961 – Transcript

Just Right Episode 961

Air Date: April 22, 2026

Host: Bob Metz

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

Clip (Time Tunnel 124 – Chase Through Time):

Douglas Phillips: They’re like bees. They work for the welfare of the hive. You know, before a bee’s eggs are hatched, they’re treated to produce workers, soldiers, or queens. Just like these people.

Bob Metz: Welcome everyone. It is Wednesday, April 22nd, 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.

There’s nothing more amusing to me than watching a lot of good people on the right agonize and struggle with being right. But more than amusing, it’s also sad and frustrating because the solution to their struggle is so simple.

Now, on the heels of two broadcasts highlighting the complete absurdity of socialism, from the new Democratic Party’s points of privilege convention to the No Kings rallies being attended by the No Brains constituency of the left, the question arises as to how what we call the right could possibly have lost the ideological battle for freedom and individualism. How is it that socialism continues to gain popular and political support?

Well, I’ll tell you how. By those on the right allowing themselves to be falsely labeled and identified by the left, and by refusing to be labeled by what they are. The right.

Left and right are political polarities. Left and right are binary. But there is an ongoing suicidal denial of this reality in which most of those on the right continue to operate. Therefore, not only do they continue to lose ground, but they manage to confuse themselves to the point where they no longer are able to present a clear alternative to the left.

It’s a sad state of affairs to which we shall offer our humble yet profound solution right after our reminder that you can write us a feedback@justrightmedia.org. Hear us on WBCQ and on 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, archive 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.

You would think that in an age of identity politics, it might be a good idea to properly and succinctly identify yourself and the values you represent by giving yourselves a name or a label by which others can recognize and see you. But for some reason that they don’t themselves understand, most people who identify as being on the right are afraid to be recognized as such when instead of cowering in fear, they could be winning instead of losing the war of definitions. In politics, the first rule of engagement with the opposition is define or be defined. The moment one side allows the other to define it, the battle has already been lost. And this is exactly what has happened to those on the right. They allowed themselves to be defeated by a mere label and a false one at that.

Far right, extreme right, along with its attendant fascist Nazi racist white supremacist implications. This political identity fraud was made possible with the invention of the so-called political spectrum, which we have more times than I can count explained is an entire fiction both in theory and in practice.

But very quickly for the benefit of those to whom this may be new or just for a quick refresher, the political spectrum as most people understand it consists of a straight line drawn between two points labeled left on the left end of the line and right on the right end of the line. In this fake spectrum, the left end represents communism and the right represents fascism. With other political identities such as liberal, conservative or even socialist somehow being placed on the line between the two points, hopefully as close to the so-called center as possible. Because too close to either end will get you called either far right by the left or far left by the right. These labels are absolutely meaningless created by the Marxist language of fools.

But while the left does not fear being labeled far left, the right is terrified of being labeled far right because that would make them fascist, at least according to this fake spectrum. But in reality, and both in theory and in practice, there is no political spectrum and left and right are polarities with the left representing every and all variants of collectivism including communism, socialism and yes fascism and the right representing individualism including freedom and capitalism. And in the binary world of politics, if you cannot clearly define yourself as being on one polarity or the other, then you’ve pretty well thrown away your identity and simply will not be seen or recognized by those who might otherwise support you.

We’ll be presenting plenty of evidence of this as the show progresses, but first I thought we should kick off the discussion by asking why so many people are attracted by the left, by socialism in particular, when that ideology has consistently proven itself to be a death cult in every sense of that term. Well, on his April 14 podcast, Mark Levin asked that very question, and in the process offered us a rather entertaining contrast between the mind of a socialist versus the mind of a capitalist.

Clip (The Mark Levin Show, April 14, 2026):

Mark Levin: What is it about the left or left of center? What is it that they offer that if there are times of truly great leaders and truly incredibly challenging, if not worse types of events, that causes a democratic people to turn them out and to choose somebody else?

I think it’s the nature of socialism and capitalism. And by that I don’t mean their effectiveness. I mean the propaganda, the arguments, the persuasion that is involved in each of them. For instance, socialism to me comes down to one word, emotion.

Emotion. Everything should be affordable, right? Everybody should have a right to fill in the blank.

A higher education, a roof over their head, health care, a good salary. Yeah, exactly. Everybody should be equal. Equal.

That’s right. Nobody’s better than anybody else. Nobody should be able to butt in front of the line. Everybody should be equal. Equal.

Everybody should have what they need. And that’s that. And how do we get that under socialist? It’s very simple. Just vote for it. You actually don’t have to do anything for it. You don’t have to work hard. You don’t have to work smart. You don’t have to be an entrepreneur. Just vote for a socialist, whether they’re Democrats, whether they’re labor party, whatever.

You don’t have to just vote for the left. And they will deliver it. How?

Through government. So I don’t have to do anything else? No. In fact, you’ve been victimized by the current economic system. You have rights in the economy. I do?

Yeah. You have rights. You have a right to all these things. You want health care?

You have a right to it. Really? Yes. You want a roof over your head? I do. You have a right to it. You want clothing on your back?

Yes, I do. That’s the minimum. You have a right to it. And we in the government can deliver it.

