say that by the way. I’m just just telling you what I that I’m willing to give money up for a Jimmy John sandwich occasionally. So, I put value in that. If that means that the guy that owns Jimmy John’s or the shareholders or whatever, make a little bit of money, I’m okay with that because I value the sandwich more than the $10 or $12, whatever it is that the sandwich costs me.

I get extra peppers on it. You have number seven with extra peppers, if you’re curious. And I value that. That’s how we think, and that’s what actual justice is.

If you do things society values, and society is willing to give up some of its money to buy what it is you’re producing, good service, whatever. You get money. That’s fair. It doesn’t matter who you are, it doesn’t matter what tribe you’re in or what race you it doesn’t matter.

What matters is you’re doing things society values, and so that works. Or conversely, you’re breaking the law and you need to be punished for breaking the laws, both to deter others from doing so and also to teach you not to do it again. And as I keep saying, you do the crime to the time. It’s as simple as that.

That is justice, social justice, where you say, well, this group is being affected more than that group. I don’t care. I don’t care what groups are affected, because I’m not looking in the sense of groups. Individuals are responsible for their own behaviors, be that positive or negative, and we will treat you as individuals.

That’s how we look at it. We will be the ones who must once again insist that moral worth and justice occur only with individuals. We reject group identity entirely. I can’t say that enough.

Civilizations actually decline when they start trading moral law for group power. They recover only when they remember that the individual is created the image of God, and it doesn’t matter what color the individual is. God’s symbol to Noah was a rainbow encompassing all colors. I don’t care how much the left wants to co-opt the image of the rainbow to be for gay pride or whatever.

That’s not what it’s about. It’s about everybody. It’s about everybody. God’s symbol was a rainbow to Noah, encompassing all colors.

We see you as an individual. The bottom line is the political right does not need an alternative. It needs to stand firm on the belief that truth belongs to individuals. Nick Fuentes, well, he’s an angry young man with no real moral compass who says horrific things for attention.

He is an adult version of a three-year-old throwing a temper tantrum in the grocery store, and I’ll bet when he was three, his parents gave in to him. Nick Fuentes’ followers are the political equivalent of the island of misfit toys. We need to speak to them firmly, but with compassion, as some of them can likely be saved. The actual right incidentally believes that their beliefs are immoral, but we separate the sin from the sinner and we offer redemption to those who repent.

Nick Fuentes can repent. I don’t think he will, but he can. If he does, we should accept him as a member of the conservative class, not as alt-right. He has to reject that.

He has to join our fault. We don’t join his. Same thing with his followers. If they want to reject what they currently believe and join our fault, believing in the enlightenment values and the supremacy of the individual, well, we should welcome them in.

Tucker Carlson, well, he’s older. He’s he’s old enough to know what he’s doing. And what he seems to want to do is to shift the Overton window enough to bring Fuentes and his followers into the conversation. As real conservatives, we cannot allow that to happen.

There is no room for Hitler and Stalin in the Overton window. What they did was evil. Excuse me, it was evil and that they were evil. Such people, of course, do have the freedom of speech, and we should let them speak.

But as actual conservatives, we must also speak. And in doing so, we must in one loud voice reject the alt-right. We must also note that Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson are now a part of the alt-right. We must reject what they say as well, at least insofar as the Jewish people are not to blame for every moral transgression.

It was not, it was not some of the things they say, but they know they’re not true, and we have to reject that stuff. For me, I say let them speak into the void. I, for one, will refuse to listen. And just like that, ladies and gentlemen, we are out of time, but that’s okay.

I talked about the alt-right. I talked about how the alt-right is actually a breakoff part of the left. They are not a part of the actual right. We differentiated what those things are and why.

As always, thank you for tuning in. Please tell others who might be interested in cutting through the chaos to listen in, either on Saturday and Sunday at 9 a.m. Eastern Standard Time or PM Eastern Standard Time, or on podcast whenever they have time. And we will see you next week at the same time and place where it will once again be time to get involved and to get loud on America out loud.