959 – Transcript

Just Right Episode 959

Air Date: April 8, 2026

Host: Bob Metz

The views expressed in this program are those of the participants.

Clip (Seinfeld S06E10 “The Race”):
Well, I guess we’ll just go out.

Yeah. What are you doing with the Daily Worker?

Your Ned must have left it here. Your boyfriend reads the Daily Worker? What is he, a communist?

He reads everything, you know? Ned’s very well read.

Maybe he’s just very well… red.

Bob Metz: Welcome everyone. It is Wednesday, April 8th, 2026. I’m Bob Metz, and this is Just Right, broadcasting around the world and online. Join us for an hour of discussion that’s not right wing. It’s Just Right.

The outrageous and laughable performance of attendees at the recent Federal New Democratic Party Convention in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada this past March 29th certainly attracted worldwide attention to all the stupidity on display. Unfortunately, it’s possible that it also distracted attention from the even more laughable leadership and objectives of the NDP.

And for those who may not know, the NDP, the New Democratic Party, is an explicitly socialist party of the left. In this regard, I was recently reminded of a famous quotation by Voltaire. “Those who can be made to believe absurdities can be made to commit atrocities.” And therein lies the real danger behind all of the humor. Which got me to thinking that the specific absurdities themselves may in fact be laughable. But if accepted as reality, the atrocities to which they invariably lead are not so funny.

Ladies and gentlemen, I hereby proclaim that socialism is an absurdity. But it’s not funny except as an absurdity.

It’s a paradoxical claim that I shall demonstrate right after our reminder that you can write us feedback@justrightmedia.org. Hear us on WBCQ and Channel 292 shortwave. Follow and like us on your favorite podcast platform. And visit us at justrightmedia.org Where you can access all of our social media links, archived broadcasts, and the support button that makes it easy for you to support the show.

Because as always, your financial support is appreciated and is what makes this show possible.

Yes, socialism is an absurdity, both in theory and in practice. In fact, the word absurd is defined in the dictionary simply as irrational and ridiculous. But I think it carries more weight when expressed using the broader term absurdity, which then becomes a thing. A noun whose meaning encompasses all three adjectives, absurd, irrational, and ridiculous.

So when speaking about Canada’s NDP, which stands for New Democratic Party, I’ve always wondered what they meant when using the word new as an adjective for democratic. Usually when a commonly understood term is preceded by an adjective, the adjective really means not, as in this case meaning not democratic. Kind of in the same way that alt right means not right.

Of course, the word new could have been used to distinguish the Canadian Democratic Party from the old Democratic Party to the South. But that would be a bit absurd for a Canadian party to relate to an American counterpart.

Or they could have called it the New Democratic Party because they were promoting some kind of new democracy, which again would imply not the democracy most might consider as such. Anyway, you look at it, no matter how New Democrats see themselves, it’s abundantly clear that the NDP is a cult.

And to hear what a cult sounds like and how it governs itself. On this side of our first bumper, we have compiled a collage of many of the hilarious concerns raised by attendees at the NDP conference. And if you’ve been following this clown show at all, I’m sure you may have already been inundated with some of the viral circulations of these comments included in podcasts from all around the world. But my guess is that there might be a few that you have not heard. But more than that, I’ve played a bit of a dirty trick on you by inserting into this compiled collage a handful of comments by attendees, not at the NDP conference of 2026, but at the American Democratic Party Convention of 2019.

See if you can guess which is which. And although our focus will remain on the NDP conference for the next little while, bear in mind that this is not about a political party. It’s about a specific political polarity. It’s the left, and in particular to its manifestation as socialism, which is the broader theme to which we shall speak after having a bit of fun laughing at the absurdities in attendance at the NDP event.

And on the return side of the bumper, a sampling of a few podcasters reacting to the NDP conference, including the voices of Clyde Do Something, Asmongold and Truth Seeker. Get ready for a ride.

Clip (NDP Convention, March 29 2026 / American Democratic Party Convention of 2019):
…microphone 1 then we’ll go to microphone 2. Go ahead delegate.

Speaker 1: Hello. I was standing here with my gender equity card before you called on the previous speaker. That’s my point of privilege.

Chairperson: I will explain the speaking order which is fixed. I cannot amend which is the pro con rotation. You can move yourself up a line that you’re standing.

Speaker 1: I am pro. And I was.

Chairperson: We went pro con pro. And my plan was to go con. The speaker at Con Mike 3 also has a speaking card.

Speaker 2: Yesterday, this card was used in an inappropriate matter. And while I understand in Ontario, we know this is equity. Even if that, this was also used inappropriate in terms of gender. I want everyone to be mindful that these cards for individuals like myself who identify as a black woman have no value outside of this space.

Of the legacy of blood that was built in Iraq, in Palestine, and now in Iran. This is a no question debate. I call this question, Madam and chairs.

Chairperson: Your point’s well made speaker. I’ll again thank delegates not to call me Madam Chair or Madam la president. I’m a non binary person. My pronouns are they them and their. Chair is sufficient. Go ahead.