Well, how do you do that? Because that guy over there, that guy over there, he’s stealing from you. He’s got more than he needs. He’s got more than he needs. He’s got five homes. He’s got a Rolls Royce. His children go to Ivy League schools. He’s a billionaire. No, he’s a trillionaire. He’s an autocrat. Look at that. Those people over there.

Vote for me. I’ll fix this. You don’t have to do anything. It’s that guy. I’ll put that guy in his place. That’s right. I’ll tax him. I’ll regulate him. He doesn’t need all that. We have a wealth tax. We’re going to have a progressive income tax, 91% for the top. Hey, hey. And the people, we the people who make this country work, we will benefit from the bounty of the country.

Do I have that about right, Mr. Producer? Emotion, government, and you don’t have to do a damn thing.

Now, what’s capitalism? First of all, the word capitalism was invented by Karl Marx. We used to just call this commerce, market commerce. Now, the funny thing about capitalism, I’ll play the game, capitalism, the funny thing about capitalism is nobody invented it. Socialism, or at least a purer form or a more aggressive form, is a doctrine that was created.

Capitalism wasn’t created. It goes back since the beginning of man. What is capitalism? In a word, commerce. So in a word, socialism is emotion. Capitalism in a word is commerce.

I was once asked by somebody, what would you like to pay for this? I said, nothing. What do you mean, what would I like to pay for it? I don’t want to pay anything.

See, that’s the mentality of socialism. So when it comes to capitalism, it’s commerce. Commerce. So if you have somebody who’s worth half a trillion dollars, because he’s inventing different types of cars, different types of technology, and so forth, he’s worth half a trillion dollars, not because he stole it from you, not because he took it out of the economy. It’s because he created something people want. You, me, Mr. and Mrs. America, the people, or maybe overseas, they want it.

Capitalism or commerce doesn’t require you to buy anything. Yeah, but what about my necessities? I’m not talking about necessities, but we can talk about necessities and we will in a minute, like food and so forth, how you get more food and how you get it at a cheaper price. But the point is, it’s commerce. So socialism is not about commerce. It’s about government redistribution.

Now, let me ask you this. Who’s in charge of government redistribution? You don’t know. Well, if it’s a city or state, who’s in charge of it? You still don’t know. The politician talks about what they’re going to do and they put the general policy in place. But who’s in charge of it? I don’t know. Maybe some schmo doesn’t know a damn thing.

That schmo certainly doesn’t know who you are. He certainly doesn’t know what you need or what you want or how many family members, what they need and what they want or what kind of life you want to have. I don’t know about that, but he’s going to make those decisions because you’ve just surrendered all that decision making to that person under the theory of equality. Equality.

Now, what does equality mean? Is equality always good? No, it’s not always good. Here’s a good example. Cambodia, at the worst of times with Pol Pot. He kills 25% of the population. You wonder why he’s killing the lawyers? He’s killing all the wealthiest people. He’s sending people in the cities out to the farms. He’s looking at all these ways to make things equal. We have to eliminate those who won’t buy in. We have to eliminate those who are just wealthy. We have to eliminate all these factors so we can create this utopia where everybody’s equal.

Equality in its purest form is tyranny. When we talk about equality, we mean equality of opportunity. That is, nobody should be denied access to commerce or capitalism by some kind of a law or some kind of a practice. Capitalism relies on the individual.

Socialism doesn’t even know who you are. They’re looking at groups. They’re looking at political groups or economic categories in which they put people. And then they use the force of law, the force of government. Mostly centralized, mostly blind bureaucrats who make decisions as if you’re non-humans, as if you’re things to move around. Capitalism says there are individual human beings out there involved in commerce. How do we actually nurture that? How do we improve it, if at all, to create more things, better things for more people?

But the proof is in the pudding, isn’t it? Communist countries can’t feed their people. Third-world countries, most of which are dictatorships or communists or some form of authoritarianism, they can’t feed their people. We can, and we feed many people all around the world. Is a factory worker in a communist country better off than a factory worker in America? No.

This bourgeoisie and proletariat, bourgeoisie being the wealthier managers, executives, proletariat being the people as Marx divided the world, who fights our wars? The proletariat, the middle class, the people. If they hated our country or hated our economics, would they fight a war and put their lives on the line? Would you, Mr. and Mrs. America, if this were really as horrible and as bad as the socialists, Economic socialists, cultural Marxists say it is? Of course not.

Of course not. So the people haven’t rose up and overthrown their government. We have not done that, as Marx said they would. So the communists have adjusted. A guy named Gramsci, who was a communist philosopher and scholar, spent a lot of time in prison under fascistic Italy.

He turned it around. He said communism needs to come from the top and be imposed on the people. Because in America they created this big middle class through commerce, through capitalism. They have no intention of overthrowing the government. So we need to become the government top down and impose communism and economic socialism on the people from the top down when we control government, the institutions of government, and the culture.

Isn’t that what’s happening in America today? People aren’t yearning for Marxism and socialism.

Bob Metz: Well, if they’re on the left they are. But those labels are meaningless to them. To them it’s just the promise of something for nothing. And even if they understood what Marxism and socialism are, that would not change the views of those who support them.

In the first place, just where is it written that the left and right share any common values or desire to live together in a peaceful, prosperous society? It isn’t. When those on the right correctly observe that socialism doesn’t work, they’re still missing the point. Socialism doesn’t work at achieving the values or conditions of the right. Socialism will never alleviate poverty, nor create a society of peace and prosperity. That is quite true. But socialism does work very well at achieving the values and conditions desired by the left—chaos and destruction.

We wouldn’t even be having this discussion if that weren’t the case. But broadly speaking, I would tend to agree with Mark Levin when he suggests that it’s the propaganda and persuasion behind both the left and right that causes so many to vote left for socialism. At the same time, while it’s probably true that most people are not looking for socialism, at least by that name, they are motivated by promises of something for nothing, which is the fantasy lie most socialists use to sell socialism.

However, when it comes to the language, the words, and terminology that Levin used in his socialism-capitalism comparison, I have a few cautionary observations to make. For example, he says that socialism is emotion, capitalism is commerce. Well, I can certainly agree that these are valid motivational associations with each polarity, but they are far from anything we would ever use as a definition. Nor am I suggesting that he is attempting to do so. Remember, he was comparing states of mind between the left and the right. But I was very happy to see his observation that capitalism was not invented. It was discovered. Socialism is a created doctrine, he says. Yes, capitalism was discovered, not invented. Socialism was invented, and quite frankly speaking sarcastically, has yet to be discovered because the theory has never existed in practice owing to its utopian non-existent fantasy.

But unfortunately, there was one particular statement Levin made that involved the very inappropriate use of a word, and that word was equality. Equality in its purest form is tyranny, he says. Equality means equality of opportunity. Well, literally taken, this is incorrect. Legally enforced equity is tyranny, not equality. And I think that was his intended message.

But nor does equality refer to equality of opportunity. In a free capitalist society, equality quote unquote, refers to the principle that every individual is equal before and under the law, and nothing more. It’s not about an equal quantity of anything, nor is it about an equal access to anything. Or in other words, equality in its purest form is freedom.

Now, capitalism relies on the individual. Socialism doesn’t even know who you are, says Levin. A great quotable bromide, I think. And I would add that socialism does know what you are, not who you are. Because the socialists, you’re part of some group predetermined by the socialists. And of course, all you have to do to get what you want from the socialist promises is just vote for it, says Levin.

Well, you know, that reminded me back in the day when we used to say, some people work for a living and some people vote for a living. Of course, the catch to that was that it’s only the guy who’s working for a living that’s providing both kinds of people with a living.

And of course, capitalism was invented by Karl Marx. And as I have previously commented on this point, the ism was added to the word capital, which represented private ownership, so as to politicize an otherwise non-political concept. As Isabel Patterson pointed out in a statement we quoted last week, it is not possible for capital and labor to wage war on each other as Marx defined the political polarity. Capital is property, labor is people.

But now I want to add a thought that I’ve had on this whole Karl Marx invented the term capitalism narrative that I’ve never before considered. If so, if it was true that Karl Marx invented it, although I’ve heard that other people were using the term, but it couldn’t have been better named by a more qualified person to do so. After all, if capitalism was what Karl Marx was opposed to, then that is the perfect label to use to define an economy of free commerce. Karl Marx himself has defined what he and Marxism fear the most, capitalism. And yet, while most on the right appreciate the economic benefits and superiority of capitalism, you’ll only rarely hear them defend capitalism in the only way that capitalism can be made appealing to a larger support base and made into an effective weapon against the left. And that is on moral grounds.

Capitalism is not just an economic system. It is a moral one based on individual rights, private property rights, and an economy that is free of coercion, whether that coercion is by the state or by any other private interests.

Similarly, socialism is also not just an economic system. It’s an immoral one based on an abolition of individual rights, a process disguised as the establishment of group rights, the abolition of private property rights, and a centralized authoritarian economy based on coercion, the initiation of the use of state force. Socialism is based on theft of other people’s wealth. Capitalism is based on the creation of that wealth.

Under capitalism, governments play only the role as referee, not a player in the game. Under capitalism, governments govern. Under socialism, governments rule. But you know if you think about it, speaks to the very concept of “majority rule,” which perhaps should be better called majority government. But that’s a distinction to expand on perhaps as a topic on a future show.

But before continuing further, let me just remind everyone that although I have been mostly using the term socialism during today’s show, that term is interchangeable with every variant of collectivism, be it communist, socialist, fascist, mob rule, you name it. But since socialism is the term that most people on the left and right are currently using more than the others, we’ll continue to use it until certain distinctions are called for, as they will be when we approach the next segment of today’s theme.

But the key thing to note about Mark Levin’s entire contrast between socialism and capitalism is that it was based on economic efficiency, as being the standard by which a system works or does not work. But never forget, to the socialist mind, to the socialist supporter who’s getting government benefits for nothing, socialism quote unquote works just fine.

Now coming up next, speaking from the UK and from Ireland, the following two voices are new to our show. And on the April 14 podcast of Resolving Reality hosted by Peter McCormack, joined by his guest Emmet Connor, I couldn’t have discovered a more perfect test tube laboratory experiment to demonstrate the right struggle with being right.