Speaker 3: It’s got quite a privilege. The microphone seem really low today. It’s hard to hear everyone at the mic between the background noise and the volume in here with the microphones. It’s really hard to hear. And the close caption also is slower to make it hard to keep up with what’s going on.

Chairperson: Thank you delegate.

You have a hearing impairment and I’m struggling to hear the delegates and I know that you are too. Let’s have some order. We’ll hear from the delegate on microphone one.

Speaker 4: She, her elle in en Francais. It’s gonna be really hard to follow Rob Ashton. Amazing speaker. We are a working class party. I think most of us in this room are behind that and while we can debate on the specific words and who is it isn’t included. I think our Constitution needs to recognize that and I also recognize there is I’m sorry. I’m speaking way too fast. Let me slow down for the closed captioning. I’m so sorry. I Get excited.

Speaker 5: It’s a point of privilege. The closed captions for this convention are running between six and 10 seconds behind. So it’s just a request for the chairpersons to be aware and when you move to a vote, I’m still reading the debate. So if you just take a little pause, that would be appreciated.

Speaker 6: Yes. Hi. My name is Parker Tian. I’m representing Vancouver Quadra. Just to reply my Francophone comrade’s point of privilege earlier. As you can see, I do have one of the translating device. However, I’d like to raise this to the chair’s concern that the sign out process for this device is not necessarily the best.

Speaker 7: Quick point of privilege. Quick point of personal privilege. Guys, first of all, James Jackson Sacramento. He, him. I just want to say, can we please keep the chatter to a minimum? I’m one of the people who’s very, very prone to sensory overload. There’s a lot of whispering and chatter going on. It’s making it very difficult for me to focus. Please can we just I know it’s we’re all fresh and ready to go, but can we please just keep the chatter to a minimum? It’s affecting my ability to focus. Thank you.

Chairperson: Thank you, Comrade. Okay. Is there a speaker against? Name, chapter, pronouns.

Speaker 8: Point of personal privilege.

Chairperson: Yes.

Speaker 8: Please do not use gendered language to address everyone.

Chairperson: Okay.

Speaker 9: We have a lot of disabled comrades and a lot of those are invisible disability. First of all, in this room, I see that no one’s clapping for me because everyone’s doing this. And that’s really important because those loud bursts of noise, even though this is a noisy space, when we can do something like reducing that, that’s really important. So please don’t clap. Shoot up these. And additionally with the noise issue, like avoid hissing, avoid waving banners, right? You don’t know what to do. Show up these, right? I’m sure there’s lots of ways that we can communicate to each other without needing to rely on something that’s going to hurt somebody else.

I see that we are one minute ahead of schedule. And so I’m going to get out of here. The balloting co-chairs are returning, I believe? Now balloting co-chairs. There is a point. Let’s hear the point on microphone one.

Speaker 10: I’m sorry. Just real quick, point of personal privilege. I understand there’s very little time and for delegates to speak, but early on the mic, I… It’s hard as a racialized and transgender delegate to sometimes use this card and speak up, speak to somebody in front of me in line and ask, hey, this pertains to multiple intersecting parts of my lived experience. I’d like to speak. I was rejected when I talked. And it’s frustrating when these are my rights being directly under attack right now in Alberta and that a cisgender woman had spoken over me. And I understand her rights are important too. This pertains to her too, but I don’t know. I hope that in the future the federal NDP will also have a broader interpretation of the equity cards for speakers. That’s all. Thank you.

Chairperson: I will invite delegates to assist me in better using the card by forming a straight line behind the microphone with a prominently displayed equity card. If I see speakers ahead of you who are not holding a card prominently, it would be wrong of me to guess about their gender identity and I will come to you.

This applies so far according to your rules for gender identities other than a dude, but it is open to us to change our rules as we like, as we move forward into the bright and golden future. Thank you, friends. Let’s hear the balloting co-chairs.

I’m directed to a point on microphone three.

Speaker 11: Point of information. I’m not sure if it’s appropriate for me to bring a point of privilege around an emergent issue with some job loss in my workplace.

Chairperson: If it is impairing your ability to participate in the meeting, it is a correct point of privilege. If you’d like an announcement to be made from the stage, we can arrange for that and then the delegates can hear it from here. Not right now.

Speaker 11: Okay, bring it to you.

Chairperson: Thank you.

We’ll find a way.

An awkward procedural solution for the fact that some voices have dominated this hall in the past and I’ll draw people’s attention at least on the question of gender to this colorful card. If you have a gender identity other than man, you can wave this at me and I’ll move you up the line. But I think the point that we’ve heard before from another delegate is that there is a predominance of cis white dudes.

I need the city to protect me because the federal government won’t and if you think you’re afraid of Trump, you should see how afraid of Trump I am.

But we had to push them so that they were supporting feminist organizations in what they were doing here and abroad and then we also have to keep pushing them to make sure that we take our position in the world as leadership. The other side is well funded. They are evil and they are pushing against what makes this world good. And so I am applauding that as new Democrats, we will make sure that we are standing up for gender equity.

I of course would support a feminist foreign policy, but I have concern with the wording of this resolution. This resolution washes the true history of Canada’s feminist foreign policy. Under this policy, the Auditor General even reported global affairs Canada was unable to demonstrate how Canada’s feminist policy contributed to improving gender equality in low income and middle income countries.