If ever you want to hear a demonstration of just how devastatingly the left has been winning the war of definitions against the right, this is it. Listening to them struggle with the nature of their own political identity is an experience I have witnessed over and over and over again, and all because of the fake political spectrum and the failure to acknowledge the political polarity of left and right.

Clip (Resolving Reality, April 14, 2026):

Peter McCormack: Morning Emmet, how are you?

Emmet Connor: I’m doing good. How are you doing, man?

Peter McCormack: I’m good. I’m good. Very, very excited to have this conversation with you because it’s a subject I think about a lot.

As somebody who considers themselves small sea conservative, but really mainly libertarian, I often get called a fascist. And I know I’m not a fascist. And I’ve got into the habit of calling everyone I disagree with, whether they’re a leftist or somebody who just believes in the collective. I’ve been calling them communists quite openly.

Emmet Connor: That’s why in Ireland, people are getting sick of being called Nazis and fascists and far right now. And the same in the UK, I take it, and elsewhere in Western countries.

Peter McCormack: Explain what Marxism is and why is it we should fear it.

Emmet Connor:If you look at the official definitions, what this is, it usually focuses on economics. The state controls the means of production, distribution on behalf of the people. And these are kind of usually where the definitions come from. You’ve got a few confusing terms, potentially Marxism, socialism and communism. But really the quickest way to define this and what it is, is that it’s an internationalist revolutionary movement that seeks to destroy the established order and rebuild it as a sort of utopia. Global revolution, equality, multiculturalism, diversity. We need to make a better society.

And you actually see it in their faces. They’ve got the wide eyes and the smile in their face. They actually believe what they’re saying, I think, and that’s because of the indoctrination. They don’t like the idea of working. They don’t want to control their emotions. They have grandiose ideas about saving the planet. They’re hostile to Christianity and religion in general.

Peter McCormack: Well, this is why I wonder whether how much of this is like organic stupidity. I consider myself a libertarian and people say, well, you’ve just got an utopian ideal. And I say, no, look, I’m a libertarian in terms of trajectory. I believe we should target trying to make the state continually smaller as we can to try and make the people more prosperous. Rather than saying, here’s my end state where we have the non-aggression principle and there is either a minarcist government or no-go. I just say, can we just have less debt?

When I see the arguments, they’re fascists and they’re communists and they’re socialists. I don’t vote anymore. What actually is the answer? Because it’s very easy to identify problems. It’s very easy to throw out labels. I can easily call a number of people communists because I think they are and they can easily call me fascists. I don’t think I am. But this constant battle for labeling people, what is a good end goal solution?

I know what I think. I think it’s based in freedom and liberty. I think small state that doesn’t interfere with people, allow the people the freedom to say and think what they want and build the businesses they want and get away from this cancerous political system, which essentially puts psychopaths or narcissists in power and then uses against each other.

Emmet Connor: Yeah, yeah. Well, I think that a lot of the problems we’re dealing with could be fixed by having more right-leaning governments for sure and be more nationalistic. I know some people are afraid of the term sometimes I say patriotic or patriot. And interestingly, nationalism has gotten a bad rap because of what happened in World War II. But that was national socialism. It was left and right wing. But that’s a separate subject.

Peter McCormack: Does the right and the freedom, love and libertarians have a branding issue? Because for me, I would say to my son or my daughter, it is far cooler to be pro-freedom, pro-liberty. It’s far cooler for you to have discipline over your life, to earn your own money, to not rely on the state, to be well-read, to study history. That is the… how cool is that? That you go to the gym and that you build strength and that you eat well and that you read books and you go for what? That is a cool person.

So the right and the more conservative and the more libertarian-leaning people have failed. They failed to recognize what’s happened. We have a branding problem. Do we need to really have a radical think about how we brand conservatism?

Emmet Connor: Yeah, well that’s something that, why we’re in the mess, we’re in it. Politics is downstream of culture and the Marxists have been very good at creating this revolutionary movement, the sentiment that’s so attractive and exciting and the political right and the nationalistic patriotic libertarian side are way behind with this stuff, way behind and now the lefties control the education system.

Peter McCormack: The Overton window has shifted on the conversation. 10, 15 years ago you could not have this conversation in public, you were a Nazi or a racist. So the right haven’t had too many wins, they’ve had the recent win on trans, I think the Overton window has shifted on that, it’s not politically popular, we’ve had the change in rules from the Olympic committee, we have the change in the rules from the FA, we’ve had a movement to stop trans athletes, trans women competing against biological women, I think that is a win but we haven’t had too many wins for the right.

Immigration is an issue the right can win but it’s how it’s handled, it’s the message of it and I think this is going to be the biggest clash over the next election in the UK. I think economics should be there but I think immigration is going to be the big issue that people are going to be voting on and that presents a challenge. Do you think it’s about winning arguments like that, that will help us defeat Marxist ideas?

Emmet Connor: Yeah and unfortunately there’s a lot of, there’s so many people who are brainwashed in Marxism, then you’ve got people in the middle who are apathetic or apolitical and you’ve got the more right wing who can’t seem to get themselves organized. So I’ve been arguing for years Peter, the big issue in Ireland is the right wing needs to get itself organized and form into a single group or a small coalition of groups, that’s the only thing that’s going to turn around. You’re not going to get control of the government or even get a look in unless you’ve got like a large powerful movement basically.

Peter McCormack: People have said a lot about the same in the UK because the right is certainly fracturing here, we do have the Conservatives reform and restore and they attack each other and look whilst the Greens attack Labour.

I fully believe ahead of the next election any party on the left if they need to they will form a coalition with another left wing party to win and they will do a better job of it than the right and so there is going to be a real, I feel like we are hitting like an inflection point for nations to decide are we going to go long term left, long term socialists, long term Marxists or are we going to reverse all this horseshit. I think it’s going to be a real inflection point.

Emmet Connor: Yeah and I’ve been saying for quite a while that I think that if we raise more awareness about Marxism it has a few benefits, number one it brings more people over to the right, it destigmatizes the ideas of nationalism and patriotism, that’s one of the benefits that it does.

The second benefit is the Marxist camp have over 170 years experience at derailing and subverting sabotaging nationalist movements and in Ireland the lefties and the state have a big toolbox of tricks to use to derail nationalist movements. They haven’t even had to use them all yet because the right wing devised itself, it’s doing the job for them with the drama and the splits and the bad ideas and so on.

So what I argue with my work is that if people are more aware of what they’re up against, that they’re dealing with a movement that’s very good at infiltration, conspiracy, sabotage because they’re getting their asses kicked. They’re so naive, even people, there’s plenty of great people who have got a lot of love for Ireland on the political right, good people with talents, intelligence, knowledge and so on but they’re just a little bit head in the clouds about the Marxist thing.

Clearly the solution, the antithesis to globalism is a powerful patriotic, more right wing naturalistic or libertarian movement. That’s clearly the answer but it needs to get itself organised and I don’t think you can do that while being so ignorant of what Marxism is.

Peter McCormack: So the left had done a really great job at calling everyone who disagrees with them a racist or a fascist, okay. And it got to the point where it didn’t work but it was it has been effective for a while, it’s still effective, they made the term right wing pejorative. You know in schools you don’t want to be right wing or anything right wing is now far right. So there’s no right wing anymore. You’re with us or you’re far right. It’s like the friend enemy thing right, right? You’re one of us or you’re far right.

And so we have now March against the far right Reform. I’m not a fan of Reform but they’re called far right now, for one to have a sensible immigration policy and sensible economic policies but that’s now far right.

Tactically it’s been very good. Does the right need to be equally tactical or should it be more honest? And when I say equally tactical should it be anybody who is an, should have the same friend enemy. Anyone who isn’t a conservative who respects the family is a Marxist and if they are Marxist they want you dead and they’re dangerous. Like should we be equally bold in shaming these people?

Emmet Connor: Why not? You know anything that exposes anyone who’s being acting in an anti-patriotic fashion or destructive fashion should be called out on their behaviour. So anyone who calls anyone far right, I would love it if people knew straight away that’s probably a Marxist person contaminated with Marxism thinking when they call someone far right.

Because like as we talked about that tactic’s over a hundred years old because of what happened in Mussolini and Italy and so on. There was a bit of a struggle between the fascists, the black shirts and the overt communists like Gramsci and so on. So they learned back then it’s a great way to like a Maoist tactic in a way. You disable your opposition before it has a chance to even get off the ground. You create a social environment where people are afraid to go against you by calling them far right. You’re the extremists.

We need to be, yeah we need to start not be afraid to hurt people’s feelings and call them out on their language and how they label other people. There’s usually people calling anyone far right is part of the problem they need to be called out on this for sure.

Peter McCormack: How do we know we’re the good guys? Let me give you the reason I’m asking it. I could play, it’s like I said earlier, there’s a bunch of people I know, friends, family, I can play this interview and they think I’m nuts. They think I am radicalized. They think I’m far right. They think I’m a fascist. They think I’m a conspiracy theorist.

I think I’m rational, normal, intelligent enough to know enough to see the risks. All I want is freedom and liberty and I want to be left alone by the state. I want it to be as small as possible. I don’t want influence from other nations I don’t want influence from activists. I want people to be left alone.

I want women to have safe spaces. I want my daughter to grow up in a safe country and my son to be able to get a job and I want them to be able to buy a home and have children. That’s all I want.

Emmet Connor: Reasonable stuff.

Peter McCormack: Yeah. I think this is reasonable.

Bob Metz: You are listening to Just Right broadcasting around the world and online and what we just heard was both painful and instructive. Grasping at straws while dancing around the obvious solution to their supposed branding issue.

“Do we need a radical rethink on how we brand conservatism? Does the right and the freedom-loving libertarians have a branding issue? The right and the more conservative and the more libertarian people have failed and have a branding problem. The solution is a powerful patriotic, more right-wing nationalistic or libertarian movement. I’m a small C conservative but mainly libertarian.”

Well in these very questions and comments the presumed branding problem has already been identified. “How do we brand conservatism,” it is asked. Is conservatism what you’re trying to sell?

“I’m a small C conservative but mainly libertarian.” So is libertarianism what you’re trying to sell?