Some of it is performance. So is all of our liberal international order. If I were writing this resolution, I would have included, you know, it should be a decolonial intersectional feminist foreign policy.

I also recognize that a feminist foreign policy was used to justify the invasion in Afghanistan and killing 170,000 citizens and affecting millions more.
The ability to shut this down. When we’re talking about health care, we should be talking about everything to do with our bodies. And it is also gender affirming care. I am non-binary, I am trans. Sorry, I’m getting a little off topic, but to bring it back on topic, when we’re talking about health care, we need to be talking about everything to do with our bodies. And we need to ensure that it is publicly funded, it is free now and it is free forever. Thank you.

There has been a group that has been deliberately filibustering this policy block. As a result, we have only made it through a single resolution. Can we please extend the amount of time for this block? Can we? There’s a motion to suspend the rules. This would require unanimous consent. And as I told you at the beginning, the overtime costs for the crew and the hall I am advised would be ruinous.

Clip (Clyde Do Something, March 30 2026, Asmongold, Truth Seeker, March 29 2026):

Clyde Do Something: The country of Canada has completely lost the plot. It’s going to be very difficult for me to make this a serious video, so let’s just get into it.

This face, of course, reminding me immediately of a meme that has been going around. It’s just really funny. She’s got a particular 1930s German style haircut.

This used to be a trend with particular groups of people, identifying perhaps as Theydof Themler.

But let’s get into this. Again, international fame, international attention on Canada, once again this weekend. Speakers at the Democratic Party Conference in Canada argue over their gender equality cards.

That’s right, they have gender equality cards where they have a set of cards that gives more privilege or power to particular individuals, gets them at the front of the line instead of just maybe being there first or getting there early, which allows them to skip the line to speak.

This is real. This is a real thing, by the way, the New Democrat Party in Canada. This is just too funny, but this is the reality and this is the way Canada has been going and people are paying attention and it’s embarrassing for the whole lot of us, absolutely at the end of the day.

Odessa Always posting this one. Canada is falling. Please, please, please help us.

No, this isn’t a prank or a Saturday Night Live skit. No, this is the New Democrat Party and this is how they run their show. That’s absolutely too good.

This is what happens when you bring in this equity DEI BS. Everyone argues and clamors over who can have more power over each other and it’s amazing. And like I said, this made the rounds.

It’s international news at this point. Asmongold even commenting on this particular moment, it just nails it. He absolutely nails the narcissism of this.

Asmongold: You know what this really is? It’s an ideology of pathological narcissism. It’s completely self-referential narcissism that every single thing in the world relates to and is about themselves. And this is the reason why it’s become so prolific is it’s because all of these people all over the world can relate to themselves. They can talk about themselves.

So if they can make their entire identity about themselves rather than the ideas they hold, then it makes it a lot easier for them to have this identity. And they don’t have to think about it. They don’t have to justify it. They don’t have to rationalize it. It’s completely self-referential narcissism and it is a lens in which they see the entire world.

Tajana Truthseeker:
I’d probably get 10 years in jail for making this video in Canada because I’m about to make fun of a bunch of degenerate dumbasses called the NDP party, which is the third largest party in Canada. Yeah, the NDP, the New Democratic Party, they had a convention and it was like a convention of the Olympics of the like most degenerate losers I’ve ever seen.

That whatever that thing is, it’s a they/them Hitler. I love that little Hitler cut.

You know what? It’s like the Nazi party, but with just rainbow colors. Did you see the because they’re not allowed to clap because there’s too many people sensitive feelings ears.

Did you see how he said chairpersons because we’re not allowed to say, you know, chairman or chairwoman. These are the degenerates that are now holding on to the Canadian like politicians and this, this is what it’s like living there.

We are so cooked. We are so cooked. Buddy went on to say that there’s not enough pins and it was really hard to sign out a translator device and fuck me.

Bob Metz: Wow, talk about being frustrated, but as bizarrely irrational as these proceedings appear to most normal rational people, there’s more going on here than meets the eye as we shall learn shortly.

But I have to confess that when I first saw some of the videos of the NDP attendees, I honestly assumed that they were genuinely funny AI generated fakes. Turns out they were genuinely funny human generated absurdities.

“This is not a prank or a Saturday night live skit” says Clyde do something and in so acknowledging that reality tells us that it’s difficult for him to make this a serious video. However, serious it is.

But there are actually two separate though intertwined stories or narratives going on here. One of those stories concerns the politics, which is really the crux of this entire phenomenon and which we’ll be getting into shortly. But the other story is about the people and activists attending these events themselves.
Asmongold pretty much nailed it when he described these folks as being afflicted by an ideology of pathological narcissism, a self referential narcissism, everything in the world relates to them and is about themselves. No thinking or justification or rationalization is necessary.

Well personally I would classify all of the various voices we heard speaking at that NDP convention as mentally ill. But remember this illness is not unique to the NDP, but to the whole ideology of everything left. As I mentioned before the break, not all the voices we heard were from the NDP convention, but also some from the 2019 Democratic Party Convention in the US.