“We need a powerful patriotic right-wing nationalism.” So is patriotic nationalism what you’re trying to sell? Is the right-wing what you’re trying to sell?

It seems to me that the imagined branding problem is rather obvious. You can’t brand or sell something if you can’t even define it consistently or know what it is. And don’t get me wrong, I’m not picking on these two guys Peter McCormack and Emmet Connor. I’ve seen variants of this same conversation across the board, across the right-wing board for decades now.

Just a short while ago you might recall we featured an audio byte in which Scott Ott, Steve Green and Bill Whittle were so frustrated with attempting to sell capitalism that they concluded the only answer was to do away with the terms capitalism and socialism all together. And then they spent their entire podcast trying to describe by way of storytelling what capitalism would be like. It was a sad spectacle and good luck to them with branding their story.

So, “What is the answer,” Peter and Emmet ask? “It’s easy to throw out labels. There is this constant battle for labeling people. I often get called the fascist and I know I’m not. I’ve gotten into the habit of calling everyone I disagree with a communist. People are getting sick of being called Nazis and fascists and far right,” They say.

So why are they always allowing the left to get away with it? Because they have accepted the left’s definitions and that stupid spectrum that makes the right fear its own proper label of being right. The issue here isn’t labeling. Labeling is a necessity in order to identify something. The real issue is false labeling, misleading labeling.

And with regard to this whole fake political spectrum concept, I mean I have to ask, why isn’t the term far right really better described as close right? Well that’s because the term far right reflects a leftist perspective. On this imaginary political spectrum to those on the left, the right would be far away at the other end of the spectral line. But if you’re just right, then what the lefty is calling far right would be close right to you.

But these polarities of left and right when accompanied by an adjective moderate, you know, far extreme are meaningless and subjective. As if ideologies can be measured in terms of distance and proximity on a graphic line. Give me a break.

Simply put, the left represents collectivism and tyranny, the right represents individualism and freedom. These are polar opposites and cannot be mixed or compromised in any way without the bad guys benefiting from such an arrangement. As Ayn Rand warned, in any compromise between good and evil, it is always the evil side that wins since the good has nothing to gain from the evil.

And for years, we’ve been watching the right wing compromise with the left to the point of oblivion. And now we have those on the right questioning whether or not this is just a branding problem. The problem is deeper than that. It’s a definition problem.

“All I want is freedom and liberty, leave people alone and in peace,” they conclude. But the question that begs asking is just where on a political spectrum with fascism on the right is this imagined polarity for freedom and liberty? The answer nowhere to be found, that was the trick.

The right wing and all of those other conservative libertarian patriot supporters need to reclaim the label of right by simply making it clear that the right represents freedom and capitalism and that fascism is an ideology of the left, not of the right. How simple is that? I mean, that’s most of the problem solved right there.

But instead of arguing this simple polarity, those on the right are always making things more difficult and complicated for themselves, like trying to promote freedom by fighting Marxism.

“I don’t think the right can get organized without knowing what Marxism is, the left made the term right wing a pejorative.” Well, wow, what a statement to make. This is a remarkably revealing one. It actually recognizes the polarity of the right without acknowledging it, first by finally establishing that it is the right that needs organizing and secondly by identifying the real problem with so-called branding the right, namely that the left has turned the right wing into a pejorative. But while we fully support any effort to properly convey the nature of Marxism, that knowledge alone will not be helpful in organizing the right.

“If we raise more awareness of Marxism it brings more people over to the right,” they suggest. Well, if only it were that easy.

But there are an infinite number of variants of what is not freedom. Marxism, just one among them, whereas there’s only one singular set of principles that can create a condition of freedom. It is the awareness of those principles and philosophy upon which freedom is based that must be pursued.

Creating an awareness of what is not freedom is kind of like that irrational idea that in order to solve poverty we must first study it. And so we get politicians and governments wasting millions of dollars forming commissions, study groups, expert panels, all expounding what can only be called their ignorances about the cause of poverty because there’s only one universal cause of poverty and that is state intervention and control of the economy. In other words, socialism.

If you want to end poverty then what you should be doing is studying how to create wealth. But socialism is an ideological war on wealth. That’s why all socialist countries are relatively poor when compared to those that are not. But the catch for leftist politicians is that wealth creation is a prerogative of the right with the conditions of freedom and capitalism being essential to any meaningful creation of wealth. And the creation of private wealth defeats all collectivist objectives so there will never be a compromise on this.

And for evidence just look at what’s been happening in New York City with its insane socialist mayor, Mamdani. For a quick insight into this political nightmare, DeVory Darkins on his April 13th podcast featured Mamdani’s recent celebration of 100 days of disaster.

Clip (DeVory Darkins, April 13, 2026):

DeVory Darkins: We have Mr. Mamdani 100 days of a total disaster. That’s what he spent time celebrating over the weekend with someone who loves capitalism, which is Bernie Sanders. This man is literally learning how to be a mayor on the fly. He’s never been a mayor just so we’re all clear. So he came out of the gate with all these promises on his campaign and he’s finding out real quickly.

“Yeah, these are just theories. We really can execute this right now.” Especially in his own words when he said “New York is worse than broke.”

So let me get this straight. You want to introduce government grocery stores. You want to make sure people can travel on the bus for free. You want childcare to be free. You want to cap rents and you want to raise property taxes all while saying that the city is worse than broke financially. And socialism is the solution? One can argue socialism violates financial literacy principles in the guise of capitalism.

He’s not prepared. He has no experience as mayor and he decided to host a rally celebrating the first 100 days of New York’s disastrous situation they find themselves in.

Now this is what you get. New York voted for this man. So they’ve got to see the results for themselves on why socialism is not the answer.

He also took time to defend socialism. You know, he says they should not be ashamed of using the word socialism. He believes socialism will solve the issues of capitalism. Anybody with a brain who picks up at least one book regarding economics knows that is completely false. It just is.

Okay. So what was Zohran Mamdani up to? Let’s take a look

Zohran Mamdani: During our campaign. We promised New Yorkers that we would create a network of five city owned grocery stores, one in each borough. Today we make good on that promise. I am proud to announce that we will open every single one of these stores by the end of our first term. And the first one will open next year.

News Announcer: New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani announces the first in a series of city owned grocery stores. The mayor is celebrating the first 100 days in office and says he’s delivering on a campaign promise to bring down the cost of living for New Yorkers. But Mamdani’s socialist agenda is facing some harsh reality checks as he stares down a budget deficit.

Zohran Mamdani: I have thought often of the Margaret Thatcher quote, the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money. If anything, my friends, it seems that you eventually need a socialist to clean up the mess.

DeVory Darkins: What this really should be called is the first 100 days of a disaster. I don’t believe that’s hyperbole. I mean, every week we have a story coming out of New York City that happens to be either fatal or another case of the government there. Essentially an excuse my language, raping New Yorkers for their hard earned money. How else do you explain what he’s done?

We know he doesn’t care for the police. He doesn’t care for the veterans, but he does care for illegal aliens. He does care for obviously Muslims. He definitely sympathizes with terrorists. So 100 days of a disaster is what I would call it.

But when you’re talking about capping rents, raising property taxes, taxing the wealthy, then you’re going to introduce a government owned grocery store, which we know was already tried in Kansas City. Didn’t work. They went out of business. We know you had to take a step back from, you know, these bus fees that you wanted to wave and make it free to travel on the bus in New York City. You had to step back from that because in his own words, he said that New York City is worse than broke. And socialism from a financial point of view will fix that? Socialism violates all financial literacy principles.

Pundit: We know that. Zohran Mamdani ran a kind of a campaign where 50% of New Yorkers believed him that everything was going to be free. And here we are 100 days later, there’s no free daycare or any path to it. He had to admit that his free bus program is not going to happen. And now he’s quickly pivoting to say, I’m going to have one city run grocery store, and that’s going to show everyone that I can deliver on my promises. And we are going to have lower cost of eggs and we are going to have lower cost of milk.

The cost of groceries is not expensive because grocery store owners have runaway profit margins. On average, it’s about a percent and a half. They operate at a loss in New York City. What we’re talking about is inflation. And so this is a guy who could never be accused as being a modern day Isaac Newton.

DeVory Darkins: Even if half of what he says is true, it still financially will be a failure for New York City.

See, he doesn’t want to do the hard right. The hard right for Zohran Mamdani would be to get rid of illegal immigration, to get rid of housing illegal aliens in his city, to stop funding that mess. If you want to make bus travel free, if you want to provide free childcare, if you want to have a government owned grocery store, you’ve got to pay for it, but you can’t pay for that and then also foot the bill regarding illegal immigration and particularly sanctuary city policies.

Pundit: The political eyes of the country are watching what he does and what he does not do. And free press sums that up this way. Like you said, the rent remains unfrozen. The buses are not free and New Yorkers still do not have access to universal childcare. Only 2000 spots have been made available for a new daycare program for two year olds.

There was a free grocery store for two days. Polymarket ran a great PR for them and a great name, I think also. But last week, he said the buses will not be here until at least 2027. I think the whole agenda right now is in limbo, if not in doubt.

DeVory Darkins: Of course it is. It’s going to continue to be in doubt because it just doesn’t want to make any, it just doesn’t make any financial sense. Okay, we’ve gone over it repeatedly.

And the fascinating part about the people who are on the left is how they think socialism will solve all their issues. It won’t. What solves your issues in life is yourself. No external force out there will fix every issue that you face in your life, only you can. It always starts within. And they don’t like that because that means they have to take some level of responsibility. They got to look in the mirror and have a certain level of self-awareness.

And we have more drama that the president has created, whether it’s on purpose unintentionally or intentionally from a meme that he put up of him being portrayed. Some people say he looked like the Pope. Some people say he looked like Jesus. But the meme originates from someone on social media who creates a lot of these. And the context every time is that the president is healing the nation. Now he has since deleted this post just so you guys are clear.

And there was outrage from people who are Catholics. There was outrage from people who lean right. And there was definitely outrage from people on the left. This entire situation regarding the president and the post that he put up, he’s in this whole public battle between him and Pope Leo. And this is nothing new.

It just seems to me that every pope so far, cardinal, has something to say about politics. Now I was telling my producer earlier, I just wish that these religious leaders would just stick to what they’re supposed to be focused on, religion.