All of them are suffering from the same illness brought about by being disconnected from reality. They are unable to conceptualize how reality works because of the corrupted software of their minds, the words, the language, and the definitions they use which depict nothing but absurdities. It’s literally the Marxist language of fools as Isabelle Paterson called it almost a century ago. People like those who displayed their absurdities at the NDP event I think shouldn’t even be allowed to vote.

Everything they think they know just ain’t so and at best their NPCs, non-player characters. And as we discussed very recently on a past broadcast, the right to vote shouldn’t just take the form of some unqualified permission to do so. The whole justification of voting in a democracy depends upon the premise that those casting their ballots are informed voters with a conscious awareness of the process in which they are participating. Today’s class of voters do not understand the nature of government, the nature of democracy, the nature of civilization, and of course less than nothing about the polarity of left and right or the definitions of socialism, communism, fascism, liberalism, conservatism, capitalism, the nature of inalienable rights or the concepts of life, liberty and property, and the condition of freedom.

They know nothing about these things. Facts don’t matter and critical thinking is impossible to any creature unable to conceptually relate to reality by the means of reason.

Like I mean politically speaking, we’re talking about an amoeba class of creatures here. And what makes this the ultimate democratic tragedy is the fact that the votes cast by these creatures have the same value to the electoral process as do the votes of intelligent, principled, and informed voters. Are you starting to see the problem?

Don’t call me Madam Chair. My pronouns are they, them, and their. I’m non-binary, says Madam Chair, in a complete detachment from reality. Fact is she is binary, whether she likes it or not. And it’s not her call to make that call. It is we, the observers who get to make that call. And as if to acknowledge that reality, the they, them, and their non-binary Madam Chair actually tells others afflicted with her same mental aberration to quote,” hold your card prominently. It would be wrong for me to guess about your gender identity” end quote.

I couldn’t believe it. Think about what she’s admitting by making that statement. If someone’s gender identity has to be verbally declared and then memorized by others, they have abandoned the very concept of identity itself. “This applies to all gender identities other than a dude,” she says, although I don’t know how she would be able to distinguish a dude from a transgendered one, or whatever. I don’t even know.

The degree of racism, sexism, and every other kind of discriminatory group privilege or restriction practiced by these NDP delegates is beyond anything that should ever be tolerated in a free society. I can perfectly understand why Truth Seeker said it’s like the Nazi party, because it is.

The insanity we see is simply a distraction though, from the real insanity, that most, though not all, are missing. The absurdity of socialism itself, which was clearly enunciated by the declared winner of the NDP leadership debate, Avi Lewis, whose train wreck acceptance speech will be highlighting very shortly.

Now while most of us are laughing and finding it hard to take anything we saw at the NDP convention seriously, there’s another group of people who aren’t laughing with us, but at us. On his March 29 podcast, Romanian TVee offered a brilliant analysis of what was actually happening at the NDP convention, and at just about all other political gatherings like it.

And following his insights, coming up on this side of the bumper, on the return side, we’ll be hearing from the real nut bar at the NDP convention, the new leader of that party, Avi Lewis himself.

Clip (Romanian TVee, March 29 2026):

Romanian TVee: Canada’s NDP, on a superficial analysis, people are laughing and they’re making fun of it, because they don’t actually understand the system. And the system is genuinely brilliant. It’s a tool for control. It’s devised by academics. They’re pretty smart people and they know what they’re doing. So let me explain to you why this equity card system is extremely valuable if you want to run a proper cult.

The first thing you will notice is the gatekeeping. Nobody with any sense of decency would go to that event and put up with that bullshit. And so it automatically filters for the people that are autistic, for the people that are sociopathic, like the entire room using the system filters for the desirable people to be there.

The second thing, what exactly does it do? Well, apparently, you know, ideologically, it’s to allow minorities to speak over people that have privilege. In reality, it’s to rig the speakers. By creating the cards, you make sure that someone that may have a genuine point never gets to speak. And so it’s very easy to get an activist that happens to have the correct gender and color and just fill the room with those types of people in order to make sure that, well, the people with genuine concerns, they never get to approach the microphone. The people in power want to appear that the system is democratic, that there are debates, when in reality there are none.

Now, the final thing is the ideological one, right? Like it genuinely makes the activists feel like they are part of something, you know, like they have their little battles over there. It causes a little bit of drama, it causes a little bit of story, you know, like look, the white woman almost got to speak over the black woman, but like the black woman, virtuous and strong and empowered, she raised up and she said that outside these cards hold no value. I have no value with these cards. When I go into Canada, that realm of white supremacy filled with Indians, people put me down, people subjugate me, and I thought that this is the only space where someone respects me. And then there’s quiet and all the people look at the black woman with awe and admiration and it’s like, oh, have we done wrong? Have we done wrong, dear leader? And they look towards the podium where the only person in that room that actually matters sits and the person in that room now acts like a god, like a little Jesus over the congregation, setting things straight and apologizing and allowing the black woman to speak. And there’s a little bit of friction, you know, not a lot to destroy the movement, but a little bit to say that something was done that day, like progress was made.