When you start getting into politics publicly, you already know what’s going to happen. It’s going to grab national or international headlines from these outlets. And it’s going to become an overwhelming distraction from what you should be focused on to begin with.

I don’t want to see posts from the president attacking the Pope. And I don’t want to hear posts from the Pope or comments from the Pope criticizing what the president’s doing. Stay in your lane is my point.

Now this is Donald J. Trump, by the way. So why would he lash out? Well, we know who he is. He’s a New Yorker. That’s number one. They’re not shy to express their opinions. And for the gifts that the president has been given, obviously, one of them has been this relentless effort to continue to post things that grab attention, that provoke people, that ends up getting everyone’s outrage, I guess, if that’s what you want to call it. And this is no different. And again, some people are losing their mind over it. I don’t think it’s something to waste your energy on. It’s nothing new from the president. And I would also say for people who are continuing to clutch their pearls over it, I hope you were the same people who were clutching your pearls when the Olympics allowed the last supper to be trans. If that makes sense. How many of you guys recall that?

All right, so he took it down so clearly he listens. And clearly someone told him, hey, man, this isn’t a good look. The fact that he took it down, I think kind of tells you that there is some awareness here. Hey, bad look, take it down. And they did.

I guess my question to people, how many of you guys are actually triggered over it? There we go. I’m not laughing at the president. I’m just laughing at selective outrage. I’m repulsed by this photo. Does Donald Trump now think he is Jesus? First, he attacks and insults Pope Leo. Now he depicts himself as Christ and tries to mock God. This is outrageous, offensive and profane. Clearly he is not well. As an American, a Catholic, a human, I am disgusted.

77 million people. I hope they’re not clutching their pearls. You know exactly what we signed up for. Okay. All right, so this is the president being confronted about that true social post of him being betrayed as a person healing the nation. Some people thought he was mocking Jesus, but here he is and what his thinking was.

Reporter: Did you post that picture of yourself depicted as Jesus Christ?

Donald Trump: Well, it wasn’t a depiction. It was me. I did post it and I thought it was me as a doctor and had to do with Red Cross as a Red Cross worker there, which we support. And only the fake news could come up with that one. So I had, I just heard about it and I said, how did they come up with that? It’s supposed to be me as a doctor making people better and I do make people better and make people a lot better.

Bob Metz: Personally, not only did I not find anything wrong or offensive about that visual meme, I thought it was actually a very benevolent and peaceful message. For me, the quote unquote patient represented a nation made sick by socialism, while the healer represented capitalism and freedom, the fundamental values on which America was founded.

But here we go again. The visual has been interpreted as yet another branding problem, something that Trump excels at, but which many on the right see as yet another reason for fracturing that right.

As to the observation that every pope has something to say about politics, that’s because religion is largely about politics. And with respect to the Vatican in particular, it is a political institution which for years and years has been issuing encyclicals against capitalism, some of which you can read in the writings of Ayn Rand.

But more to the current point, notice how instead of retreating from being labeled socialist, Mamdani argues people shouldn’t be ashamed to use the word socialism. It’s kind of difficult to insult someone with a label that he considers a virtue, isn’t it? Those on the right should learn a lesson from this with regard to their being labeled right or capitalist. But once again we see that DeVory Darkins is doing the same thing as did Mark Levin, basing his main argument against socialism as an economic one.

“One can argue that socialism violates financial literacy principles in the guise of capitalism,” he says. Well yes, you can. But it’s an argument that has no effect on any leftist and to which Mamdani replies, “I have thought often of the saying that the problem with socialism is that you will eventually run out of other people’s money. If anything my friends, it seems that you will eventually need a socialist to clean up the mess.” That was one of the stupidest and irrational statements I have ever heard, given that if there’s a mess to be cleaned up, it would be the one created by socialism. But contradictions and non-sequiturs are perfectly acceptable to the left.

So for those on the right still in the dark about some of the clear and simple definitions they need to understand and defeat the left, here are the subtle differences between socialism, communism, and fascism. Whereas communism and socialism represent various degrees of state ownership and control, fascism dispenses with the necessity of ownership and merely asserts control of private property and private interests. In every other respect they are essentially the same.

Many distinguish socialism from communism on the basis of the first being national and the latter being international or global. But this is irrelevant to anyone living under either system.

So what’s the ultimate solution to the right branding problem? It’s as simple as this, become the definer rather than the defined. And of course be sure to join us again next week when 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 (Drew Dunn, April 14, 2026):

Drew Dunn: I don’t think Trump is Christlike. I think it’d be funny if Christ was Trumplike. I could feed a lot of people with this fish. It’s a big fish. It’s a beautiful fish. It’s a Bronzino. There’s the fish. It’s a very expensive fish. You’ve probably never heard of it. They hung me on the cross, these nasty people. Would you believe it? They hung me on the cross. I’m not going to say it was the Jews, but they were there. They were definitely there, those Jews. I remember them being there. They hung me on the cross and the fake news didn’t tell you it was a capital T. I would never be hung on a lowercase t. That’s extremely disrespectful. It was a capital T and after that was R U M P. It was the opening of my first building in Bethlehem. They really…