And so again, this is the whole purpose of the system and when you actually understand what it’s supposed to do and you’re looking at it in practice and it does literally that, oh, well, it’s a wonderful system, isn’t it? People just look at the surface. They genuinely look at the theater and they think that’s the meat of it.

It’s not the meat of it, right? Like the meat of it is to create a system of control. Like how to dominate the masses, how to make sure that you get to have power, pretend you’re democratic, pretend you’re having debates and conversations when in reality you just have foot soldiers. They hold a little piece of paper and they genuinely think it means something. Like this lady, unironically, like thinks she has some power.

Like this guy next to her, the sim next to her, Bobby, get ahead. He genuinely believes that he’s fighting for something, that this matters in any way, shape or form. Right? Like they’re bamboozled, they’re tricked, they’re hypnotized.

And when you understand how the system functions, well, all of a sudden, it makes sense, right?

Clip (NDP Convention, March 29 2026, Avi Lewis):
Avi Lewis: The NDP comeback has arrived just in time. Our party has never been more needed. Friends, Canadians are living on the edge. Wander economic attack from the US.

While Donald Trump stops around the globe, grabbing foreign leaders and oil fields and starting wars, he has no idea how to stop. And at the kitchen table in Canada, there’s an even bigger crisis. The everyday emergency of just trying to get by in an impossible economy. Whether you’re on a single salary, hustling with multiple gig jobs, or taking care of loved ones, working hard no longer earns you a living.

And I know every politician says they feel your pain, and they claim to be outraged by the sky-high price of everything. But what they won’t talk about is why. An economy that’s rigged for the rich, leaving the vast majority of us behind.

A tiny group of billionaires that control every part of our economy, enabled by their friends among both liberals and conservatives. They’ll blame Trump. They’ll blame immigrants. They’ll blame indigenous land rights. They’ll blame anyone but the CEOs, the corner office class, to whom they feel accountable.

Only the NDP will tell the truth. The cost of living emergency is driven by the extreme wealth and power in the hands of the 1%. Six huge banks who have astronomical profits. 50 fossil fuel companies who are enjoying a super wave of huge profits thanks to this illegal war. Food and price gouge and gorge on profits, they fixed the price of bread for 15 years for heaven’s sake. Three telecoms corporations with mobile data rates that can cost a thousand times what people pay in Finland, and the worst customer service on earth.

Seriously, you can watch your best years drain away as you wait on hold just to make some small change to your cell phone plan. And let’s not forget the tech oligarchs and their global digital empires, spying on us from every device, jamming generative AI into every platform. This is more than a rigged economy. It’s a war on working people.

And it’s why you’re in shock at the grocery checkout. In tears looking at your bills at the end of the month. It’s because the wealth of this country is being hoovered up by a corporate elite who are extracting it from you every single day. It’s immoral, it’s unreasonable, it’s un-Canadian, and we cannot let it stand.

Friends, we are also at a crossroads in our history, in our world, with what remains of the international order being torn to shreds by Donald Trump. In this moment of intense uncertainty, our country needs a vision to guide the path we take, one that makes us safer and more secure, one shaped by values shared by most Canadians, fairness, compassion, equality, international solidarity, and love for the natural world.

In this period of uncertainty, we deserve a vision that will highlight the way to undertake a vision that will be shaped by the values of French speakers and Quebecois, equity, compassion, equality, international solidarity, and love for the natural world.

The Prime Minister is very popular at the moment. He’s a smart guy, and most Canadians still want to give him the benefit of the doubt. That’s fair. But I think when you connect the dots, his moves do not add up to the vision that Canadians truly want and deserve in this perilous moment. Half a trillion dollars in a decade for weapons to make Canada a major arms exporter in a war-torn world, slashing our cherished public services, sweeping aside Indigenous rights, full steam ahead, no regulations on AI, and pipelines.

In the last federal election, Canadians voted to say no to Trump and Trumpism, what they’re getting instead is our government following the U.S. into a future of wars, fossil fuels, austerity, and job-killing generative AI.

Our NDP has a different offer for this country. Our plan is to Trump-proof the economy by investing massively in Canadian economic independence, using the unmatched power of public ownership to ensure the fundamentals of a good life. A network of public providers for food, phones, and internet. A public housing developer and public construction companies to build millions of non-market homes. A 21st century electrical grid, an EV bus revolution, and a heat pump in every home, built with Canadian steel, creating tens of thousands of unionized jobs. Investing in the care economy as true nation-building. The education, healthcare, elder care, and childcare that holds our social fabric together. And finishing Tommy’s dream. Eyes, teeth, mental health, medicine. They are all part of your health. They have to all be part of our universal public healthcare system.

We can already hear the howls from the establishment, but how will you pay for all this?

Well, let’s remind them that this country is a wash in wealth. We can have nice things. Banks made 70 billion in profits last year alone. Oil companies are expecting a new windfall in the tens of billions. Grocery, baron, Galen Weston alone is worth 20 billion dollars.

It is time, far past time, to properly tax the corporations and billionaires that have been writing a tidal wave of profits. While the 99% have been suffering and struggling and use that money to directly improve the lives of Canadians, the money is there! The money is there, my friends. We need a government with the courage to go and get it for all of us.

And we need a government that doesn’t just talk about Canadian values on the world stage. We need one that acts with moral clarity when it matters. When missiles are falling on schools and hospitals. When Israel commits a genocide in Gaza. We call it by its name and we do everything in our power to bring it to an end.

When the US and Israel start an illegal and reprehensible war against Iran that sets the world on fire, we say Canada should have absolutely no role in it whatsoever.

Organizing can no longer be something we do when the writ drops. It’s year-round work with the NDP fighting alongside labour movements, fighting alongside social movements, showing up where we are needed part of a common front of decent Canadians.

The NDP will start winning again because we will become that beacon to the 99%. Illuminating the darkening sky of these terrifying times with the energizing light of collective struggle. This is about all of us coming together to find our place and our power in the thrilling work of building a shared future. A government that works for the many, not the money.

Thank you everyone! Thank you!

Bob Metz: You are listening to Just Right, broadcasting around the world and online. Yeah, Avi Lewis is going to rebuild Canada with Canadian steel. Except in his case, the word steel is spelled S-T-E-A-L, a word that very accurately and precisely describes the NDP plan for its socialist tyranny.

And what we just heard could have been a speech delivered by Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Karl Marx, Mussolini, and just about every communist and socialist dictator the world over.

Clip (Clyde Do Something, March 30 2026):
Clyde Do Something: How about some communism ladies and gents? That’s what they’re offering. We’re going to get public ownership of everything. This is the guy who’s actually advocating for government-run grocery stores. That’s right. Just like the Soviet Union used to have. Wouldn’t that be amazing?

Now, as he won his award, this is the kind of showing that they had Candace Malcolm pointing out. “There’s no Canadian flag, just a Palestinian flag. The NDP is an extreme radical anti-Canadian party and the media refuses to notice this.” But we all notice it, we see it, and this is what’s happening.

Bob Metz: You know, it’s one thing to decry communism and public ownership, which one should always do. But it’s quite another to explain why communism and public ownership fail 100% of the time. And by fail, we mean fail to protect their citizens from government itself and to keep them in a state of relative peace and tranquility and prosperity.

Public ownership is both a contradiction and an anti-concept. There is no such thing as so-called public ownership because all ownership implies exclusive private control and use. That’s what ownership means.

If you actually believe that you own any part of the public roads in your town or city, just try selling your share. Or better yet, try buying some share in some road ownership, or try earning any money with your share. And while you’re at it, why not set up a tent in the middle of the road in front of your house and camp out in it for a while on your public property, which is owned by everybody, right? And that includes you, right? You see how absurd it is.

As I’ve illustrated many times before, the roads in my own city of London, Ontario, are owned by a corporation, to which municipal residents are forced to pay property taxes and make their checks payable to the Corporation of the City of London. And in law, corporations are viewed as individuals, and the authority that controls any corporation is ultimately a single individual usually referred to as its president or chief executive officer and is operated on a set of pre-approved rules and guidelines for corporate executives to abide by.

But the word public never has anything to do with ownership. Public is about access. Whether that access is to private property open to the public, such as a grocery store, or access to government-controlled properties such as roads or parks.

Access is not ownership. That so many in the public conflate the two is what allows Avi Lewis to get away with an absurdity like “the unmatched power of public ownership.” Not for a single second is he talking about ownership or the public. He’s talking about state control of the means of production, or in other words, he’s outright lying to everybody and talking about public property.

And this is the Achilles heel to all things socialist, communist, or fascist. All collectivist parties violate one or all of the fundamental individual rights to life, liberty, or property, and particularly property, without which the other two cannot be exercised. Private property rights have been called the enabling right, since without ownership, life and liberty are impossible to exercise.

Speaking in the language of fools, as he does, Avi Lewis is certainly a fool, but he’s a dangerous one. Just a few facts from Wikipedia tell us that he was raised in a political family and began his career in broadcasting, hosting several programs for City TV, CBC News, and Al Jazeera English, including The New Music, Counter Spin, On The Map with Avi Lewis, The Big Picture With Avi Lewis, and Fault Lines.

With his wife Naomi Klein, Lewis directed the documentaries The Take, and This Changes Everything, along with Klein and several other activists, Lewis launched the Leap Manifesto in 2015. His grandfather, David Lewis, was the leader of the NDP from 1971 to 75, and his father, Stephen Lewis, was the leader of the Ontario NDP from 1970 to 78, and served as the Canadian ambassador to the United Nations from 1984 to 1988. Stephen died on March 31, 2026, two days following Avi’s election as federal NDP leader.

Lewis is the great grandson of Moishe Losz, better known in Canada as Morris Lewis, an outspoken Polish member of the Jewish Bund who left Europe amid shifting borders and was threatened by the Bolsheviks for his political activity.

And that’s just the tip of an iceberg. The point to be made here is that Avi Lewis, as insane and absurd his politics are, cannot simply be dismissed. Avi Lewis’ (grand)father, David Lewis, was national secretary of the CCF who merged with the communists to form the NDP, a very dangerous man who promotes an anti-life, anti-prosperity, anti-human, racist, and violent agenda.

Which brings us back to Voltaire, “Those who can be made to believe absurdities can be made to commit atrocities.” And ladies and gentlemen, every single thing Avi Lewis advocated in that speech was an atrocity. And how glaringly hypocritical can you get? Within seconds of declaring that the money is there, we need a government with the courage to go and get it for all of us. Oh yeah, let’s go get it.

Avi Lewis had the audacity to virtue-signal just seconds later that his is a government that works for the many, not for the money. I just couldn’t believe it. To what possible work could he be referring? Stealing other people’s money is not work. It’s a criminal and immoral act. His entire morality is based on greed and envy for the property of others.

Avi Lewis’ every word was a political obscenity. Or just plain fiction, like everything he said about Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney even. As much as I can’t stand Carney, Lewis’ bizarre criticism of Carney had no basis in fact whatsoever. Like all commies, they just robbed Peter to pay Paul, but they never tell you that their name is Paul.

There’s not a single thing that Avi Lewis said during his entire acceptance speech that was real. As Romanian TVee also put it, the NDP is a cult. And equity card systems are extremely valuable in controlling the cult members and keeping them entirely disempowered.

Now, here comes the real tragedy behind the rise of the left. Conservatives. They are utterly unable to properly defend capitalism, so much so that we’re about to hear from three of them who want to eliminate the word capitalism itself from the political lexicon. So if you’re wondering why monsters like Avi Lewis can possibly rise to power, it’s because their opposition is actually helping them. So let’s take a quick break for a smile, following which we’ll have to frown at the absurdities uttered by none other than Right Angles Bill Whittle, Scott Ott, and Steve Green on their March 25th podcast.

Clip (Seinfeld S06E10 “The Race”):
A communist! Don’t you think he would have told me?

Well, does he wear bland, drab, olive-colored clothing?

Yes! Yes he does wear a little drab.

He’s a communist.

Look at this. “Exciting, uninhibited woman seeks forward thinking, Comrade, appearance not important.” Appearance not important. This is unbelievable. Finally, this is an ideology I can embrace.

We’ve got some good news and some bad news for you. The bad news is that more people than ever in the United States are in favor of socialism.

Clip (Bill Whittle, March 25 2026, Scott Ott, Steve Green):
Scott Ott: The good news is they don’t know what it is. Hi, I’m Scott Ott with Bill Whittle and Steve and Green. And gentlemen, there’s a piece in the Wall Street Journal about a recent Harvard poll that asked people, what do you think is a better economic system? Capitalism or socialism? Capitalism still wins by 59% to 41%, which is better than some other recent studies. But as the Wall Street Journal opinion piece points out, it’s still not a stark rebuke of Marxism or anything.

The most disturbing aspect is that socialism wins among Democrats who say 54 to 46 that they would prefer socialism to capitalism.

Over the years, the Wall Street Journal says various readers have rebuke them for using the word capitalism because it was actually a slur developed by communists and socialists to attack our economic system.

The new Harvard Harris survey, Steve, suggests that the term is not fully understood by people. In fact, if you restate the question, if you say, do you think America should be run mostly as a free enterprise country or under socialism? When they are asked this way, freedom wins 76% to 24%.

Bill Whittle: That is fascinating. That is absolutely fascinating.

Scott Ott: To take it a step further, Democrats vote for free enterprise over socialism by 68 to 32.

Steve Green: That’s not the quote I was thinking of. I was thinking of Ronald Reagan, I think of Ronald a lot. I was thinking of Ronald Reagan, who said, I think on more than one occasion, it’s not so much that our liberal friends are ignorant. It’s that so much of what they know just isn’t so.

This is great news. Capitalism was coined by Karl Marx to discredit what is actually just human nature.
Two people meet and one guy is like, what do you got there? I like your stuff. I like some of your stuff. I’ll trade you one of mine for two of yours. They haggle and they reach an agreement and they trade. The only reason we developed currency is because haggling and barter was not very efficient. Money, capital just gave you a lot more options, including savings and compound interest and everybody getting rich. Again, this is not a system. This is just what people do when we’re left alone.

JFK, a capitalism loving Democrat, said, a rising tide lifts all boats. So maybe we need to stop using the word capitalism since it was originally a slur and just call it free enterprise. Call it liberty. Call it human nature. Whatever. Just not that. And we need to start doing a better job of selling it.

Scott Ott: Apparently a lot of people also think that socialism is a better deal than it really is. They assume that private home ownership is widely approved of in socialist countries that businesses are completely under the control of business owners in socialist countries. A full 91% of respondents say that people should have the right to buy and own their houses. The bottom line is that across the partisan spectrum, there’s massive support for property rights. So sometimes I think we need to just jettison both terms and say, let’s just talk about what it is we’re talking about.

Bill Whittle: Yeah, it’s just that simple. I think I can probably match Steve’s Reagan quote. I’m virtually positive this is Reagan who said that a communist is somebody who reads Marx and Lenin and an anti-communist is someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

Steve Green: That was Reagan, yes.

Bill Whittle: What they don’t seem to understand is that socialism is a tax on the people who create wealth. And look, the simplest way to explain socialism is this.

I saw this with Mamdami. A guy on the street was basically saying, we should tax millionaires. If you make over $10 million, you should get hit with a 90% tax to pay for all these socialist programs. And the guy who runs the business that pays all these hundreds of thousands of people says, well, in that case, I’m going to make 9 million, 9 hundred and 99 thousand 999 dollars and I won’t expand the business and I won’t hire more people and I’ll just do what I need to to get by.

And so what you find out is that when you enslave the productive people, it doesn’t make the cart go faster. It actually makes it go slower. And this is what they want. More and more and more. I’m seeing people who not only don’t want to work, they don’t expect to work.

But I really have to say, I was just gobsmacked by the change in the numbers just by changing the term. And we are miserable at this. The left are masters of what Evan called rhetorical intelligence. And that is the ability to create emotional reactions to things in the real world that really should be governed more by reason and practicality. But when you can control the way people feel, you can control the way they vote because people don’t vote based on what they think. They vote based on how they feel.

It is an unpleasant moral dilemma to understand that absolute equality means zero freedom and absolute freedom means zero equality. That is just the way the world is built. And you’ve got to figure out where on that spectrum you want to be.

Scott Ott: Well, I think what heartened me so much about this Harvard Harris survey, it’s not just semantics. And what it made me realize is that I am creating division through my language that doesn’t really exist. If I brand somebody’s belief system with a particular term that even they don’t understand because they don’t know what it really means in the real world, then I am cornering that person and making them defend something that they don’t actually believe in.

It’s not only that we need to drop the term that was developed by somebody who was an opponent of our belief system, but I don’t think we should use the term that was developed to advocate for the Marxist system because it is not what people think it is. And so I don’t think I, in defense of my ideology or of my economic perspective on the world, should frame somebody else in ways that they wouldn’t frame themselves. Nor do I think I should use terminology that we don’t have agreed definitions on.

And frankly, I think we should just jettison the terminology and focus on talking to real people in real ways and asking more questions, making fewer statements and not trying to corner them into defending their viewpoint, but finding the ways in which everybody really wants to have freedom.

But I think we have an opportunity here to connect with people who value freedom, who value independence, who want their own choice in things, who love a deal, a sale, a bargain, talk to them like normal people and stop, you know, and I’m saying this to myself, stop engaging in like Milton Friedman level debate and just get down next to somebody in the truck and talk to them about their life.

Bob Metz: I couldn’t disagree more. To suggest that it is improper to frame others in ways they wouldn’t frame themselves, as suggested by Scott Ott, is to abandon the whole conflict between left and right, right from the outset. Framing others with the proper use of proper objective labels is exactly what needs to be done. And it’s also a good way to test your own ability to promote your own ideology and economics when you get a bit of pushback.

And in the same breath Scott Ott says we shouldn’t use terminology that we don’t have agreed definitions on. Well, agreeing on definitions is not the point with those on the left. The definitions are in any dictionary and are perfectly clear. The Ayn Rand lexticon defines capitalism as “a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.” And Funk and Wagnalls defines capitalism as “an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are mostly privately owned.”

Now ask yourselves, why would the likes of Scott Ott, Steve Green and Bill Whittle possibly want to abandon the very concept and word that defines everything they purport to support? And so it goes with these guys.

Instead of abandoning the terms socialism and capitalism, the proper thing to do is to define them. And as to their references to the likes of Karl Marx having created the term capitalism, not quite. Marx and others politicized the word capital by attaching an ism to it because capital represented private property and private property was the thing that above all communism, socialism and fascism alike are out to destroy.

The left does not disagree with any given definitions of capitalism, it opposes them, and in so doing destroys the concept of capitalism itself.

And Bill Whittle and the gang fell for it, hook, line and sinker, as did so many who see themselves on the right.

We haven’t even begun to scratch the surface on this sad state of affairs, so pending any unpredictable global or existential crises between now and then, we’ll have to continue this conversation when you join us again next week as we will continue our journey in the right direction and until then be right, stay right, do right, act right, think right, and be right back here. We’ll see you then.

Clip (Seinfeld S06E10 “The Race”):
So how was work?

Another day, another dollar.

I guess.

Yeah, well, nothing wrong with that. I’ve got to make those big bucks. Money, money, money, money, money, money, money. Are you a communist?

Yes, as a matter of fact I am.

Oh! Whoa! A commie! Wow! Gee, man, it must be a bummer for you guys with the fall of the Soviet Empire and everything?

Well, yeah we still got China, Cuba.

Yeah but, come on.

I know. It’s not the same.

Well, you had a good run. I mean, what was it? 75, 80 years reeking havoc, making everybody nervous?

Yeah, we had a good run.

Well, so enjoy yourself.

Well, I’m dating a communist.

Wow!

A communist? That’s something.

Yeah, that’s pretty cool, isn’t it?

Hey, did I tell you I called one of those girls from the personal ads in the Daily Worker?

The Daily Worker has personals?

Yeah, and they say that appearance is not important.

Yours or hers?